The Evolution of Darwin 2008

Review of Why Evolution is True By Jerry A. Coyne

2009-06-20T02:29:00.001-07:00

Review of Why Evolution is True
By Jerry A. Coyne
Review by C. Paula de los Angeles

Darwin matters because evolution matters. Evolution matters because science matters. Science matters because it is the preeminent story of our age, an epic saga about who we are, where we came from, and where we are going.
–Michael Shermer

Out of all the books on Darwin and evolution I have read this quarter, a University of Chicago biology professor’s, Jerry A. Coyne’s Why Evolution is True has been my favorite. Opening with the above quote, everything about this book was elegant and tight—the writing, the explanations, the questions asked and answered. The student of both leading biologists Ernst Mayr and Stephen Jay Gould, Coyne provides a comprehensive and convincing dissertation on why evolution is true, science-that’s explained-in-a-way-that’s-easy-to-understand included. In a way, Why Evolution is True is an updated Origin, with all the recent developments in biology filled in—the new fossils, the population genetics, the evolutionary developmental biology; it’s all there.

My two favorite chapters were 1) Chapter Three, Remnants: Vestiges, Embryos, and Bad Designs and 2) Chapter Eight, What about us?. The former explains how the imperfect designs of humans and animals do not lend credence to an Intelligent Designer, or watchmaker in the words of antecedent theological William Paley. He cites ostriches that can’t fly, the human tial or coccyx, and pseudogenes like GLO, which doesn’t allow humans to make vitamin C, though most primates and guinea pigs can. The latter chapter proposes that evolution may still be in action, humans are evolving, citing the variable ability to digest lactose across human populations and drug resistance as examples. In an explanation of race, Coyne argues, the presence of different races in humans shows that our populations were geographically separated long enough to allow some genetic divergence to occur.

What is most compelling is Coyne’s logic and attitude. Though he seems frustrated that we still have to convince the public of “why evolution is true”, 150 years after natural selection was proposed by Darwin, he is patient with the reader. Coyne is enthusiastic and is able to explain the biology, the science, and its importancein a simple and elegant way. For Darwin, the scientists, and every individuals, evolution matters. To the body of literature, popular science, and research on evolution, Why Evolution is True matters.

Review of The Autobiography of Charles Darwin: 1809-1882 by Charles Darwin Edited by Nora Barlow

2009-06-20T02:26:00.001-07:00

Review of The Autobiography of Charles Darwin: 1809-1882
By Charles Darwin, Edited by Nora Barlow

-Review by C. Paula de los Angeles

In her edited version of The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, Nora Barlow, granddaughter of the legendary Charles Darwin, revives sections on religious and contemporary thinkers that two important women in his life, his wife and daughter, purposely censored due to the sensitivity and controversial nature of his religious views and thoughts on his still-living-at-the-time contemporaries. What Barlow’s edition adds to the previous incomplete ones is a compelling introduction on context, the evolution of the editions, and the reason for previous exclusion of these sections, restoration of sections that were once thought to be potentially harmful to the family patriarch’s reputation, detailed footnotes on historical and social context, and appendices including importance correspondence letters concerning life events, including the initial disapproval of Darwin’s plea to go on the Beagle by his father as well as the Butler controversy. The Autobiography of Charles Darwin is great for learning more about Darwin’s personality rather than the gravity and details of his body of scientific work.

Originally written in 1876 at the ripe old age of 67, Darwin’s autobiography is a well-thought over self-reflection of the life of a scientist and shy recluse. Filled with tales of awe of nature, boyhood academic troubles, and scientific discovery, this autobiography is intended for the private audience of his family. It is clear that Darwin wants his children and grandchildren to remember him as an exceedingly scientific man, who was loving, but often kept to himself. The reader must be careful of the assumptions that are made when one writes a memoir of himself with a specific intended audience; an autobiography reveals how he views himself and how he wants to be remembered.

As goes his reputation and evidenced by this work, Darwin was first and foremost, a scientist. In his autobiography, we see the beginnings of his empirical explorations of nature from his boyhood appreciation of beetles to his collection of animal and plant species aboard the HMS Beagle to his later extensive document of Cirripedia. From his personal writings surrounding the publication of his scientific ideas, a humble and thankful Darwin emerges. In explaining the reception of On the Origin of Species, his seminal work, Darwin thanks fellow contemporary thinkers and friends, Lyell, Hooker, and Wallace for their contributions. To me, this was somewhat conflicting with the Darwin that wrote the introduction to the On the Origin of Species, who was often reluctant to cite potential competitor scientists or family members as influencing his thoughts.

However, this edition of the autobiography made me more excited about two other aspects of Darwin’s life: 1) the women in it and 2) his views on religion. Young Charles’ first memory involves sitting on the knee of his sister Caroline and being cut accidentally by her. Often recalling memories together, Darwin was clearly close to his sisters. Another possible influential womanly figure in his life seems to be his late mother, who he does not remember much of, except for her black dress in death or his mom’s saying that she would only ask him to do things that would be good for him. The citing the death and absence of his mother numerous times leaves the reader wondering about the effect of this event on Darwin. Moreover, Darwin’s love for his wife, Emma Wedgwood is endearing and brings out the loving husband and wife in Darwin. He speaks lovingly and appreciative of her and takes the time to discuss religion, a topic of genuine concern for Emma. Women who are notably missing detail or mention at all in this autobiography include his beloved daughter Annie, who died at a young age.

Barlow’s edition of the autobiography is most strengthened by its addition of the previously omitted comments on religion. In it, Darwin is depicted as a man who cannot accept a divine design of nature, with his observations and empirical discoveries of nature and natural selection at work. Instead of focusing on critiquing a deity, he seems to bolster the importance of nature and natural selection. From his musings, it appears that Darwin did not just jump to the conclusion that there is not a divine maker in the sense of the Bible immediately, but came to this realization after extensive observations and reflections on the empirical data.

The society the people within it that Darwin describes serve as a way for the reader to learn about the historical and social climate at the time of his work. It is quite shocking that Darwin’s theory continues to be debatable although the environmental climate today is more religiously critical and scientifically based than the one of his day. While this autobiography does a great job developing the persona of Darwin for the reader, its brevity does not do his scientific theory justice, with only brief mention or summary of his ideas. Perhaps this is fitting to a familial audience, but for aspiring and critical scientists, his treatises including On the Origin of Species and The Descent of Man may be more useful.

Review of Janet Browne's Darwin's Origins of Species

2009-06-20T02:23:00.000-07:00

Review of Darwin’s Origins of Species: Books that Changed the World
By Janet Browne

Review by C. Paula de los Angeles

As the foremost historian on scientist and evolutionary thinker Charles Darwin, Janet Browne successfully writes an accessible and vivid “biography”, or account of the past and continued development of the man’s most influential work On the Origin of Species, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, first published in 1859. Her book adequately fits the niche of a “popular science” type novel, great for an introduction to the topic or overview of general ideas.

In this straight-forward, elegantly written historical biography, Browne documents not only the history of Origin, but of Darwin as well. Structurally, the book is divided into five sections, beginning with Darwin’s childhood, then a discussion of the influential ideas, then the publication, then the controversy surrounding the publication, and most uniquely, a section on the legacy of the scientific treatise. Throughout these sections, Browne does a fine job balancing the narrative of Darwin, such as the anecdote involving chemistry labs and his brother, Erasmus, with an explanation of the scientific ideas, such as the explanation of Lyell, and then Darwin’s gradualism.

What is most noticeable and influential in the environment that Janet Browne paints Darwin growing up is the Victorian society, in which “apes or angels, Darwin or the Bible” and revolution were the questions of the day, and other great thinkers (the work of his contemporaries and predecessors significantly influence his thinking, often making it difficult to understand why Darwin was unique and not just an extension of previous thoughts), such as Lyell and Marx. Origin was received during a time when big questions were being asked, and it seemed to provide an answer that not everyone was ready for yet. In fact, on some questions, Darwin was noticeably silent, in particular he avoided the discussion of human origins and of divine presence in the natural world.

One of the Browne’s greatest strengths is to compare Darwin and Darwin’s work with other contemporary thinkers and their ideas. For example, Browne’s comparison of anonymous author Robert Chambers of Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation and Darwin of Origins in the second section highlighted not only the need for Darwin to acknowledge the influences of other great thinkers of his time, but also his ability to also be highly critical of them in order to make his own work better, “obsessively, he began to build up his own edifice of dependable factual information that would be so much admired when he eventually published Origin of Species, and which life his book far above the ordinary”.

Browne made numerous observations that were especially interesting to me. For one, she discusses the difficulty of vocabulary that Darwin encountered in writing his work, “the language he had to hand was the language of Milton and Shakespeare, steeped in teleology and purpose, not the objective, value-free terminology sought by science”, certainly factors that could influence the reception and perceived validity of his work. I also enjoyed her critical analysis of the structure of the book, offering an explanation for the “Difficulties of the theory” chapter that Darwin includes, one that she believes makes the Origin an honest account. Having read from numerous other biographies that Emma, Darwin’s wife, was a great force in censoring some of his religious ideas, I was pleased to read that Emma helped with editing the book in a value-free way.

Overall, Browne paints an exceedingly positive picture of Darwin. Unlike the boy of childhood academic woes and troubles that we see in even his own autobiography, Browne describes Darwin’s studies at Edinburgh as such, “after a diligent start, sixteen-year-old Darwin found the realities of early nineteenth-century medicine upsetting. Two ‘very bad’ operations, one on a child, convinced him he would never make a doctor and he left in 1827”. In later chapters, she does not depict him as ambitious or competitive with other great thinkers, though other correspondences and works, have shown differently. While we may want to think of and worship Darwin as a heroic, all-good figure, this would be false adoration. More accurately, and perhaps more realistically, we should recognize Darwin as human, with faults and weaknesses just like the rest of us.

Janet Browne’s Darwin’s Origin of Species: Books That Changed the World is a well-written and well-rounded introductory book to the study of his life and major work, though suffers from an exceedingly positive picture and may leave readers thirsting for more about his scientific theory.

Review of David Quammen’s The Reluctant Mr. Darwin

2009-06-20T02:08:00.001-07:00

David Quammen’s The Reluctant Mr. Darwin fills an interesting niche within Darwin biographies, falling somewhere in between the brevity of Janet Browne’s Darwin’s Origin of Species and more comprehensive undertakings like Adrian Desmond and James Moore’s Darwin. Clearly drawing upon his skills as a popular science writer, Quammen’s candid and colored portrayal of Darwin is equal parts fascinating and divisive. While the narrative Quammen crafts is delightfully dense with Darwin’s idiosyncrasies and the various contexts surrounding the development of his work, his unapologetic interpretation of events may turn off some readers.

Quammen begins the book right after the Beagle voyage, dropping the reader into Darwin’s rush to situate his life in London. The first third of the book thus focuses on the interaction of the different factors that influenced the ideas eventually supporting the Origin of Species. Yet there are also plenty of details regarding the incubation of the ideas behind Darwin’s Origin of Species. He was consumed by meetings with Lyell and Gould to identify specimens from the voyage and working out concepts in his notebooks that would form the basis for his theories on transmutation and natural selection. His reading of Malthus provided Darwin with the key to evolution via natural selection, while his meetings with Joseph Hooker and Lyell gave him the confidence to tighten his ideas of transmutation. Quammen does a good job of balancing this narrative with glimpses into Darwin’s personal life; we see his rationality at work in his weighing of the pros and cons of marriage, as well as the common thread of genuineness that pervaded both his interactions with his wife Emma and his writing.

The middle third of the book is devoted mostly to the major points of contention regarding Darwin’s Origin of Species. Quammen’s commentary throughout is insightful but often inconsistent; his instincts as a popular science writer can be both a strength and a detraction. For example, his framing of the controversy between Wallace and Darwin works well, crafting a compelling underdog narrative that brings Darwin’s flaws regarding pride into sharp focus and provides the rationale for the kickstarting of the Origin. He also makes good points when trying to justify the twenty year gap between the start of writing and the Origin of Species, noting that it is not about which factors were most responsible but about how the factors interact.

Yet there are several instances where Quammen makes sensationalized assertions regarding Darwin’s life and detracts from the integrity of the narrative. His various discussions on the role of religion in Darwin’s life are certainly guilty of this. Quammen makes sure to emphasize the theme of religion’s incompatibility with Darwin’s work; even in the beginning Darwin is depicted leading a double life of subverting religion, working out his ideas in his “seditious notebooks.” It gets worse later on, when, in his analysis of the argument in the Origin of Species, he says that Darwin’s conception of evolution is not challenging the existence of God but the special status of man. It is a fascinating idea and true to some extent, but it does not warrant the undoing of the effort he spent to establish the incompatibility of Darwin’s ideas with religion. Such instances exemplify how Quammen’s flair for the dramatic can undermine a solid narrative.

The final third of the book finds Quammen rushing through the legacy of the Origin of Species and an overview of evolutionary biology. His survey of the Origin of Species wants to be too much for the space it is allotted; it wants to be critical and reverent but cannot pursue either to the fullest extent. The discussion of Mendel and evolutionary biology also seemed unfinished; while there is a good deal of background on Mendel’s experiments, Quammen skims over how Mendel’s work translated into the modern synthesis that revitalized Darwinism in the 20th century, offering instead a comprehensive but ultimately non-informative equivalent of a reading list.

Despite these shortcomings, Quammen does manage to craft a nuanced and intriguing portrayal of Darwin, acknowledging him as the genuine and benevolent man he was in his life and writings yet refusing to shy away from his flaws. The Reluctant Mr. Darwin provides an ultimately flawed but well-researched and accessible complement to the more neutral biographies available on Darwin. If you do decide to pick up this book, however, I would also recommend reading Janet Browne’s Darwin’s Origin of Species, as it provides a more unbiased perspective on the events in Darwin’s life and fills in some of the time gaps left in Quammen’s book.

--Andrew Plan

Review of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species

2009-06-20T02:07:00.000-07:00

Charles Darwin has rarely been bigger. In the midst of the 200th anniversary of his birth and the 150th anniversary of the Origin, there is little doubt as to the continued relevance of his ideas regarding evolution and natural selection. Yet a lot has changed since the original publication of the Origin; the advances made in the mid-20th century towards a modern synthesis connected Mendelian principles of inheritance to Darwin’s work thus bolstering the field of evolutionary biology. In light of such developments, the question remains: do Darwin’s ideas, in their original form, have any worth today? Can one still derive some sort of value from reading the Origin outside of pure historical value? I would argue yes. Darwin’s On the Origin of Species is a beautifully written and curiosity-packed piece of work; despite the aging of some of the ideas, just reading about how Darwin develops his careful argument for the validity of evolution is worth the price of admission.

The argument of the Origin, which is that species are not immutable and are subject to the laws of natural selection, can be thought of as divided into two parts. The first part of the argument, chapters 1 through 5, are the chapters in which Darwin sets up the guiding principles of his theory of evolution. He draws upon Malthusian principles to describe the struggle for existence that characterizes all life and how it necessitates the role of natural selection in favoring those individuals best adapted for the struggle. He also introduces the concept of inheritance of traits, as well as the laws of variation, both of which then play into Darwin’s own description of natural selection.

It is within this first part that Darwin establishes the basic pattern of his argument, which tries to mitigate the leap of faith readers at the time might have felt regarding evolution by arguing from the common towards the less common; Darwin uses common examples in everyday life to illustrate the viability of the largely unknown concepts that he introduces. For example, Darwin begins the Origin by discussing domestic breeding, man’s manipulation of variation by intentionally crossing different individuals within and between species. Darwin’s implicit assumption is that this is an example that has been acknowledged and seen as valid by most readers; from here he feels more comfortable then makes the transition from artificial selection to natural selection. It works; while the Origin in general requires a little bit of imagination to really understand the links Darwin makes, his unique brand of argument from example exemplifies how immediate and relevant the Origin feels when reading it, even today.

The second half of the Origin, in contrast, is an expansion of Darwin’s chapter of addressing difficulties; following chapter 6, the rest of the chapters mostly take one issue of contention that threatens the validity of Darwin’s argument – instinct, hybridization, the geological record, etc. – and systematically goes through and either disproves the relevance of the issue to Darwin’s theory or simply undermines the integrity of the issue. It is in this part of the Origin that Darwin becomes a bit uneven in terms of successfully addressing grievances; while certain issues like instinct are handled well and argued with fantastic examples (the instinct chapter in particular has really cool insights on the construction of honey comb by hive-bees), other issues, like the imperfection of the geological record, are more tenuous and see Darwin making riskier assertions. Darwin is no Lyell when it comes to discussing geology, yet he still manages to criticize the integrity of the field thoroughly in the quest to defend his theory of evolution. Overall, however, the second half of the book has many fascinating insights into how Darwin worked around the limitations of arguing with only the evidence of natural history to go off of, reinforcing the validity of the principles of evolution introduced in the first half of the book.

Despite the imperfections in Darwin’s argument, On the Origin of Species is a remarkable and well-structured account of how the evidence for evolution is all around us. While other scientists and theorists may have had the benefit of advances in evolutionary biology in explaining and justifying evolution to the masses, few of them have the mainstream accessibility and reverence for nature that Darwin brings to his nuanced writing and argumentative skills. So do pick up the Origin sometime and read it – not as some extended scientific dissertation, but as the account of a man genuinely awestruck by nature and understanding of the ways in which it works. Darwin’s ideas as purported in the Origin may not be completely right anymore, but they will always have value in their capturing of what it means to live in a world governed by evolution, and the liberation that comes with it.

--Andrew Plan

Review of Janet Browne’s Darwin’s Origin of Species: A Biography

2009-06-20T02:06:00.000-07:00

Janet Browne’s Darwin’s Origin of Species is an unusual Darwin biography in that it is as much about the the Origin of Species and its impact as it is about the author himself. Browne is out to convince the reader that the creation and publication of the Origin is the tale of the modern world coming into existence. A lofty goal, indeed, but Browne pulls it off wonderfully, crafting a thorough and concise account of the history of the ideas behind Darwin’s seminal work while maintaining a neutral yet impassioned voice.

Browne’s book is very much the story of Darwin’s world and the Origin’s role in leading it into modernization. 19th century English society was unabashedly Victorian and increasingly industrialized. This environment of transition was ripe for the introduction of Darwin’s ideas, as both shared the mantras of specialization, diversification, and improvement. Religion, while a crucial pillar of Darwin’s society at the time, was being chipped away by an emerging contingent of philosophers questioning the validity of the Old Testament and creationism. The Origin-centric approach to this particular Darwin biography gives the book a great amount of focus. Details in Darwin’s early life that seem cobbled together in other Darwin biographies come together in fascinating ways when discussed in context of the Origin, effectively showing how Darwin’s life influenced the creation of the Origin. The book begins by retracing Darwin’s upbringing as part of the financially secure intelligentsia of Britain before moving on to Darwin’s formative years at Cambridge. During that time he cultivated his love for geology and encountered the pervasive influence of theology, two influences that repeatedly show up in the Origin. Similarly, Browne elaborates on the voyage on the Beagle’s merits as a character-building experience, allowing Darwin to develop the independence and his observation skills as a naturalist later needed to flesh out the nuances of the Origin.

This focus extends to the middle chapters of the book, where Browne summarizes the literature regarding the development, publication, and argument of the Origin. She hits all of the main points of contention, exploring the influence of Paley and Malthus while offering commentary on Darwin’s delay and the controversy regarding Alfred Wallace Russell. Her systematic reduction of the argument within the Origin is nicely done as well, breaking it down into its core principles of excessive numbers of very different offspring, the mechanism of natural selection, and the principle of divergence as well as addressing many of the common controversies surrounding the book like the rejection of the church and the lack of man’s special status.

Browne’s book is also notable for its distillation of the legacy of the Origin, offering a nicely condensed version of the key events that led Darwinism out of obscurity in the 20th century. During the late 19th and early 20th century Darwin’s ideas were countered by many scientists who found the paleontological evidence wanting, his ideas of selection incomplete. But there were scientists in the early 20th century that worked hard to draw the connections between Mendelian inheritance and Darwinian thought. In this regard Browne does a much better job than her contemporaries like Quammen in exploring the resurgence of Darwinism, detailing the role of Sewell Wright’s population genetics and G.G. Simpson’s explanation for the gaps in the fossil record in achieving the modern synthesis that arguably reshaped the field of biology into evolutionary biology.

Yet it is Browne’s reverent and accessible writing style that elevates her content above other Darwin biographies. Throughout the book she manages to maintain brevity while sacrificing very little in terms of intellectual integrity or sufficient exploration of key issues. Browne’s description of Darwin’s writing in the Origin as “dazzling, persuasive, friendly” very well applies to the quality of writing at work in her book. I was genuinely surprised by how much her passion for Darwin’s work contributed to her book’s readability, as it is a legitimate page-turner. Admittedly, this affectionate writing style also means that the rough edges of Darwin’s personality are smoothened over more than they should be, drawing attention away from the less savory personality tics like the pride that emerged in controversies like the Wallace publishing fiasco. But the reverence never crosses the line into idolatry; at the end of the day, Browne is just genuinely passionate about discussing Darwin’s contribution to the modernization of society and science, and the biography as a whole benefits greatly from it.

While other biographies may be more comprehensive or controversial, Browne’s considerable abilities as a writer and her undeniable admiration for Darwin makes this work a truly enjoyable read, regardless of prior knowledge of Darwin. As far as introductions go, Darwin’s Origin of Species is definitely the work to beat for anyone new to the life and works of Charles Darwin.

-Andrew Plan

Finch work pays off: the Grants awarded Kyoto Prize

2009-06-19T14:52:00.000-07:00

Much congrats to Peter and Rosemary Grant, who have recently been awarded the 2009 Kyoto Prize in Basic Sciences. Aren't they cute? They're also the first husband-and-wife team to receive the prize...go marriage!

The Grants, who are both professors at Princeton, were recognized for their work on evolutionary adaptions as a reaction to enviromental change. They have spent 35 (!) years studying the finches that Darwin made famous in his trip to the Galapagos aboard the Beagle; their most significant study, published in 1996, showed how beak size and shape of ground finches changed within the course of a few generations as a result of the differing availability of different size seeds. Together, they have published over 200 papers and have recently published a book about their experience detailing the finches of the Galapagos, entitled How and Why Species Multiply: The Radiation of Darwin's Finches.

Their dedication to evolutionary biology is ridiculous, as the couple still makes yearly visits to the Galapagos to study finch morphology. The work has paid off though, as the general consensus in the scientific community is that evolutionary biology is closer to a stage where obtaining proof is tangible thanks to their long-term commitment to the field.

It's really nice to read a story like this, as it warms both the brain and the heart. I'm sure that the married life of two very prominent and busy scientists must be taxing to maintain and nurture, so I'm glad to hear that the Grants are not only making it work but are also able to accomplish extraordinary things in the field of evolutionary biology, which is an unenviable task in itself. Darwin would be proud.

Article link here: TheScientist.com

-Andrew Plan

Tickle me Ape???

2009-06-18T20:21:00.000-07:00

Turns out that gorillas, bonobos, and other primates might laugh when tickled! While their laughing might not sound like laughter to us, researchers maintain that the "rapid panting" and slow "noisey breathing" is the way apes laugh.

"This study is the first phylogenetic test of the evolutionary continuity of a human emotional expression," said Marina Davila Ross of the University of Portsmouth in the United Kingdom. "It supports the idea that there is laughter in apes."

The research traces the evolution of laughter over the past 10 to 16 million years of primate history. While some of the details are debatable, I agree with experts who say that this comparison makes it logical to think about laughter as a "cross-species phenomenon, and that it is therefore not anthropomorphic to use this term for tickling-induced vocalizations produced by the great apes."

Check out the video here, on National Geographic. Even though the laughing doesn't sound like my giggles, I feel strangely connected to the laughing apes! I also think this would be so much fun to study!

-Lauren

Humans More Closely Related to Orangutans?

2009-06-18T20:07:00.000-07:00

New research, conducted at the University of Pittsburgh and the Buffalo Museum of Science, supports a theory that humans are more likely to share a common ancestor with orangutans. This is particularly controversial, as we share more genetic material with chimpanzees.

The researchers "reject as problematic" this widely perceived theory that DNA analysis make humans more closely related to chimpanzees (which they suggest is not supported by fossil evidence).

You can check out the details of the study in the Science Direct article, here.

There were two particular quotes that struck me. The first was from Paleoanthropologist Peter Andrews, who previously served as the head of Human Origins at the London Natural History Museum. He stated that this study includes strong evidence to support their theory:

"They have good morphological evidence in support of their interpretation, so that it must be taken seriously, and if it reopens the debate between molecular biologists and morphologists, so much the better," Andrews said. "They are going against accepted interpretations of human and ape relationships, and there's no doubt their conclusions will be challenged. But I hope it will be done in a constructive way, for science progresses by asking questions and testing results."

The second quote, which was particularly striking to me, comes from Malte Ebach, a researcher at Arizona State University in the INternational Institute for Species Exploration.

"Palaeoanthropology is based solely on morphology, and there is no scientific justification to favor DNA over morphological data. Yet the human-chimp relationship, generated by molecular data, has been accepted without any scrutiny. Grehan and Schwartz are not just suggesting an orangutan–human relationship—they're reaffirming an established scientific practice of questioning data."

I have generally accepted the "chips have similar DNA to humans and therefore are our closest ancestor," even though I don't actually know that much about it. I like the idea of questioning this belief and looking at another explanation, namely the morphological relationship between apes and humans. I don't know enough about either subject (DNA or morphology) to have a strong opinion about the research on human origins, but I think it's interesting to think about the limitations to widely accepted beliefs (chimps-->humans) and think about alternative explanations (orangutans-->humans).

-Lauren

“New and Hot” Happens More than I Previously Thought

2009-06-18T20:01:00.001-07:00

When Dr. Bob asked us to write blog entries on “new and hot” things pertaining to evolution, I anticipated that there would be more writing about “hot” things than “new” things. I mean, how much new stuff could possibly be going on in the world of evolution!?!?

Boy was I wrong!!!

It seems like every week or two, there’s some new skeleton or artifact or discovery…. one “new” thing in the field appears in the papers on a frequent basis. Is this just a particularly active term? Are fossils unusually being uncovered left and right? Are we – Oxford Trinity Term 2009 – an anomaly? Or the norm?

I would venture that this term is not particularly unique, and instead that I had previously simply failed to search for this kind of information. I didn’t pay attention every time a new fossil was uncovered, or other evolutionary discovery made headlines.

I think that’s been the best thing about “new and hots”: they’ve made me look for stories I wouldn’t have normally read, and in turn made me realize that we are constantly improving, adapting, and evolving the knowledge base that Darwin (and his predecessors) created.

It’s a neat thought that – although our fossil record is incomplete, and our technology is imperfect – we are making gradual changes, that… over time, will produce sizable results. Exciting, and poetically Darwinesque!

Woolly Mammoths and the Evolution of Technology

2009-06-18T19:19:00.000-07:00

The bones of one male and four juvenile woolly mammoths were discovered in 1986. While we originally thought the bones were around 21,000 years old, we now believe they are are actually 14,000 years old. They were originally carbon dated with technology that was widely considered to be inaccurate, but new research indicates that the mammoths were in Britain for thousands of years after we originally thought they went extinct. Read the complete article at Science Daily, here.

This news brings up something that has been weighing on my mind about what we "know" about evolution (and science in general. Technology and science are so young. We are always discovering that we got things wrong and figuring out how to do them "right." This is the nature of technological evolution, but it also makes me think about whether the bones are really 14,000 years old, or whether we will discover in another 15 or so years that they are even younger, or maybe that we got it right the first time. Etc. As much as I want to trust science and believe in these new discoveries, these situations generally are more likely to remind me about the imperfection of science and how our body of knowledge will be evolving indefinitely.

-Lauren

Evolution of the Modern Bird Wing

2009-06-18T13:10:00.000-07:00

The discovery of a 160 million-year-old fossil, Limusaurus inextricabilis, has offered scientists a glimpse of how the three-fingered hand evolved in birds. This particular issue has gained the interest of not only paleontologists, but also evolutionary and developmental biologists.

The fossil, which was discovered in a mine in northwestern China, is a primitive ceratosaur, a part of the theropod group that also included the Tyrannosaurus rex. As Professor Clark described, “It’s a really weird animal – it’s got no teeth, had a beak and a very long neck, and very wimpy forelimbs.” The fossil possessed a truncated first finger (thumb), middle three fingers, and no fifth finger. Whereas scientists previously thought that the first three digits persisted among three-fingered animals, this recent finding indicates that it was the middle digits that persisted. (This coincides with the findings of developmental biologists, who have shown bird embryos display growth in all five digits until the first and fifth are reabsorbed.)

This discovery also provides a glimpse into “identity shift,” or the shifting of gene expression from one limb to another. In this case, expression is shifted from the first to the second finger. Thus, one can see how paleontologists mistakenly believed that the second finger was a vestige of the first finger.

According to Jack Conrad, a paleontologist with the American Museum of Natural History, “This is amazing – it’s the first time we’ve seen this thing actually starting to disappear. There’s been this fundamental rift – there was no way to make peace between the good data we were seeing from the developmental biologists and the palaeontological evidence that showed with every fossil we found we were seeing [fingers] one, two and three.”

It appears that the developmental biologists were right on this one. However, if science is to truly blossom and grow as a field, specialists from all fields must be brought to bear on the major scientific questions of the day. In the nineteenth century, we needed geneticists to inform and restructure evolutionary theory. Now, we will need to look to the burgeoning fields of developmental biology, neurobiology, and epigenetics.

For BBC article, go here.

-Alyssa Martin

Sexual Selection?

2009-06-18T05:34:00.000-07:00

A recent peer-reviewed study (Bailey, et al.) calls into question the universality of sexual selection. The University of California research team noted the following: “The variety and ubiquity of same-sex sexual behaviour in animals is impressive — many thousands of instances of same-sex courtship, pair bonding and copulation have been observed in a wide range of species, including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, insects, molluscs and nematodes.”

The fact homosexuality has the power to alter the DNA and social structure of certain species – i.e. dolphins, bonobos, penguins, snails, and fruit flies – suggests an alternative selective force at work. For instance, among bottlenose dolphins, about half of male sexual encounters are with other males. In addition, according to the Times Online summary, “Almost a third of chick-raising pairs of Laysan albatrosses were found to be all female in one Hawaiian colony.”

What would be the evolutionary advantage of such a force? In the case of the Laysan albatross, female-female pairings have more advantages than single females, suggesting a hierarchy of selective forces. Another prominent theory suggests that homosexual pairings constitute an alternative, cooperative child-rearing strategy. Dr. Joan Roughgarden, a professor at Stanford University, subscribes to this theory and views mating in terms of “game theory” and the set of trade-offs that will ensure the greatest chance of offspring survival. The authors of the study also propose that homosexuality can result from mistaken identity and group bonding.

In light of these findings, does sexual selection need to be revamped? Should it be replaced by the Rougharden model of social selection? Or can we acknowledge a spectrum of selective forces? I personally think that these studies tend to dramatize Darwin’s faults; we know that sexual selection is at work in nature, whether or not it’s the only or predominant force is up for debate. However, I do not believe these findings constitute a paradigm shift as such.

For the article in Times Online, go here.
For the full study, go here.

-Alyssa Martin

First-edition Darwin book sells for £15,625

2009-06-17T04:13:00.001-07:00

http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1256758?UserKey=

This article relates to when Dr. Bob asked John van Whye about the value of a Darwin during our lunch at Conduit Head.

Would you rather buy a new, mid-value car or an original Darwin book?
I ask because the cost is about the same.

Society has imparted a high value to Charles Darwin and his 'Origins of Species." This was demonstrated a few days ago when a first edition of his famous book sold for 15,625 pounds at an auction. It follows a similar purchase in April that was valued at 35000 pounds. Clearly, the collection of Darwin memorabilia has become a high-priced, elitist hobby at present.

This article raises a question I have long asked: What exactly gives items value? So far, I have understood that art pieces have their value determined by a combination of small, elite circles of art aficionados, social events, and pure seredipity. Then, for items like potato chips that look like the Virgin Mary or cow hides with America-shaped spots, their value is gained out of sensation and in my opinion, an excess of money. Specifically, what does the high-prices that Darwin memorabilia are going for imply about Darwin and his work?

In my opinion, these ground breakingly high-prices testify that Darwin and his works have taken on a semblance of revolutionary and iconic thought. Like other high-value collectors items, their appeal and price comes largely from their ability to convey something that is inexpressible such as defining an art movement. For the Darwin memorabilia, their intrinsic primacy comes from the role they played in the historic and ongoing passionate conflict about our origins attached to his work. The immense monetary worth of these books demonstrate to me how Darwin's works have taken precedence in the definition of our society.

-teresa

Moles, not magic, make worm 'grunting' work

2009-06-17T04:12:00.000-07:00

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hf6wEv7aPPu2yasGMe-wchDOIcnwD98P527G3

The weed patch was perhaps my favorite part of visiting Downe. Not only because the tiny, marked off pasture was cute to say the least, but it was also the site and means of Darwin's worm experiments which testified to me his eccentricity. As learned in class, Darwin would observe his worms' reactions after he played bassoon or blew tobacco at them among many other things. His worm experiments was among my list of reasons of why I think Darwin was, in his later life, a crazy old bat.

Then I read this article and realized Darwin's wish to conjure worms from the earth are not as silly as I originally thought and that they even produced practical purposes in todays' world-- most importantly though, the article talked about the modern verification of ideas brought up by Darwin centuries ago about worms' responses to tremors.

Experiments, inspired by Darwin's and funded by Vanderbilt University, has produced strong evidence suggesting worms arise from the earth to escape predators. Specifically, those predators are moles. Scientists had recorded the sound of mole movements under the earth, replayed them into the ground within a controlled environment, then measured how fast worms' crawled up and away from the sound. The experiments are useful for 'grunters,' those who harvest worms as an occupation.

The article was really fun to read. Some random, interesting information was presented through an interview with an enthusiastic 'grunter' about his 'grunting' techniques. He exhibited the same level of enthusiasm regarding worms as Darwin's observations and was a likeable character in the article. On the scientific side, the researchers were just as excited if not for the experiment's results then for the fact that it flourished so successfully out of Darwin's notion brought up centuries ago. This is echoed in the main researcher's statement, ""This particular study was just wonderful because each little step made so much sense," Catania said. "It just all sort of fit together one piece after another all stemming from that original thought Darwin had."
The biggest impact the article had on me was it's show appreciation for Darwin the weirdo. My earlier post about the new Darwin film coming out portrayed him as some tormented, epic figure whereas most other science articles depict him as an astute, dedicated naturalist. In my opinion and judging from the other New and Hots, Darwin's eccentricities are hardly ever in the spotlight. In this article, they are and I like it!

-Teresa

Book Review: The Darwin Conspiracy by Roy Davis

2009-06-17T04:08:00.000-07:00

In the ”The Darwin Conspiracy”, author Roy Davis attempts to convince his audience of the fact that Charles Darwin is history's biggest thief, having stolen his famous theory of natural selection from a significant number of contemporaries and predecessors. Davis builds his argument by extracting pieces from previous works that highlight and push forward this historical conspiracy theory. He also provides numerous comparisons between the letters and other texts of Darwin and other notable prominent evolution-oriented researchers to highlight what he says are irrefutable evidence of Darwin's plagiarism. Within these numerous extractions, as well as records of Darwin's irregular behavior, Davis draws together a wide array of correlations and incidents and weaves them together to form a directed accusation that Charles Darwin's illustrious career is founded upon multiple accounts of intellectual larceny. Davis furthermore goes into reasons as to why Darwin and his theories were able to avoid being uncovered for so long. Ultimately, readers are lead to believe that driven by his own lust for fame and chronic insecurities that lead to desperate behavior as well as the willingness of his two colleagues to be his of accomplices, and finally, a bit of serendipity, Charles Darwin deliberately and knowingly presented the accomplishment of others' as his own.

Davis argues that the primary source from which Darwin stole material from to form his natural selection theory was the work of the young Alfred Russell Wallace. However, in his attempt to paint a vivid portrait of Darwin as a crook, Davis essentially claims that Wallace and Darwin's final produced theories were practically identical. Though I have not directly read Wallace's works, a little research at key secondary sources on his and his work leads me to perceive Davis' attempt to draw profound parallels between Darwin and Wallace as the same as drawing parallels between apples and oranges.

Another weakness I found in Davis' strong allegations resides in what I feel are petty, superficial similarities between Darwin's works and others. One example is how Davis points to Darwin's use of the word 'inosculate' in his “1836 Red Notebook” as telling evidence that he stole from the work of Edward Blyth who preceded him. Another example that bothered me was the apparent striking similarities between Darwin's natural selection and the unpublished works of Patrick Matthew, an amateur researcher who wrote about a “natural process of selection” a quarter of a century before both Darwin and Wallace. From this similarity, Davis immediately concludes plagiarism. More instances of Davis passing off these superficial similarties as irrefutable proof that Darwin actively stole his ideas prevail throughout “The Darwin Conspiracy.” Despite their volume, I feel they lack substance and so I remain unconvinced.

On a lighter note, I felt the book was fun to read despite its innate sensationalism. It introduced a completely new portrayal of Darwin to me, one different from that of a wide-eyed curious, astute naturalist or a frail yet scholarly homebody. In “The Darwin Conspiracy,” readers are presented with a highly-paranoid and manipulative Darwin unaware of how grateful he should be for his inherited fortune and dedicated colleagues. This book ultimately was, for me, a breath of fresh air in the Darwin canon, but not necessarily a refreshing one.

-Teresa

John Dupre's Darwin's Legacy

2009-06-17T02:28:00.000-07:00

Darwin’s Legacy: What Evolution Means Today
John Dupre
Reviewed by Ben Picozzi

Darwin’s Legacy is John Dupre’s misleadingly-titled critique of contemporary trends in evolutionary science. Given its title, one might expect a broad explanation of Darwin’s theory of evolution according to natural selection and its persisting scientific and social relevance. Instead, Dupre chooses to focus on the problems which attend the functionalist understanding of evolution. While it is true that Darwin was committed to a particularly rigid functionalism, Dupre focuses on functionalism in its modern – and in his view perverse – forms. A cynic might view Dupre’s use of the Darwin label as an attempt to lend credibility to his unrelated academic crusade against a ‘reductionist’ functionalism.

Dupre focuses on two major targets: genetic-selection and evolutionary psychology. He spends the vast majority of his book responding to these two positions rather than adding anything positive to the discussion concerning Darwin’s legacy. Tellingly, the antepenultimate paragraph begins with the sentence: “So much for the negative message of this book.” While the final paragraphs are positive, such a discussion is, as might be expected, underdeveloped. This choice is unfortunate, since rather than learning about Darwin as a scientist and social figure, the reader only learns about Dupre’s hostility to functionalism. However, this focus is also what makes his book interesting, since laudatory accounts of Darwin’s legacy have become trite.

Dupre is a philosopher of science and consequently carries a philosopher’s approach in his discussions. While this perspective is often beneficial – Dupre has an excellent understanding of the philosophical positions which surrounded Darwin’s theory of natural selection – it can also detract from his argument. Dupre expects the same rigorous attention to vocabulary from his scientific adversaries that he does from his philosophical peers. As a result tends to read functionalism into their views to a greater extent than is warranted at the risk of tilting wildly at imaginary windmills. Dupre seems to believe that anything which is excluded from the scope of evolution is considered to be unimportant in determining the phenotypes of later generations. However, it is unlikely that there are any contemporary biologists who believe that genetic characteristics are the only relevant determinants. Even supporters of genetic-selection accept that there are a range of factors, including development factors, which are contributory. (Dawkins, for example, celebrated for his defense of genetic-selection is also celebrated for his exposition of cultural evolution.) In restricting evolution to genetic characteristics, what they mean is that such characteristics establish a particularly interesting sort of relationship between progenitors and their offspring. Dupre ignores this in order to present the proponents of functionalism as more narrow-minded then they actually are.

Similarly, Dupre’s treatment of evolutionary psychology seems primarily motivated by the philosophical problem of other minds. Although he does mention the scientific difficulties which attend any theory which attempts to attribute anything resembling a ‘function’ to mental states, these difficulties are rooted in the philosophical tradition which assigns a special epistemic status to the mind. Remarkably, Darwin saw this very tradition as a threat to his naturalistic theory of evolution and devoted an entire chapter of The Origin to refuting the view that the ‘instincts’, which he understands as a broad range of mental states, are somehow independent of his theory of natural selection. Obviously, Dupre does not believe in anything as superlunary as innate ideas. He does, however believe that mental states cannot be observed – and hence cannot be analyzed – in the same manner as physical states.

While the preceding discussion may seem critical, it should not discourage one from reading Darwin’s Legacy provided that one knows what to expect. If one is seeking to learn more about Darwinian evolutionary theory, then the majority of the book will be irrelevant. If, however, one is looking for an introduction to contemporary evolutionary debates, then Dupre provides excellent commentary.

Darwin's On the Origin of Species

2009-06-16T18:47:00.000-07:00

On the Origin of Species (Oxford World’s Classics Edition)
Charles Darwin
Reviewed by Ben Picozzi

On the Origin of Species (fully titled On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life) is Charles Darwin’s seminal work on the evolution of species according to natural selection. Although The Origin was originally intended as a rushed abstract to a larger species book, he never took up the species book and instead The Origin became his definitive engagement with evolutionary theory.

The Origin is remarkably devoid of citations and other academic conventions. Darwin does cite other sources on occasion, but he references authors by name and experiment. On the rare occasions in which he does cite publications, he does not include page numbers. While this may have been a byproduct of the rushed nature of Darwin’s writing, the uncluttered nature of the text makes it easy to read without being bogged down by an endless series of accreditations. Likewise, Darwin retreats from the austere language of science in favor of a more accessible – but no less compelling – style. This approach is consistent with his portrayal of evolution and natural selection. From its’ opening paragraph, which recalls Darwin’s voyages aboard the Beagle, to its conclusion, which Darwin ends with a famous appeal to the ‘grandeur’ of human life, Darwin presents evolution as not just an abstract scientific theory but something which can be appreciated by anyone.

However, all of this does not mean that The Origin is not a serious scientific text. Darwin treats his argument with the attention to rigor and organization expected of a writer attempting to persuade an educated audience. Darwin is remarkably thorough in anticipating and addressing potential objections. On several occasions, I would posit a particular objection to the text, only for Darwin to address that objection in the very next paragraph! Furthermore, Darwin devotes an entire section to responding to ‘difficulties on the theory’ of natural selection in an effort to preempt his rivals. The section on ‘instinct’ is another defensive measure, written with a view to dismissing the possibility of instincts which stand outside of evolutionary processes.

Despite the attention which he pays to his opponents, Darwin also builds his own positive case for his evolutionary theory. Again, the structure of The Origin demonstrates Darwin’s understanding of argument in addition to science. He begins with the easily-grasped example of domestic selection, which he uses to prime his audience for the possibility that there is a similar process of ‘natural selection’ which occurs in non-domestic settings. He then motivates this possibility with a discussion of the conditions – namely, scarcity – which make a theory of natural selection plausible. He concludes with a discussion of independent evidence supporting such a theory.

Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection is not perfect. He does make some mistakes. Notably, his lack of an understanding of heredity, leads him to bizarre conclusions concerning instances of ‘atavism’ or ‘reversion’ in which offspring will exhibit the traits of ancestors several generations removed. Likewise, his focus on the ‘struggle’ of the macroscopic world is myopic with respect to the microscopic world of disease and parasitism now believed to be the primary driver of evolutionary change. Much of what he writes about species migration is written in ignorance of continental drift. These are just the obvious mistakes. The unobvious mistakes are still a matter of controversy. The debate between functionalism and formalism is still ongoing. If you believe Gould, Darwin’s focus on gradualism, which he inherited from geological theory, underdetermines the role that sudden changes in environment – Gould’s punctuated equilibria – play in producing evolutionary change. But for all that Darwin got wrong, he got many things right. The evidence he provides for evolution – morphology, embryology, vestigial organs, etc. – is the same evidence which is still taught in high school classrooms today. The persistence of Darwin’s original examples is a commendation of his capabilities as a scientific thinker. His discussion of taxonomy is similarly revolutionary.

It might be tempting given the increasingly-tedious debate between religion and science to try to read The Origin without attending to any rival religious theories. However, such an attempt would be futile. Much of Darwin’s aforementioned negative project of responding to objections addresses religious theories in some form. Notably, Darwin devotes an entire chapter of the book – the section on ‘difficulties’ – to refuting the objections of his opponents, which included the creationists of his day. Many of these objections, including the absence of transition species in the fossil record and the supposed ‘irreducible complexity’ of certain features, are the same arguments raised in contemporary debates. In fact, in the passage devoted to irreducible complexity, Darwin explicitly attacks the belief that such features require a ‘Creator’. ie. God. Likewise, his discussion of the ‘instincts’ is an attempt to naturalize the mind and deprive his religious opponents of a powerful argument against religion and for divine intervention.

That stated, religion does not have to be the reason why one chooses to read The Origin. Large sections of the text do not directly engage religious theories. Likewise, while the text has obvious scientific value, science alone should not be the justification. Modern biology textbooks, while inspired by Darwinian principles, offer a more accurate and concise theory of evolution. However, what The Origin apart from these pretenders is the historical-cultural context in which it was produced. Darwin’s book provides a unique insight into the Victorian world and the powerful argument which changed it.

David Quammen's The Reluctant Mr. Darwin

2009-06-16T15:43:00.000-07:00

The Reluctant Mr. Darwin: An Intimate Portrait of Charles Darwin and the Making of His Theory of Evolution
David Quammen
Reviewed by Ben Picozzi

The Reluctant Mr. Darwin is David Quammen’s attempt to illuminate an often-neglected period of Darwin’s life spanning the years between his well-documented voyage aboard the Beagle and his publication of On the Origin of Species. Quammen provides a readable, if not necessarily rigorous, biography which – as the title suggests – portrays the scientist as a very human individual beset by fears that his species theory would not be well-received by his contemporaries.

Quammen is not a scientist or a historian by trade, but a journalist, and it shows in his writing. He is often prone to cute turns of phrase at the expense of concision. This sometimes tendency becomes problematic from a historical perspective when such turns of phrase result in speculative commentary where no evidence is provided. Quammen frequently attributes attitudes or emotions to various individuals without presenting any historical reasons for believing that those individuals in fact expressed those attitudes. In fact, Quammen’s central claim that Darwin was ‘reluctant’ is perhaps the least substantiated claim in the book. Rather than reading as a historical treatise, the book moves with a flow you would expect in a magazine article. Quammen’s love of various popular literary devices frequently draws attention to the book’s author rather than its historical content. Still, this may be a welcome relief from standard biographical accounts and does break up what could otherwise have been a mind-numbing procession of historical facts – after all, Darwin was a busy man. Despite this, Quammen is not immune to the historian’s trap. At the beginning of a particularly amusing passage near the end of the book, Quammen claims that it is not his intention to ‘quickstep’ the reader through ‘all the major episodes in the later history of evolutionary biology’, after which he proceeds to do precisely that.

Furthermore, these problems are compounded by Quammen’s general failure to provide in-text citations, which makes it a chore to separate the book’s historical substance from the author’s stylistic choices. While Quammen does provide a series of source notes located at the end of the book, such notes usually only contain the title of the cited work along with its page number, without any discussion of the context which would make such citations meaningful. Despite these shortcomings, the book is nevertheless acknowledged as part of the scholarly literature on Darwin’s life. For example, the book is cited by Darwin historian John Van Wyhe in his article challenging the belief that Darwin’s alleged fear was responsible for his delay in publishing his species theory.

Despite these shortcomings, Quammen’s book does contain some historical value. In particular, its descriptions of Darwin’s ongoing scientific work – notably his work in the fields of taxonomy and species migration – are informative. From these, it is possible to see how Darwin’s biological thought developed over the course of the intervening years. Likewise, if one is able to look past Quammen’s seemingly-endless editorializations, his descriptions of Darwin’s personal life can help to humanize a man whose life’s achievements have come to symbolize a phenomenon far in excess of anything resembling human work.

Nick Spencer's Darwin and God

2009-06-16T15:25:00.001-07:00

Darwin and God
Nick Spencer
Reviewed by Ben Picozzi

Darwin and God is Nick Spencer’s attempt at explaining Darwin’s religious beliefs – a subject which is all the more relevant given the current revival of creationism in the ongoing debate between science and religion. Spencer portrays Darwin as a man of his times, who followed the existing religious orthodoxy to its logical conclusion and lost his faith as a result.

Spencer’s account seems superficially simplistic. After all, as Spencer reminds us, the established view of Darwin’s journey from Christianity through theism and deism and to agnosticism is largely accurate. Spencer does not seek to overturn this view. Instead, what he offers is a more nuanced picture. Darwin was a Christian but, Spencer reminds us, he was a ‘particular sort of Christian’ determined by his particular historical-cultural location. Similarly, the doubts which led him to theism and deism and finally agnosticism were informed by that particular location. If Spencer can be said to offer anything approaching a thesis, then it is his claim that Darwin’s Christianity based on observable evidence rather than personal experience predisposed him to doubt given what Spencer sees as the tenuous nature of this foundation. While Spencer’s explanation of the immediate causes of Darwin’s rejection, the problems of suffering and non-salvation of nonbelievers, is uncomplicated, he adds complexity by relating these immediate causes to Darwin’s Christianity. Darwin was deeply concerned with the possibility of theodicy, but these concerns with evidentiary justification were only possible because of the emphasis placed on such justification in the first place. Ironically, it was the Paleyian attempt to rationalize faith in terms of naturalistic argument, so inspiring to the youthful Darwin, which was the mediate cause of Darwin’s rejection of Christianity. This leads Spencer to his more contemporary discussion of science and religion. Floating in the background is the possibility that there are other justifications for religious belief, which do not rely on or compete with scientific standards of evaluation. Spencer is quick to note that Darwin was quick to dismiss personal experience as sufficient grounds for belief, however the modern reader does not need to make such a dismissal. However, Spencer does not devote many pages to this discussion.

Throughout the book, Spencer is careful not to rock the boat on either side. Debates between science and religion are often contentious. Spencer, the research director at a think-tank dedicated to public theology, clearly has a professional and presumably personal stake in the debate. However, he is careful to maintain a neutral – ie. secular – perspective throughout the text. He does, in a few places, perhaps assume unfairly that the reader has prior knowledge of Christian beliefs, however, given his audience, such assumptions may be reasonable. While such a neutral perspective may not make for the most interesting read, it certainly adds to the credibility of Spencer’s account. From a historical standpoint, there are some claims which Spencer leaves undersubstantiated. Spencer often reads connections between Darwin’s scientific beliefs and his personal beliefs. For example, he draws a parallel between his scientific theories of suffering and his personal experiences of suffering; yet, he provides no textual evidence supporting the interaction between these beliefs. However, in general, Spencer’s citations are remarkably thorough. Throughout the text, he draws on a wealth of primary source materials maintained online at the Darwin Project, ranging from Darwin’s scientific publications to his personal correspondences. The insights into Darwin’s life contained within these materials alone justify reading Spencer’s book.

Regardless of which side of the scientific or religious debate you happen to fall, Spencer's account is worth reading. It provides another lens for examining the life of one of the most influential figures in modern history and, perhaps more importantly, a lens which can be turned toward the present to examine our contemporary situation.

New Studies on the Beginning of Life

2009-06-16T14:18:00.000-07:00

-C. Paula de los Angeles

Since most people do not believe in a strict literal interpretation of the creation of the world in seven days as detailed in the Bible, the question of how life originated from inorganic material continues to puzzles the scientific community. Recent research discoveries are beginning to dispel some of the mysteries. A New York Times article details four scientific advances that have restored faith in a terrestrial explanation for the beginning of life:

1) protocells: Jack W. Szostak, David P. Bartel and P. Luigi Luisi concluded that genetic material and membranes had to evolve together, and not one after the other, after discovering that it was possible to form cell-like structures naturally from fatty chemicals present at the beginning of Earth. In their 2001 paper in Nature, they concluded that the way to make a cell from a protocell would be to combine a protocell and genetic material encapsculated in a cell membrane. If this set-up were advantageous over others, the outcome would be “a sustainable, autonomously replicating system, capable of Darwinian evolution."

2).self-replicating RNA: Dr. Szostak continued these studies, and from the observation that living cells have exclusive mechanisms to admit only the nutrients they need, decided that protocells needed a way to take-in small molecules. Primitive cells would arise from the influx of nutrients that would combine, making it impossible to get back out. Dr. Szostak is confident of such a chemical replicating system. Last month, Dr. John Sutherland, a chemist, demonstrated that such a self-replicating chemical system could exist under the right conditions, that the base and sugar of DNA could be built up as a single unit, and not separate, so the two do not need to be linked.

3) natural synthesis of nucleotides: Dr. Joyce, has demonstrated the possible replicative properties of RNA, the likely predecessor to DNA, in an experiment that successfully developed two RNA molecules that help the synthesis of four kinds of RNA nucleotides.

4)handedness of molecules: Furthermore, other researchers like Donna Blackmond of Imperial College of London has eliminated the impossibility of "original syn", how all amino acids are left-handed and all sugars and nucleotides are right-handed in living cells, but natural cells exist in roughly equal mixtures. The chemists discovered that that the proportions of left-handed and right-handed molecules can be converted to one form by temperature regulation, cycles of freezing and melting.

These recent advances present interesting questions to the idea that the beginning of life originated in water, as Darwin believed. No one knows for sure where the beginning of life originated, though these studies are beginning to shed some light on our origins.

While these advances in the lab are promising, I struggle with the applicability of these results. While they demonstrate possible pathways, it will be difficult to determine for certain, the actual conditions. For one, I think these studies should be admired for their scientific beauty and elegance alone.

Animated video here: exploringorigins.org
News link here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/science/16orig.html?pagewanted=1&ref=science

Audio Book Review: Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, read and annotated by Richard Dawkins

2009-06-16T12:55:00.000-07:00

Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion and 10 other books abridges and reads Darwin’s master-work, On the Origin of Species. While the original version of the Origin of Species shook the world (and perhaps still does), many say that it’s long, dry and a tedious read. Dawkins adeptly abridges Darwin’s weighty tome and reads it in under six hours. With ease and courage of conviction, Dawkins leads readers feel like they are being read to by Darwin himself! While listening to this audio book is a great way to breeze through Darwin’s master-work, the concepts can get a little complex to properly digest in the auditory format at times. Sometimes I found myself wanting to rewind, highlight particularly stunning statements, or make notes in the non-existent margins. So while the audio-format of this book has its advantages, it also has limitations. I think this recording would’ve been perfect if it came with a print copy of Dawkins annotated transcript. That way I – and other readers – could follow along visually, and have the complete audio-visual experience. All in all this audio book is a great way to get the basic grasp of Darwin’s masterpiece, but probably not the best resource to deeply explore the details and nuances of the Origin.

-Lauren

Book Review: Darwin’s Origin of Species, by Janet Browne

2009-06-16T12:54:00.000-07:00

In her newest Darwin Biography, Janet Browne gives readers a brief overview of the man who thought he’d be a clergyman ended up bringing the idea of evolution by means of natural selection to the masses. The book is almost like a pocket-guide to Darwin – ringing in at a mere 153 pages, it’s a swift read. Janet Browne is clearly a master Darwin scholar. In order to trim down her previous lengthy biographies of him, she has to know what’s essential and what details can be cut. The book serves as a great introduction to the man (Darwin) and the theory (evolution by means of natural selection). Anyone who wants more information would likely turn to Browne’s other Darwin biographies, which are much longer and cover in greater detail the Victorian intellectual environment in which the Origin was published. Browne’s book is – quite naturally – fairly Darwin-centric. Along these lines, my main critique of Browne’s biography is the inclusion of Chapter 5, Legacy. I think that Browne should’ve used the 30-plus pages to include more detail in the chapters on Darwin’s life prior to publication and during the “Origin” years. It seems like early chapters were a little too dense and rushed, and these chapters might’ve benefited from more space. All in all, Browne wrote a concise introduction to Darwin and his theory that proves to be a great starting point for readers who don’t know much about the man who changed the way we think.

-Lauren

Leading Evolutionary Biologists Discuss Cooperation in Ants

2009-06-16T11:34:00.000-07:00

-C. Paula de los Angeles

Two leading evolutionary biologists, Bert Holldobler and E.O. Wilson, explore ants (again...after their first exploration in Nobel-prize winning book The Ants in 1991) in their second book, The Superorganisms: The Beauty, Elegance and Strangeness of Insect Societies , published last year. Having taken Professor Deborah Gordon's class on ant evolution, leading ant biologist of Stanford University, I was extremely excited about this book and interview.

Holldobler is a leading German behavioral biologist whose research insect of choice is the ant. Currently, he is a faculty member at the University of Wuerzburg and Arizona State University. Wilson is a leading American biologist, research, theorist, and naturalist, with a speciality in mymecology. He currently holds positions at Harvard University and at the International Academy of Humanism as a Humanist Laureate.

In an interview with Claudia Dreifus, science reporter of The New York Times, Holldolbler defends that we have much to learn from ants.

In writing their new book, Holldobler is the "experimentalist" and Wilson, the "synthesizer". They document the success of the ant society because of their stress on cooperation and a division of labor. Nonreproductive ants do anything to benefit the "queen", allowing for these societies to grow to great numbers. Ant societies that are internally competitive have been less successful. They have been able to gather information through observation as well as through genetic testing of the chemicals involved in ant communication signaling.

Hard to know what new ideas that Holldobler and Wilson bring to the observation of division of labor in ant societies yet, I am excited to read this book. So far, it's gotten the thumbs up from both The New York Times
and many reviewers on amazon.com, two sources I normally look to for book recommendations.

News link here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/science/16conv.html?pagewanted=1&ref=science

BOOK REVIEW: “Darwin's Dangerous Idea” by Daniel Dennett

2009-06-15T19:14:00.000-07:00

In “Darwin's Dangerous Idea,” author Daniel Dennett offers a compelling and comprehensive argument for why Charles Darwin's idea of modification by natural selection is "the single best idea anyone has ever had” and why ultimately, it is not “dangerous” in the least bit. He further attests that the idea pervades through all of our existence and appropriately draws evidence in support of his claims from a diverse multitude of fields. Dennett's approach is bold in that he intrepidly challenges some of society's most esteemed and prominent scientists and philosophers. At the end of the book, the reader is exposed to an interesting and aggressive rationale for how natural selection, countering popular thought that it diminishes significance and meaning in life, actually enhances and fortifies the pillars of our existence.

One of the most interesting aspects about this book are the metaphors that Dennett creates to strengthen his argument. He describes natural selection as a crane because though mechanical, impersonal, and essentially simple, it functions to build bigger and greater things; importantly, this includes other cranes. Directly contrasting the cranes are skyhooks, which hang from the sky and are used to suspend grandiose ideas in ways that astound us and defy our understanding. They metaphorically represent other ideas that reflect humans' desire to be special and profound. The metaphor, delineated within the first few pages, resurfaces frequently throughout the book to support his claim but primarily to debunk the claims of his opponents. For me, the vivid imagery attached with Dennett's use of these metaphors really helped me understand his presentation of both sides of the Darwininsm/Creationism debate and each of their principle objectives. I regard this as perhaps the strongest and most original aspect in the book.

That is not to say that the other metaphor Dennett introduces and uses in “Darwin's Dangerous Idea” are insignificant. I was thoroughly impressed how Dennett argued strongly against such prominent intellectuals like Chomsky, Gould, Searl, and Godel by likening their ideas to everyday items with distinct functions such as vending machines, robots, and black boxes. Associating these complex and abstract ideas with tangible and accessible items was essential to my ability to follow his arguments.

Regarding the readability, I could easily tell that the book clearly was written for an intellectual and well-read audience. On one hand, I was unfortunate to be relatively new to the topic and failed to recognize some of the references to other works and concepts made; on the other, Dennett noticeable took great effort at attempting to make the book more general-audience friendly through his provision of detailed footnotes. Coupled with the relatively easy prose, I was able to invest myself into the book's arguments though it definitely worked me out mentally.

Ultimately, I recommend that “Darwin's Dangerous Idea” is worth a read for the clarity it provides readers on the Darwinism/Creationism debate. The coverage of ideas and topics is so wide that at the very least, readers familiarize themselves with a multitude of modern contentious discussion topics.

-Teresa

Mosquito evolves into threat to Galapagos wildlife

2009-06-12T07:09:00.000-07:00

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/mosquito-evolves-into-threat-to-galapagos-wildlife-1694524.html

Because I love islands so much...

The Galapagos wildlife faces threat both internally and externally. Externally, the source of the disease would likely be from the rapidly increasing number of tourists to the islands. Once again, scientists worry and warn about the possible affects of human expansion on nature. Internally, scientists recently discovered that one long-established species of black-march mosquitos on the island could act as vessels for external diseases that could cripple the present ecosystem of the island made famous by Darwin. However, at the core of scientists' fear is the pervasiveness and resiliency of the black-marsh mosquitos.

The black-march mosquito is especially lethal. It's diverse diet means it can transmit to mammals, birds, and reptiles a like. Furthermore, its has an acute taste for rare species such as the giant tortoise, marine iguana, and flightless cormorant. Lastly and unlike other mosquitos on the island, it is not confined to one region. The black-marsh mosquito pervades throughout the entire archipelago, from its coasts to the mountain tops, braving the humidity as well as the altitude. Nowhere is safe from them.

These dangerous mosquitos unique to the archipelago are distinct from their relatives on mainland. As mentioned before, it feeds on reptilian blood likely because --scientists hypothesize-- the shortage of birds on the island forces them to acquire new tastes. Genetically, huge differences exist between the two, leading scientists to believe that the black-marsh mosquito is on the verge of divvying off and forming its own species. This comes after 200,000 -as DNA tests suggest-- of living on the island. The black-marsh mosquito is emerging as a new and formidable threat to the island's ecosystem.

Now, my 2-pence. In class we wonder if evolution and specialization is good or bad. In the case of the black-marsh mosquito, it seems to be good, at least for them. They have adapted to the diversity of their environment in a way that grants them an advantageous omnipresence on the island. However, with the introduction of a new environmental factor --human exposure and diseases-- their development has been a means for destruction. Reading about this article has made see a species evolution as a formula. Add or take out some variables, or adjust the ones already there, and what could have been a impressive or benign species turns into the means for nature's destruction. While the formula is extensively elaborate and most of it is out of our control, learning about instances like this makes me realize that we do have a tiny bit of influence but with big implications.

-teresa

Creation the movie: world exclusive trailer

2009-06-12T03:40:00.001-07:00

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/5505963/Creation-the-movie-world-exclusive-trailer.html

We need to talk about this now. Charles Darwin has officially become a product of Hollywood. This movie is no small matter; both stars who plays Charles and Emma Darwin are, at least in my opinion, pretty big deals. The plot and trailer evince it as semi-epic filled with love, conflict, and elaborate costumes. I mean, after taking this class, I think it is mandatory that I watch this film. However, I would have to wait until September as well as make a trip back to England in order to do so, making the endeavor a little difficult. For now, I'll look at how the film's promoted package Darwin to appeal to pop culture.

The website where I found it emphasizes, by stating first, that the movie was made with heavy guidance from an actual Darwin descendant, Randal Keynes. With such a source, the website heavily suggest that the movie closely adheres to truth. Being a film, I know that dramatization of real events is expected but to what extent, I was curious.

With just a brief glance through, I noticed several aspects of the film's presentation and promotion that bother me.

At the forefront, I feel that knowing what I know now, the film's title, Creation, rouses ideas and notions that skews the details I learned about the Darwin and his work. It suggests that a bulk of Darwin's work and life was dedicated to studying how we were created or in other words, our origin. It challenges Darwin's historic association with Evolution. As stated in class, his work never answered or addressed the title of his own book 'Origin of Species'; Darwin, we learned, was more interested in natural selection and the means by which species carry on traits to survive. Additionally, the title 'Creation' reels in thought of Creationism. I am bothered by this because if this film is really about Darwin, then it should know that Darwin's work and Darwin the man did not seek to directly deal with or challenge Creationism. Perhaps the movie really intends to focus on Darwin's struggle with religion. Or, maybe --since the debate surrounding Darwin, Evolution and Creation has historically roused strong emotions that still carry forth today-- they aim to rouse the attention and emotions of both Darwin enthusiasts and the religious fundamentalists alike and capture a larger audience. Anyway, I think by titled the film 'Creation,' the films marketers are purposely and successfully invoking some emotions to increase the film's allure.

Furthermore, as a potential audience member, I am getting really strong mixed messages about what the film is about. The title hardly seems to fit with what the blurb details is the movie focus --the relationship between Darwin and his daughter Anne. Then, the bulk of images shown in the trailer focuses in on Darwin and Emma and what potentially could be a torrid and scandalous battle between love and beliefs --though no epic backgammon games were featured. The site leaves me confused as to what to expect from the film as it tries to get at too many topics at once.

Ultimately, regardless of my own criticisms, I definitely want to see the movie, if not to better understand how Darwin is seen in today's pop culture, then to laugh, cry, and be on the edge of my seat in a theater.

-Teresa

Evolution: Just a Game of Chance?

2009-06-10T12:21:00.000-07:00

-C. Paula de los Angeles

Question: "If the broad evolutionary diversification of a group of organisms were repeated by a few species in a single genus tens of millions of years after the group's initial diversification, what would that say about the roles of contingency, constraint, and adaptation?" (Science Daily 2009)

According to Darwin, natural selection leads to the gradual adaptations of individuals and populations over time. The article uses the example that we know that most cats look like cats, develop like cats, but have a fossil record that shows less than cat-like ancestors. Each subgroup has a similar story. What does it say about evolution if this historical diversification were repeated again in the future? What is the probability that these same adaptations be to due to chance again?

A study to be published in Proceedings of the Royal Society by Dr. Scott Lidgard details the discovery of a species, cheilostome bryozoans, marine animal colonies, who independently repeat the small step-by-step adaptations that occurred 80 million years ago in the Cretaceous Period.

The adaptations go from soft feeding organs in a flexible membrane, then to calcified spines around the membrane, then fusion of the spines, then reduction of the fused spinal shield and membrane, and then the invention of a water sac to squeeze out of the organ.

The evolutionary trajectory was repeated.

This discovery seems to be strong evidence for the argument of adaptation vs. genetic drift. Is evolution just by chance? I would like to read more of the actual paper to see how the environments differed over time. Also, while this is one isolated case of this happening and a specific example, we should be hesitant to support adaptationism in all cases, as there are lots of examples where this doesn't happen. Interesting.

News link here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609220721.htm

BATS!

2009-06-10T04:18:00.000-07:00

Since reading Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker", I've been fascinated by bats. He has an excellent chapter on bat echolocation and flight development. It's pretty awesome.

I ran across this article in ScienceDaily; it's a little old (February 2008), but I still think it's really neat.

A new nicely preserved fossil of a primitive bat species shows that bats flew before developing echolocation. There had long been an argument over whether flight or the sonar system was developed first in bats (or concurrently), and this fossil shows that the echolocation was not possible in these bats- although flight was! This was the missing link between bats and their non-flying ancestors. The fossil's skull lacks the features in and around the ear that would enable echolocation. Awesome evidence!

By the way, did you know that one in five mammals living on earth is a bat?!??!?! BATS ARE SO AWESOME!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080213121444.htm

ENJOY!

Kaitlyn

Where Domestic Selection and Natural Selection Collide

2009-06-10T01:40:00.000-07:00

Discover reports that fishing is eliminating cod from shallow waters. The report draws on a study published earlier this year on the effects of human predation. The study notes that selective human predation ('harvest selection') has an effect on the rate at which phenotypes change and analyzes this effect in comparison with natural systems. The study conclude that human ‘perturbations’ – in particular, human targeting of select age- and size-classes – can cause more rapid phenotypic change than natural systems with strong directional pressure. While whether these phenotypic changes count as evolutionary or merely environmentally-plastic depends on which flavor of evolutionary theory one happens to favor, I suggest that such selective phenotypic changes are illuminating in light of Darwin's development of his theory of natural selection.

In their analysis, the researchers found that morphological traits declined in 94.9% of cases with an average decrease of 18.3%. Shifts in life history traits – reproductive age, etc. – occurred in 97.2% of cases with an average change of 24.4%. Comparing these results to a database on trait changes, they found that the rates of change in human cases far outstripped those in natural cases. The researchers concluded that the magnitude of change resulted from the direct nature of selective harvesting versus the indirect nature of other cases of selection, including other, non-targeted anthropogenic cases (eg. pollution). Although the study confines itself to a discussion of the science, the results obviously have broad economic implications, especially for those whose livelihoods depend on selective harvesting.

The study’s results seem trivial. Of course humans have an effect on biological systems which, in many cases far outstrips any natural cause. One need only look at dwindling fish stocks to come to this somber realization. However, the case of harvest selection raises interesting observations about Darwin’s evolutionary theory as he conceived of it. Darwin’s On the Origin of Species is clearly influenced by cases of targeted selection. In fact, as everyone should by now be aware, he uses domestic selection as a means of priming his audience for the possibility of some naturalistic mechanism for evolutionary change (ie. ‘natural selection’). However, in On the Origin of Species, Darwin used domestic selection as an analogy for natural selection and maintained a firm delineation between the two. His ‘laws’ of variation apply only to natural systems. In particular, Darwin sought to deprive natural selection of anything resembling a goal or telos. He remained dismissive of the ‘sports’ produced by selective breeding. Even when Darwin did venture into the realm of anthropogenic changes – for example, the famous case of the peppered moth – he confined himself to untargeted changes. I wonder whether Darwin’s failure to connect domestic selection and natural selection into a common theory was caused by his desire to contribute something profoundly new to science, rather than admitting that his views constituted a recombination of existing theories.

Ben Picozzi

Evolution Education

2009-06-09T17:42:00.000-07:00

A new journal titled “Evolution: Education and Outreach” has emerged to promote comprehensive evolutionary understanding and awareness. The latest issue (2:2) can be accessed here. The journal includes the following articles: “A Question of Individuality: Charles Darwin, George Gaylord Simpson and Transitional Fossils” (Eldredge); “The Fish-Tetrapod Transition: New Fossils and Interpretations” (Clack); “Understanding Natural Selection: Essential Concepts and Common Misconceptions” (Gregory); “From Land to Water: the Origin of Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises” (Thewissen, et al.); and “Evolutionary Transitions in the Fossil Record of Terrestrial Hoofed Mammals” (Prothero), among others.

The particular issue focuses on the fossil record, and the ways in which discoveries since Darwin have shed light on evolution. Despite attempts by creationist authors to discredit evolution on the basis of an “absent” fossil record, the paleontologists in this journal have contributed a wealth of data in support of evolution as evidenced by the fossil record. The paleontological data mostly addresses those fossil groups “targeted by creationists and/or crucial to the idea of ‘macroevolution’” – including the origins of mollusks, echinoderms, chordates, arthropods as well as tetrapods, dinosaurs, birds, marine reptiles, mammals, whales, and hoofed animals.

This journal provides readers with the tools and concrete support to advance sophisticated arguments regarding evolution. Apart from its scientific merits, the journal also possesses aesthetic merits, as it features articles on the culture and epistemological meaning of Darwin. In agreement with author George Levine, Adam Goldstein writes in the journal: Darwin’s content and prose style reveals a “distinctly Darwinian attitude toward nature as a source of meaning and value,” exemplifying a Darwinian “enchantment” with the world.

-Alyssa Martin

The End of Anti-Evolution Education in Texas?

2009-06-09T17:00:00.000-07:00

-C. Paula de los Angeles

It's 2009. And there are still debates in Texas over the teaching of evolution. However, two anti-evolutionary bills House Bill 2800 and House Bill 4224, died in the lone star state at the beginning of this month.

House Bill 2800 concerned the possibility of the Institute for Creation Research to award masters of science degrees by exempting them from regulations that other degree-granting institutions ahve to follow.

House Bill 4224 concerned restoring the "strengths and weaknesses" of Texas education standards. Earlier this year, the education board included rhetoric that would still allow creationist thinking. However, one of the men in charge holding his belief, Don McLeroy is soon to be ousted.

In some ways, I can't believe that this is the year 2009, celebrating the 150th anniversary of On the Origin of Species, and a debate still exists. Oh well.

Oxford paleontologist identifies world's oldest spider web

2009-06-09T16:18:00.000-07:00

I was lucky to meet a postgraduate student of renowned Oxford paleobiology, Martin Brasier. Brasier is known for his 2002 debate at NASA Ames center with UCLA’s Bill Schopf challenging Schopf’s claim to the oldest remains of life on earth. After meeting Dr. Brasier’s student, I decided to look for some related news…

Apparently, Brasier found the world’s oldest spider web encased in amber; the web is 140 million years old. The specimen was found by an amateur fossil hunter along the beaches of England’s south coast, while Brasier identified the fossil and its age. Arachnids seem to have been ensnaring their prey in silk webs since dinosaurs roamed the earth, testifying to the great evolutionary advantage of this tangled thread creation. Brasier even points out that thread strands are patterned the same way they are today.

The microscope picture shows tiny strands, fossilized vegetable matter, and dark spots which are thought to be burnt sap. Brasier comments that it’s not a perfect web, but I wonder if it’s just because it’s an old piece of fossil that might’ve been damaged and imperfectly preserved rather than imperfectly formed. Interesting questions also remain to be answered: why were there spider webs before the advent of flowering plants that would’ve given rise to an explosion of flying insects as prey? Brasier suggests that, "These webs were around in a conifer dominated world before flowering plants, but it is clear it was already gearing up for the huge diversity of flowers brought with them. The spiders appeared to be keeping up with the other evolutionary patterns in the insects." Is this suggesting that by some unknown, automatic mechanism, organisms can “anticipate” changes in its environment and other species?

Currently, Dr. Brasier’s student is conducting research in Newfoundland to identify the earliest animal.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/3741617/Worlds-oldest-spider-web-found-on-English-beach.html

- Bonnie Chien

Museum Unable to Pay Price of Erasmus Darwin Portrait

2009-06-09T16:13:00.000-07:00

-C. Paula de los Angeles

In addition to being the bicentennial anniversary of Darwin's birth, it is the bicentennial anniversary of the death of Birmingham entrepreneur Matthew Boulton, close friend of Erasmus Darwin, the grandfather of Charles Darwin. In order to commemorate this death, a painting of Erasmus Darwin will be auctioned at Sotheby's.

However, the portrait is expected to sell for more than 150,000 pounds, leaving the Erasmus Darwin House, museum and educational facility of the man and the legend, located in Lichfield hopeless with respect to getting this portrait painted by pre-eminent 18th century painter Joseph Wright, (although a copy of this portrait already exists in the house).

Curator of the museum, Alison Wallis, bemoans, "Chances are it will end up leaving the country, which will be very sad for the museum”.

Would be sad for visitors to the museum as well. Just as a thought question, who has the right to these sentimental and important portraits? Museums for education of the general public? Family members? Or someone who has the money to pay for it? This last category is probably who will end up with the painting, but probably the least desirable for society...

New Species Still Being Discovered

2009-06-09T15:51:00.000-07:00

-C. Paula de los Angeles
Ever wonder if you would somehow be able to discover a new species just like Darwin had?

Apparently, around 15,000 new species are discovered every year. In a feature article published in New Scientist, 12 such bizarre recent discoveries are detailed, including the only lungless frog and the world's smallest snake to give you a taste.

Personal favorites include the Danionella draculadracula fish, 17-meter long transparent fish, which was discovered in Burma in 2009. Above is its image, which can be found in the local Natural History Museum in London.

Another favorite includes Styloctenium mindorensis, a blonde/ginger fruitbat that looks like a fox, found in the Philippines *shoutout*! See image to the right.

Yay.

Here's the link so you can check out the other recent discoveries as well: http://www.newscientist.com/gallery/new-species/7

"Mind the Gap": John Van Wyhe on Darwin's Delay

2009-06-09T14:22:00.001-07:00

For those of you who are interested in following up on last week's trip to Cambridge, John Van Wyhe's (the historian whom we met at Christ’s College) influential article on Darwin's delay is located here. In the article, Van Wyhe criticizes the widely-held – or, if you believe his critics, not so widely-held – belief that Darwin's delay in publishing his species theory was caused by his fear of revealing his species theory to his prejudiced contemporaries. Van Wyhe traces the origin of this belief concerning Darwin's motivations back to the late nineteenth century – and charts its subsequent dissemination through a variety of different academic disciplines – most notably history and psychology, where it has gained tremendous popularity. The breadth of Van Wyhe’s refutation is admirable, but it might lead to certain difficulties which I address below. Van Wyhe cites a number of contemporary sources, notably (from the perspective of our Darwin class) Browne and Quammen, who rely on this account to explain Darwin’s delay. In particular, Van Wyhe focuses his criticism on Desmond and Moore, who use Darwin’s fearfulness of the establishment as a central theme in their biography.

In refuting this account, Van Wyhe draws on a number of sources, most notably Darwin’s correspondences, to argue that Darwin did attempt to hide his belief in transmutation from his scientific colleagues. Within these correspondences, Van Wyhe analyzes a number of passages commonly used to support claims of Darwin’s fearfulness, and concludes that contrary to the prevailing opinion, such passages are more consistent with other interpretations. (For example, Van Wyhe argues that Darwin’s statement that confessing his belief in transmutation was like 'confessing a murder' is an example of his self-effacing humor rather than his fear.) While Van Wyhe concedes that Darwin was vague about the mechanism ('natural selection'), he claims that this vagueness resulted from the underdeveloped nature of Darwin’s theory. This lack of development, Van Wyhe argues, was directly addressed by Darwin’s work during the twenty years between his voyage aboard the Beagle and his publication of On the Origin of Species.

While Van Wyhe provides an overwhelming amount of historical evidence, I wonder whether his argument is hindered by his conflation of a number of substantially different theories. Van Wyhe relies on the same argumentative strategies in refuting the psychoanalytic theory of Howard Gruber as he does the traditionally historical theories of Desmond and Moore, Browne, and Quammen. While his own historical approach may be effective in refuting the latter theories which admit themselves to common standards of evaluation, such an approach may be ineffective in disputing Gruber’s psychoanalytic theory. Gruber, for example, offers a highly complex interpretation of Darwin’s motivations – motivations which may even be opaque to Darwin himself – which seems to evade much of Van Wyhe’s analysis. Whereas Gruber posits that Darwin’s dream of ‘a person was hung & came to life’ as a castration dream, Van Wyhe claims on the basis of surrounding textual evidence that Darwin’s recollection contained no evidence of fear. However, if Gruber’s psychoanalytic account is correct, than even Darwin’s self-reports, the driver of Van Wyhe’s analysis, may be unreliable. (We might even suppose non-psychoanalytic explanations which would render Darwin’s self-reports unreliable, eg. duplicity, etc.) Of course, the problem may very well lie with psychoanalytic theory – the evidence which Van Wyhe presents may provide reasons to doubt any interpretation which relies on a non-obvious theory of Darwin’s attitudes. However, what the example demonstrates is that even Van Wyhe’s rigorous refutation cannot completely settle the question of Darwin’s delay, no matter how compelling it may seem.

Those of you who are interested in history should read through the article and evaluate it for yourselves.

John Van Wyhe’s other publications are available here.

Ben Picozzi

How “Dumb” Are We?

2009-06-09T11:53:00.001-07:00

Evolutionary theory is not just a scientific theory but also a cultural phenomenon. American historian Peter Baldwin analyzes the stereotype of the United States as a ‘nation of God-fearing Darwin-haters’ in contrast to an enlightened and secular Europe. Baldwin concludes that this stereotype is largely inaccurate. While he concedes that Americans are less likely to trust science over religion in comparison to some European countries – a trend that extends to belief in mechanistic evolution – he deflates the notion that Europe as a cohesive whole is less religious and more scientific. In fact, some European nations, notably those with large Catholic populations, are comparable to or more religious than America. A smaller percentage of Americans consider themselves religious than the percentage of Portuguese or Italians; fewer profess belief in God than the Irish and Portuguese. Britain – which triumphantly proclaims its separation of church and state – nevertheless reserves several seats in its upper legislative body for members of the clergy. While Baldwin concedes that religion is, on the whole, more dominant in the United States than in Europe, this tendency can be explained away by economics. American churches are better financed than their European counterparts and thus better equipped to fulfill their members’ multifarious needs. Even proponents of creationism/intelligent design, often used to illustrate the strength of the American anti-science movement, he claims, are forced to make concessions to scientific methodology and articulate themselves in terms of scientific theory. Besides, he chastises, Europeans have their own anti-scientific parochialisms, notably their rejection of genetically-modified foods and vaccinations.

While Baldwin offers a compelling defense of American attitudes towards science, his triumphant conclusion is premature. Baldwin undeniably cherry-picks his statistics. Obviously the United States will compare better – perhaps even favorably – with countries like Ireland and Italy, which are steeped in centuries of tradition. That we are as anti-scientific as the most religious – or, from the scientific perspective, backwards – regions of Europe is not a reason to celebrate American progressivism, but a reason to criticize those regions as equally regressive. Additionally, Baldwin’s claim that the creationism/intelligent design movement appeals to science because of the public respect afforded science misses the point. Of course Americans support ‘science’ much in the same way they support ‘truth’ or ‘goodness’. The problem is not that they do not place a value on science, but that they do not understand what scientific beliefs entail. This is the reason why creationism/intelligent design gain so much traction in the popular imagination despite their dubious scientific credentials. But perhaps this criticism of Baldwin is overly harsh. He is, after all, offering a defense of America to a European audience. If his aim is to present a case for American scientific beliefs, then he has failed. If however, he merely intends to challenge Europe’s ongoing infatuation with itself at the expense of its Transatlantic cousin, then perhaps his article has some merit. Either way, it is worth the read.

In addition to an analysis of America’s scientific beliefs, Baldwin’s article also extends to other common social criticisms of the United States including welfare, health care, etc.

Ben Picozzi

Chimps mentally map fruit trees

2009-06-09T04:17:00.001-07:00

http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8086000/8086246.stm

Chimps are amazing.

Current research being conducted on chimpanzees living in The National Park of the Cote d'Ivoire suggest one overarching principle: chimpanzees possess immensely brilliant cognitive abilities.

Studying chimpanzee's navigation abilities to food sources, observations indicate that chimpanzees are able to locate a single tree from among 12500 trees that, to human perception, look more or less identical. The trees that they approach were not usually ones that visibly appear most abundant, but ones that over time, prove to have the rarest best fruit and consistent productivity. Interestingly, chimps traveled directly to these trees, ruling out the possibility that they used purely spatial or olfactory memory to cognitively map their locations. Furthermore, the chimps would visit these fruit trees on a consistent and regular schedule. The visitation schedule further indicated that the chimps were able to recall when the fruits on the trees would be in season and thus encouraging them to travel longer distance, albeit directly, to reach bountiful, in-season trees rather than less productive ones in closer proximity. Such behavior suggests that outstanding navigating abilities to food sources are innate in chimpanzees.

The study was conducted by first, mapping the location of 12500 in the The National Park forest. Then, specific chimpanzees were tracked and their food scavenging paths were tracked and mapped as well. Specific information to the type and season of the trees as well as the gender and age of chimpanzees were also records in hopes of finding some correlation among them. Compiling the data revealed chimpanzee's intriguing and astounding food scavenging abilities and behavior.

Personally, wow. I'm always amazed by the innate behavior of other species that humans can't match. The belief that we are the most dominant species pervades our society yet there are certain abilities of animals and plants that I believe we just can't replicate, no matter how much we advance our technology. Or even if we are able to replicate it using science and technology, a lag would still exist between its efficiency and that of the animal's innate ability.

My personal question for this study is how long these abilities have been around for and how much they have developed in regards to a specific period of time. This is a consistent thought I have when I hear about awesome findings in behavioral sciences. It would be so interesting to discover that this is a newly attain ability for the chimpanzees and that forces of nature or the unexplainable, metaphorically speaking, just dealt them an awesome hand.

Regarding the actual experiment, I am impressed by its comprehensiveness and the environmentalist part of me is excited to learn about yet another reason to protect our forests and wildlife. By using the entire National Park as the laboratory, the experiment indirectly maintains the surveillance and protection of the forest from loggers. By monitoring the monkeys, poachers are kept at bay to some extent. This study disproves the notion that animal rights and scientific research generate nothing but exploitation at the cost of the former.

-Teresa

Baby Apes Shed Light on the Evolution of Laughter

2009-06-09T04:16:00.000-07:00

http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/science/2009/june/Baby-Apes-Shed-Light-on-the-Evolution-of-Laughter.html
Study Report: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VRT-4WFHK7G-5&_user=126524&_coverDate=06%2F04%2F2009&_rdoc=1&_fmt=full&_orig=search&_cdi=6243&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000010360&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=126524&md5=7213143a34f92de5df75a55cfaec0e76#sec2

Continuing my primate-themed series of new & hots...

Laughter similarities among various types of primates supports evolutionary notion of a common ancestor. Researchers have been recording the tickle-induced giggles of various primates (humans included) and have discovered significant similarities among them. They draw several conclusions from mapping out the acoustics of the laughters and then comparing them. First, emotions originated from a common primate ancestor. Second, gorillas and bonobos possess the ability to control their breathing, one thought to be the key trait allowing humans to speak articulately.

I'm a little skeptical about the study. Exactly how many other species have researchers attempted to tickle and record their reactions? Primates, physically and genetically, are most resemblance to us so up and coming discoveries of new similarities between us and them hardly surprise me. Sometimes, I wonder if these primate-human-linking studies are conducted with the specific purpose to support evolutionary concepts. This follows a line of 'we are more closely related to monkeys than we thought" themed scientific studies. I would be more awed if similar discoveries were made in some species highly divergent from human beings.

Another question I have is exactly how laughing pertains to survival and natural/sexual selectivity. Or, if laughing only comes as a result of the ability to control breathing, does that mean that laughing is an unprecedented development or some sort of natural phenomenon? After reading the study report, I can understand the claim that laughing indicates a common primate ancestor, but I think I definitely need more data and argument before I can accept this recent discovery as evidence in favor of a full-out validity of evolution.

-Teresa

More about the evolution of human behavior: warfare and the rise of altruism

2009-06-09T04:05:00.000-07:00

Hey all,

Here is another recent study from Science magazine looking at the evolution of human behavior, this time looking at warfare and the resulting group selection as a possible mechanism for the rise of the uniquely human trait of altruism. Darwin himself remarked on warfare's role in the evolution of human behavior; in The Descent of Man, he remarks that "a greater number of courageous, sympathetic and faithful members, who were always ready to warn each other of danger, to aid and defend each other...would spread and be victorious over other tribes." (156) It seems that Darwin saw in warfare a way to select for altruistic traits like compassion and self-sacrifice, an implication that is at the heart of this study.

Samuel Bowles, a researcher at the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico, wanted to see if frequent warfare could drive group selection for altruistic traits in human behavior. Despite the controversy surrounding the archaeological and ethnographic evidence regarding intergroup conflict between hunter-gather groups and their implications, he decided to use the information available and mathematically model the relationship between warfare and selective pressures targeting altruistic behavior. He plugged in data derived from ethnographic and archaeological evidence regarding warfare between different groups of hunter-gatherers into mathematical models of human evolution and competition. Such a method basically is looking at the survival probability of a gene promoting self-sacrifice in future generations. The results seems to suggest that warfare can allow for the passing on of genes with a higher self-sacrificial cost (about 10 percent more) compared to an analogous situation without warfare. According to Boyle, this is more than enough to influence the evolution of human behavior, allowing for the advent of altruistic traits not possible otherwise.

The Economist posted an informal assessment of both Bowles' study and the cultural sophistication study I posted last week. The article brings up a number of concepts related to Bowles' work, including the outdatedness of group selection/'good-of-the-group' mentalities and the the rise of alternative explanations regarding gene versus gene selection. Gene versus gene selection basically focuses on the interests of particular genes rather than groups; a major example is Richard Dawkins' "selfish gene" theory that stands at odds with group selection.

Again, such studies on the origins of human behavior are very speculative at best, as they are reliant on incomplete data and mathematical models. Regardless, Bowles presents an interesting theory on the evolution of human behavior that raises pertainent questions regarding whether or not social interaction in general has an effect in promoting human behavior evolution and (if so) if forms of social interaction less extreme than warfare can affect evolution of behavior.

Link to Economist article: http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13776964
click for direct study link

-Andrew Plan

Book Review: Browne's "Origin" Biography

2009-06-06T04:53:00.000-07:00

Darwin’s Origin of Species: A Biography by Janet Browne is a fantastic introduction not just to the Origin but to Darwin’s entire life. Through descriptions of the influences, encounters, setbacks, and controversies leading to the Origin's publication, Browne succeeds in painting a complete picture of both Darwin and his most famous book.

Incredibly well-written, clearly organized, and fast-moving, Browne’s book is a pleasure to read—a rare find (for me, at least) in a historical biography. She’s successful largely because she approaches the story of the Origin from a reader’s perspective, connecting present-day understandings of the book to the Victorian context in which it was originally received. She connects Darwin’s societal impact to that of other well-known thinkers like Marx and Malthus, and ultimately, through those connections, makes a good case for the book’s ongoing significance as a story of the “modern world.”

Like we’ve done in class, Browne takes a “paradigm” approach to her discussion of the Origin, examining the book through the lenses of Darwin’s childhood, intellectual influences, and writing process; as well as the historical times, and the structure of the Origin, itself.

The first section of Browne’s book explores Darwin’s childhood up through his time on the Beagle—his surprisingly average life, as well as his unique influences, particularly his interactions with some of the great geologists, botanists, and biologists of the era.

Browne sets the Origin in its Victorian context, where “apes or angels, Darwin or the Bible” were “burning topics.” As Darwin was writing the Origin, England was entrenched in social conflicts—there was tension between workers and masters; England’s rural past and its burgeoning industrial cities. Fear of revolution and unease about threats to the status quo made evolution a risky topic. Other figures like Marx and Malthus were developing new social theories that overlapped with Darwin’s biological ideas.

She describes the evolution of Darwin’s own ideas as he constructs the Origin; his progression of insights; the series of notebooks he used; his debate over how controversial to be—for example, whether to include a discussion of human evolution in the book.

Because of her attention to detail, Browne is able to debunk a lot of common Darwin-myths, providing readers with a more nuanced understanding of the man and his book. This was the first book I read on Darwin, so I was surprised to learn (for example) how influenced he was by creationists like William Paley and Asa Gray.

One of the most interesting myths I think Browne debunks is the myth of opposition to the Origin because of its challenge to the literal story in Genesis. On the contrary, explains Browne, people during Victorian times were mainly OK with a metaphorical interpretation of Genesis. “The real challenge of Darwinism for Victorians was that it turned life into an amoral chaos displaying no evidence of a divine authority or any sense of a purpose or design.” It is only today that the literal interpretation of Genesis has become important to proponents of creationism.

I was also interested to learn about the initial controversy between molecular genetics and Darwin’s theories, which were seen to be at odds for some time until they were eventually synthesized. The fact that people could see the two as incompatible—something kind of unthinkable to us today—gives great insight into the perspective people had during Darwin’s times, and makes us wonder about the similar “mental blocks” we may have in our own scientific outlooks.

Despite the book’s many merits, I think it is important to take it as an interpretation of Darwin’s work, of which there are many. Browne, for example, seems to suggest that Darwin delayed publishing the Origin due to a critical intellectual climate; we know that John van Wyhe thinks otherwise. We also know that Browne took Darwin’s assertions in his autobiography to heart, which seems a dubious decision, considering how long after the fact he wrote them.

Overall, Browne’s book was a fantastic introduction to Darwin’s life and most famous work. It was a fast read that gave me a baseline understanding, and helped me generate more detailed and informed questions for further research.

Anne

Urbanization and adaptation

2009-06-06T02:01:00.000-07:00

For evolutionary biologists, some of the most obvious (and interesting) selective pressures in the world today are those created by humans as we alter land for agriculture and urbanize our cities. An increasing number of studies are exploring the reasons that animals function, or fail to function, in new, human-imposed environments.

Some classic examples of urban adaptation—the industrial-revolution moth in the UK which turned from white to black (and now back again) in response to levels of pollution—clearly show adaptation on the part of an animal in response to a human-applied pressure.

Many studies, however, suggest that pre-existing characteristics, not active adaptation, have made it possible for species to function well in urban environments. This reasoning makes more sense the longer an animal’s reproductive cycle becomes, and the fewer generations they’ve had to reproduce and select for particular mutations. (As we’ve discussed in class, this sort of random generation of variation, and selection for beneficial traits, takes astonishing amounts of time—often much longer than the timespan of human urbanization).

A study this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences examined urban mockingbirds’ ability to adapt to an urban environment by dealing with human threats to their nests.

In the study, the same human (dressed in different clothes every day) approached and “threatened” mockingbird nests on four consecutive days. When sufficiently threatened, the mockingbirds would “flush” or fly out of their nests, and send out alarm calls in response to the human threat. Each day, they did so earlier, when the human was a greater distance from the nests. On the fifth day, a new human threatened the nests. Rather than alarm-calling from a still greater distance, the new human provoked the same response as the first human on day one.

According to the authors of the study, “these results demonstrate a remarkable ability of a passerine bird to distinguish one human from thousands of others.”

Other studies have conducted similar experiments. A 2007 paper in Biology Letters compared urban and rural birds all over the world, and found that “urban birds had markedly broader environmental tolerance than rural [birds].” That is, urban birds had the ability to live at a much broader range of latitudes and altitudes. They hypothesized “behavioral, physiological, and ecological flexibility” all contributed to that ability. For example, one bird species was able to adjust its singing volume in response to urban nose. Other urban birds have been found to have lower levels of stress hormones than their rural counterparts.

Both of these studies emphasize that it was existing adaptation that made these birds’ success possible. “we do not believe that mockingbirds evolved a specific ability to distinguish among humans,” explain the first study’s authors. “Rather, we suggest that mockingbirds’ perceptive ability and rapid learning predispose them to success in novel environments.”

As mentioned above, it makes sense to believe that birds (with their longer reproductive cycles) are probably predisposed to life in an urban environment, while we can actually see moths (for example) evolving to fit in with urban changes.

However, this is of course not actually an “either-or” distinction, pre-adaptation versus active adaptation. Both likely play into each situation. The birds are in the process of evolving, and the moths likely had some initial traits that made it possible for them to survive, at all.

To understand the true strength of urbanization from an evolutionary standpoint, it would be interesting to try to find some way to tease out fortuitous preadaptations from active changes (for example, in the birds). It seems like it would make the most sense to do this via an (extremely) long-term longitudinal study over many years, and probably in a bird species with the shortest reproductive cycle length possible. Doing this in multiple world areas with similar species might be an interesting way to measure the strength of human impact in different places.

Anne

Rooks use tools in the lab!

2009-06-05T16:47:00.000-07:00

An Economist article reported this week on research published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences showing that rooks, a member of the Corvidae family of birds, can use simple tools in a lab setting. They’ve never been observed doing so in the wild.

Researchers at Cambridge University placed food (a waxworm) on an out-of-reach platform. The birds could access the food by dropping a stone into a vertical tube, which provided enough force to “collapse” the platform, thus bringing it into reach (confusing, I know…see diagram).

The subset of successful rook-participants (four birds out of the twelve who were given an initial try) were then given more challenging tasks, such as figuring out how to drop a stick into a tube.

When researchers decreased the tube diameter, the birds figured out that they needed to select a smaller stone or stick in order to make the device work.

They were also able to select the right tool for a particular job: When given a stone that was too big to fit down a tube, for example, they selected a stick instead.

In later, more complex tests, rooks were able to use a “hook tool” to grab a bucket containing a waxworm. They were able to distinguish between different hook-like shapes and select the appropriate one for a job. Finally, they were tasked with creating their own hooks with which to extract the bucket. All four of the original rooks (Connelly, Monroe, Fry, and Cook) were successful.

According to the researchers, these later tests provide evidence of “insight,” or the “sudden production of new adaptive responses not arrived at by trial behavior,” because the rooks were able to transfer understanding of an original task to novel situations.

Much research has suggested that tool use is the main driver for the evolution of advanced physical intelligence. This study, claims its authors, contradicts that hypothesis. Rooks don’t use tools in the wild, yet they are able to use them when they need to, suggesting that tool use is simply a by-product of a more general “cognitive tool kit.” It is something that can be tapped into, depending on context.

Rooks’ “cognitive tool kit" may have developed because they are innovative in other ways in the wild—they’ve evolved the same general capacity as tool-users through other means.

To me, these two hypotheses seem more additive than contradictory. It makes sense that tool use has pushed the advancement of greater complexity in many animal species. But similarly, other complex, non-tool related actions—such as those performed by rooks in the wild—might push the same abilities. If different activities “push” animals in similar ways, it makes sense that they may develop similar types of complexity. I don’t think there’s a need for a war over tool use as a “driver” versus a more general “cognitive tool kit.” Many different activities, including tool use, probably drive changes in intelligence.

Displays of tool use in an increasingly broad range of animals should make us think about our current conceptions of intelligence. Multiple species of birds, for example, now appear to have out-performed chimps in a variety of tool-use tasks.

I think these experiments should also cause us to question our definition of “tool use,” and of tools as a marker of intelligence. As the Economist author notes, finding examples of animal tool use has become something of a “cottage industry” in the media. I’m not sure the connections we draw between different species' tool use acts are always as sound as we think. Are a rook that can create a hook out of wire, and a chimpanzee who can use a stick to procure food, really doing the same thing? To us, they are both "using tools," but cognitively, can we lump them together? I’m not sure. Perhaps fMRIs or other brain imaging techniques can or are exploring this question.

It seems like the next step for these researchers might be to change wild rooks' natural environments in an attempt to provoke tool use. (What would it take? How "close" are they?) This might provide more insight into the most unique aspect of this study--the fact that rooks are only tool-users in captivity.

Anne

Evolving Mosquitos in the Galapagos?

2009-06-05T13:03:00.001-07:00

-C . Paula de los Angeles

A recent paper published in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Scientists by the University of Leeds, the Zoological Society of London and Galapágos National Park reveals the untold story of the insects of the Galapagos, much less well-known than the archipelago's finches.

Aedes taeniorhynchus, a black salt marsh mosquito, is the only mosquito found throughout the Galapagos. The existence of this species calls into question the possible impact of mosquito-borne diseases. Genetic analyses revealed that the mosquitos were not recent immigrants to the arrival, but arrived around 200,000 years ago. Like the finches, these mosquitos have evolved the point where they can almost be considered a different species than the mainland variety.

Some interesting adaptations of the mosquito is that they can feed on lizards, tortoises, and other reptiles (while the mainland variety feeds mainly on mammals).

Researchers are concerned about the spread of pathogens such as West Nile virus and suggest pre-treating any form of transportation that comes to the Galapagos with pesticides.

In thinking about Darwin's explorations of the Galapagos, I wonder about the somewhat random selection of species chosen to study. Why finches? Why snails? What about the evolution and study of less obvious animals? Would our understanding of evolution be any different or less clear if we didn't have the clear prototype of the Galapagos finches? As always, I'm curios about the neglect of marine animals..

News article link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/science/02obskeeter.html?ref=science

A better way of dating human migration history

2009-06-05T05:27:00.000-07:00

Here's a cool article for those of you who ever wondered how researchers make such narrow estimates of the dates and duration of human migration patterns. A new methodological development made at the University of Leeds makes it possible to do more accurate dating of ancient human migration patterns, which has been a constant problem for researchers.

The most common method for dating such patterns is to analyze mutations in samples of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) in order to find the last common ancestor of any set of lineages. This method has problems, however, as natural selection affects the number of mutations observed in a family tree in phasing out deleterious ones, thus skewing any dating results from the mtDNA.

The new method, developed by Pedro Soares, utilizes a formula developed with the other researchers at Leeds to correct for this effect of natural selection in dating. Implementation of this formula has already yielded some surprising results -- humanity's out-of-Africa migration has been dated with this method to 60-70,000 years ago, 10-20,000 years earlier than the 50,000 years held by popular belief.

This method has a lot of potential for future research on ancient human migration; the improved accuracy means that dating of migration could be done without supporting archaeological evidence. Furthermore, there are many ongoing debates regarding when and how different populations settled, like my previous post on whether or not Native American ancestors migrated to the Americas as a single population or as multiple. Such debates now have a chance of being put to rest.

article link:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090604124023.htm
journal link:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2009.05.001

-Andrew Plan

An alternate perspective on the origins of human behavior, culture

2009-06-05T04:59:00.000-07:00

Here's an article that provides an alternative explanation to the various theories of the origins of culture and music that I presented on last week. It's especially interesting for all you Humbio folk saturated with the theories of Richard Klein. Results of a study done by scientists at University College London supports the idea of modern human behavior (which includes technology and culture) as arising from increasing population density, rather than a change in the human brain as Klein purports with his FOXP2-based theory.

According to Stephen Shennan at the UCL Institute of Archaeology, modern human behavior did not just appear in one area at one time but different areas at different times. In sub-Saharan Africa, features of modern human behavior like art date back to 90,000 years ago, much earlier than the 50,000 years ago Klein argued for. Furthermore, there is an absence of modern human behavior at around 65,000 years ago in sub-Saharan Africa, which is a discrepancy unexplainable by current genetic theories.

In order to discern why modern human behavior appeared in different places at different times, the UCL team created computer simulations of social learning. They found that high population density facilitates the exchange of skills and ideas and preserves new innovations from generation to generation, thus giving rise to modern human behavior. The researchers then examined genetic estimates of past population size in sub-Saharan Africa, Europe and the Middle East and found that their population densities were similar at the time of appearance of modern behavior.

This new model for explaining the origins of modern human behavior and culture is fascinating in that it suggests that innovation is driven by how well humans are socially integrated, not by sudden advances in brain power. On a very basic level, such a model is hard to dismiss regardless; even at school, we often see that it's not necessarily the brightest individuals who succeed, but the most resourceful and socially connected individuals. It raises interesting questions: Did we always have it in us to create the wheel? The computer? Did we just need a bigger society for more people to bounce ideas off of each other? Who knows, really -- we may not be getting very close to knowing for certain how we came to act the way we act, but there are a lot of cool paradigms out there for thinking about it.

article link:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090604144324.htm
journal link:http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1170165

-Andrew Plan

The Pace of Evolution

2009-06-03T17:22:00.000-07:00

A recent study of guppy adaptation has shed light on the rapidity of evolutionary change. Over the course of a few years, a population of guppies evolved quantifiable phenotypic changes with consequences for individual fitness and population dynamics. In the face of fast environmental change, the species that is able to adapt most quickly will thrive.

A research team at the University of California examined 200 guppies from Yarra River in Trinidad and introduced them into the previously guppy-free Damier environment. Some guppies were placed in an environment with no predators, while other guppies were placed in an environment with predators.

A mere 8 years after their introduction, the team found that “the females had altered their reproductive effort to match their surroundings.” Where there were predators, the females had altered their reproductive cycle to produce more embryos, thus increasing the chance that some would survive in a hostile environment. Where there were no embryos, the females had altered their reproductive cycle to produce fewer embryos, thus “expending fewer resources on reproduction.” (This latter adaptation coincides with the energetic definition of fitness, which emphasizes a maximal distribution of energy among food acquisition, metabolism, growth, reproduction, and survival.)

To test whether or not these adaptations conferred greater survival advantages, scientists introduced new Yarra guppies into the Damier environment. The guppies that had been there for 8 years were found to have a “significant survival advantage over the more recently introduced group.” In fact, the evolved guppies had a 54-59% increased survival rate over the un-evolved group after 13-26 generations.

These results correspond to earlier laboratory research on this subject, which has shown a promising increase in fitness of 1-10% per generation. The researchers noted, “The changes in survival in our study may initially seem encouraging from a conservation perspective, [but] it is important to remember that the elapsed time frame was 13-26 guppy generations. The current results may therefore provide little solace for biologists and managers concerned with longer-lived species.” Nevertheless, the research suggests that the bulk of the adaptive change occurred early on in an asymptotic fashion. More fine-tuned analysis is needed in order to disaggregate the effects of time and phenotypic change on individual fitness and population persistence.

For a brief synopsis of this study, see Science News.
For the official scientific publication of this study, see the American Naturalist.

-Alyssa Martin

Who’s Afraid? Evolutionary Science and the Media

2009-06-02T15:15:00.000-07:00

A recent paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences uncovered some interesting information on the Galapágos’ black salt marsh mosquito. The study found that the mosquito (Aedes taeniorhynchus) was not a recent arrival, as previously believed, but in fact, had migrated to the island chain over 200,000 years ago. Notably, A. taeniohynchus had evolved to feed on the blood of lizards, tortoises, and other reptiles rather than mammals, as is the case with the species on the mainland. What struck me about the discovery was not just that it involved an application of Darwin’s theory of natural selection in an location in which he famously studied, but how the media reacted to what seemed to be its rather mundane conclusions.

Tracking the article as it spread across the major outlets, I found that news of this discovery touched off a wave of hysteria in the newspapers as columnists proclaimed that the reptile-eating mosquitoes (see, the Guardian's "Galapagos Giant Tortoises Face Mosquito Threat" or Science Daily's "Mosquito Evolution Spells Trouble for Galapagos Wildlife") would threaten all sorts of ecologically-sensitive wildlife, including the Galapágos’ famous giant tortoises. In fairness, these fears were generated by the prospect of mosquito-borne diseases – although the actual risk of animal-borne diseases could also be debated – brought to the islands by the Galapágos’ surging tourist industry. However, whatever the rationale, the reaction demonstrates interesting aspects of the media’s relationship with the sciences and evolutionary science in particular. Reactionary fearmongering doesn’t seem to be the most prudent response. The threat isn’t particularly immediate. Whether or not the study had been conducted, the environmental risk would be the same, as it had been in some form for thousands of years. (Of course, it may decrease now, given that preservationists are aware of the threat posed by the mosquitoes.) Also interesting is how the newspapers chose to sell the story in human terms – several of the articles mentioned malaria, a human disease – after the recent scares involving zoonotic diseases, most recently swine flu. A curious decision given that the mosquitoes are newsworthy for their preference for reptiles.

Fortunately, the situation is not urgent, but it does demonstrate that there are significant problems with the manner in which evolutionary science is handled by the media, namely, its fixation on danger at the expense of the “scientific” aspects of the story. (The actual discovery itself is lost in the jumble of quotations.) This may be an unavoidable result of the divergence in interests – the media to its shareholders, science to whatever lofty or unlofty goals – but one can hope.

Ben Picozzi

Sex, Guns, and Evolutionary Psychology

2009-06-02T14:28:00.000-07:00

Well... 'sex' and 'evolutionary psychology', anyway. Aaron Goetz and Kayla Causey have jointly published the results of recent studies on sex differences in perceptions of infidelity. The studies found that men were significantly more likely to suspect infidelity than females – fifty percent of men versus twenty eight percent of women in the first study; seventy-four percent of men versus sixty-five percent of women in the second study. These results are consistent with the stereotype that men care more about the physical aspects of relationships, while women care more about the nonphysical, ie. emotional.

Goetz and Causey – whose other recent work includes an article on the “comprehensive understanding of partner rape” – hypothesize that this difference is attributable to the higher costs to males of infidelity than females. They list a variety of factors that could account for these higher costs, most revolving around reputational damage because of the stigma attached to cuckoldry. (Interestingly, they also listed sexually-transmitted diseases, which should be sex-blind, or in certain circumstances more disadvantageous to females.)

Those skeptical of evolutionary psychology – and I admit that I am one of them – will note significant shortcomings in methodology. Neither study was conducted to attract a diverse group of participants: the first study was advertised at a research portal on a university department website; the second study also drew from a pool of university students. While the studies’ results might demonstrate some profound truths about college dating, the conclusion that these differences are the result of “evolutionary” pressures seems to overstep the data. Rather than expressing any sort of biological differences, it seems that Goetz and Causey have uncovered the product of historical-cultural contingencies. Also notably, the researchers seemed quick to attribute their results to “design features” despite the notoriously opaque relationship between the physical structure of the brain and mental attitudes. However, they did not hypothesize exactly what sort of physical features would cause this difference in perception. While these concerns do not constitute a comprehensive rebuttal of the studies’ conclusions, they demonstrate that those conclusions should not be accepted unreflectively.

Interestingly enough, the journal also published a recent study on the magnitude of sex differences, which concludes that the gap between males and females with respect to personality traits and communications styles is wider than previously believed. (The study concludes that females are more prone to neuroticism.) Interesting in light of Paula's presentation two weeks ago, which was critical of evolutionary psychology, especially where sex was concerned.

Ben Picozzi

The Art of Making Faces from Fossils

2009-06-02T12:37:00.000-07:00

-C. Paula de los Angeles

I've always wondered how we get the human-like faces we see at museums from mere bones (i.e. the shrinking heads at the Pitt Rivers museum). It seems like each exhibit would just be the interpretation of an artist. In fact, there are such artists--paleoartists. An article in The New York Times details the life of one such artist, Mr. Viktor Deak. He is the mind behind many of the images of hominids at the American Museum of Natural Museum and the co-author of "The Last Human".

His latest work, a 78-foot long Photoshop collage mural of his own photos, detailing the life story of bones found in northeast Africa in the past 6 million years will be displayed in Manhattan this June, in addition to many other works in an exhibit entitled "Lucy's Legacy". In his interpretation, he used pictures from middle America and the Puerto Rican jungle to mimic the African landscape millions of years ago.

Mr. Deak's training includes art school and visiting the SUNY Downstate Medical School campus to dissect cadavers. His work is controversial in the same way that anything that deals with evolution, there are some people who still believe in a young Earth.

To which he replies, "I felt a chill of fear. I still do when I think about it. I’ve seen, sometimes firsthand, the evidence that came out of the ground. It’s terrifying that people can look at it and say, ‘It’s not there’ and believe in something that was just dictated to them.”

It seems as there are many opportunities for those interested in our history and evolution. Moreover, Mr. Deak seems to exemplify that there are many ways that we can believe or gain an understanding of a scientific theory, such as evolution, even through something seemingly unrelated, as art.

Check out his work here: http://www.anatomicalorigins.com
News article link here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/science/02prof.html?pagewanted=1&8dpc&_r=1

"Darwin's Sacred Quest" Book Review

2009-05-31T14:23:00.000-07:00

“Darwin’s Sacred Quest” Book Review

Adrian Desmond devotes about 470 pages to revealing what he believes is the secret truth to Darwin’s motivations for creating his theories of evolution and natural selection. While his theory that abolitionist tendencies and an inner moral compass that swings heavily toward black and white equality is what actually drove Darwin’s scientific work may be a large part of Darwin’s thought process, I don’t think Desmond gives enough credit to other facets of Darwin’s personality or moral upbringing. The entire book is well thought out, and shows Desmond’s evident extensive research into Darwin’s letters, his relatives’ writing, and other anecdotes regarding Darwin’s life. Also, Desmond’s ability to link Darwin to even the tiniest encounters or parallel paths to other abolitionists or even pro-slavery campaigners that may have challenged his beliefs is commendable. The book is essentially one giant anecdotal reference, which relies on name dropping and Desmond’s fantastic skills as a Darwin biographer. While the idea of Darwin as an abolitionist is interesting and probably worth fleshing out, this book might go well paired with a more traditional and less experimental viewpoint as a foil to its tome-size researching.

Enjoy!

Kaitlyn

Project Electric Eel

2009-05-31T13:55:00.000-07:00

Darwin wrote in the chapter, "Difficulties on Theory" in "The Origin of Species" that he could not explain why some unrelated fishes had electricity.

Modern scientists are now pushing for the sequencing of the entire electric eel genome, thinking that it will benefit energy production and storage and even tissue regeneration.

Electric eels, Electrophorus electricus, are able to generate bioelectricity from chemical food energy using their specialized electric organs that house electrically-charged cells with specially regulated ion channels and receptors. The eel can generate a range of electrical pulses from the millivolt level to as strong as 600 volts!

Unraveling the DNA code of electric eels is not just for kicks to acquire the information but apparently can also help produce DNA microchips for gene expression experiments. Understanding the electric eel's electricity facilitating genetics and physiology will also allow the development of biobatteries and even bioreporters that label cells with electricity rather than the light emission, such as green fluorescent protein! What would be the advantage of electricity over light I wonder? This could potentially be a Nobel-prize winning discovery just like GFP! Perhaps electricity can eliminate complications such as photobleaching, phototoxicity, imperfect transgene expression, etc.

Interestingly, the scientists who are pushing for this research claim that sequencing the electric eel genome coalesces well with efforts by the US Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute Community Sequencing Program to generate bioinformatics that of utmost scientific and societal importance "in organisms other than those related directly to human disease or traditional model organisms." I think this offers quite a fresh outlook to the purpose and significance of investigation. The electric eel may in fact be of some medical importance as well because it is able to regenerate its spinal cord after injury. Stem cells may be potentially harnessed for use in neurodegenerative diseases. Studying this fascinating organism's genome will be able to shed some light on its complex evolution and neurophysiology. Since Darwin did not have technology or DNA knowledge accessible to him at the time, he was thus probably unable to explain the electric eel evolutionary phenomenon. Side note - I remember discussing in class how it's absurd to say that Darwin would've gotten everything right if he had known everything we know today. I must say that the work on electric eels, which is still in its infancy, does reveal the difficulty all scientists, not just Darwin, have had with understanding the creature's unique features. I'm not saying that Darwin would've gotten everything right even with all the necessary pieces of knowledge in front of him - that would depend on how he interpreted the information! But anyway, sadly, the electric eel project was rejected because of the high price tag in the millions!
http://www.genomeweb.com/scientists-push-electric-eel-genome-research

-Bonnie Chien

Robots with fins, tails demonstrate evolution

2009-05-31T10:06:00.000-07:00

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h-OM7D-GWQnzYxnIHkC5l2ESariQD98G0Q901

Currently, a worldwide contingent of researchers and scientists are studying and testing various mechanism of evolution using state-of-the-art technology. This article looks at the current project being conducted on natural selection in the Vassar College biology and cognitive science department laboratories. In it, two swimming robots chase each other in a predator and prey manner. The prey robot, appropriately named Preygo, possesses customizable features (i.e. fin shape, fin size, body size/shape, etc.) that are carefully adjusted to see which set of traits provides it the highest probability of success in escaping the predator robot, Tadiator. Doing so, the researchers hope to mimic the process of natural selection.

The Vassar College experiments are just one of the many that employs robots to test the theories of evolution. As technology advances, so does the resemblance of the robots to the animals they're mimicking and likewise, researchers hope, the accuracy of their collected data. These developments can be found in the robotic cockroaches and geckos in Berkeley's integrative science lab, salamanders in Switzerland, and more fish in Harvard organismic and evolutionary biology lab. Research and development usually target a specific part of the animal, such as the fin or spinal column and use it for the dependent variable of their experiments. Then they set them loose in a simulated evolutionary scenario.

Technology can also create computer simulated evolutionary scenarios. However, the researchers said they don't prefer this method because there are some kinks in it that defy the law of physics. Either way, researchers seem extremely excited about the prospects and new information that the use of technology in evolutionary research can generate.

One question I have regarding these efforts is to the data's strength as evidence as support for either side of the heated evolution/creationism debate. It seems that the experiments identifies the most potent survival trait in various animals and researchers use the results to draw an inordinately strong correlation with the existence of natural selection. However, the results don't clarify what the origin of species is and so shouldn't be used in the debate. Another question I have regards the strength of the correlation scientists' draw. I personally feel that these types of experiments are always too physics based and cannot account for strange natural phenomenon. Likely, this very doubt of mine surfaces my belief in some sort of divine intervention. Anyway, specific to the experiments discussed in the article, I don't feel they have much use outside of intellectual, industrial, and military interests.

I think it's interesting that we have the technological mastery to artificially mimic natural selection and essentially, recreate evolution. Luckily, right now its only for the purpose of quelling our own curiosity towards our origin and experiments are conducted in a very controlled environment. However, I know I might be going on a tangent here, but as with all scientific endeavors towards understanding ourselves, there's a dangerous potential involved fit for sci-fi horror films. I wonder when they will recreate the experiment using human traits. When they do, then the door opens to the possibility of enhancing humans with superior predatorial characteristics. Anyway, I'm probably just being imaginative and excessively paranoid but I'm always wary of the fusion of biology and science.

-teresa

Book Review: Voyage of the Beagle!

2009-05-31T05:10:00.001-07:00

For the first several pages of Voyage of the Beagle, Darwin’s 22-year-old excitement for his impending round-the-world trip was infectious. I was swept along by his narrative, and excited to be reading about such a legendary journey.

“Delight…is a weak term to express the feelings of a naturalist who, for the first time, has wandered by himself in a Brazilian forest,” he writes during one of the Beagle’s first stops in Brazil. “The elegance of the grasses, the novelty of the parasitical plants, the beauty of the flowers, the glossy green of the foliage, but above all the general luxuriance of the vegetation, filled me with admiration. A most paradoxical mixture of sound and silence pervades the shady parts of the wood. The noise from the insects is so loud, that it may be heard even in a vessel anchored several hundred yards from the shore; yet within the recesses of the forest a universal silence appears to reign. To a person fond of natural history, such a day as this brings with it a deeper pleasure than he can ever hope to experience again.”

The Voyage, in those early pages, seemed more like a surprisingly well-written adventure novel than a journal. Each page was filled with Darwin’s boundlessly enthusiastic descriptions of new plants, creatures, and people.

But then it continued…and continued. Darwin’s prose, initially so fresh, soon took on an air of perpetual excitement that made my eyes glaze over. Detailed descriptions of flora and fauna, once endearing, became excruciating. As a lover of nature and biology, I felt almost bad that I couldn’t muster up Darwin’s continual enthusiasm for every. Single. Thing.

From a literary standpoint, then, I was disappointed to find the Voyage an almost unbearably boring read. As an historical artifact, however, I think it has immense value. It is a rare and kind of amazing thing that we’re able to read Darwin’s firsthand account of such a legendary event in biological (and world) history, and by going back to the primary source, we notice things that get left out of oft-repeated secondary and tertiary accounts.

Some of those are things we’ve discussed in class—the fact that Darwin spent relatively little time in the Galapagos, for example, or on the Beagle at all. He preferred to walk from port to port, and was actually onboard ship for only 533 days out of the nearly five years the Beagle was at sea.

Other things caught my eye, as well. We all think of Darwin as a curious person and a scientist at heart, but the Voyage makes it particularly clear what joy he took in undiscovered knowledge. He often poses questions—about how a specific animal functions, for example—and then (very happily, it seems) declares he has no idea what the answer might be. About a species of fish in Bahia, Brazil, he writes, “It emitted from the skin of its belly, when handled, a most beautiful carmine red and fibrous secretion, which stained ivory and paper in so permanent a manner, that the tint is retained with all its brightness to the present day. I am quite ignorant of the nature of and use of this secretion.”

Darwin is sometimes blatantly “unscientific.” He frequently personifies both the animals and plants that he finds, and even demeans them—as in the case of the Brazilian Tucotuco, which he describes as “very stupid.” Moments like this, I think, remind us that Darwin is incredibly young on the Beagle, still child-like, wondering about and reacting to the things he finds. In many ways that child-like curiosity never really leaves him, as we’ve seen in artifacts like the “weed garden” at Down House.

The Voyage also brings out Darwin’s complex attitude towards other races. This is often left out of secondary accounts of his life, where he's portrayed purely as a proponent of equality, arguing nobly against slavery with Captain FitzRoy.

Darwin does disapprove of slavery, and he feels sympathy for those who are oppressed. But he also looks down upon them: to Darwin, equality will come from the imposition of “civilized” culture on savage races. He concludes the Voyage by talking about “the march of improvement” through the uncivilized world, and the beneficial changes “effected by the philanthropic spirit of the British nation.” He writes that he believes the native people of South America to exist “in a lower state of improvement than in any other part of the world.”

Is the slog through Darwin’s prose worth it for a better understanding of these nuances? To me, that question is a broader one—about the value of primary sources, overall. Going back to original documents, although sometimes hard to access and harder to read, is the only real way to come to independent conclusions about an idea or event. And it's key to keeping old ideas alive and fresh. So, reading Darwin’s own words, although more time-consuming (and maybe painful) than skimming an expert’s summary of them, is how new reinterpretations and perspectives will emerge to keep Darwin’s works around for another 200 years.

Conclusion? Reading primary sources is important. But beware—the Beagle might be excruciating. Unless you are into pages-long descriptions of geological formations.

Anne

FOXP2 Gene Alters Sound Production in Mice

2009-05-28T17:22:00.001-07:00

-C. Paula de los Angeles

As discussed in class, FOXP2, a human gene thought to be involved in language, may provide clues as to how the brain or more specially, music developed. A recent study done by Dr. Enard of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig just published a paper in Cell on their findings of their newly genetically engineered strain of mice whose FOXP2 gene has been swapped out for the human version.

The insert of the human FOX2 gene changed multiple functions in the mice, including the sounds that mice use to communicate with each other. In fact, when these mice were isolated, they whistled at lower pitches. Dr. Enard confirmed that the human version of FOXP2 was a perfect substitute for the mouse version in all of the tissues except. Specifically, in the basal ganglia of the brain, these genetically engineered mice had more complexly structured nerve cells.

Perhaps, this study sheds greater light on the role of FOXP2 in language and brain development. Previous studies only concluded that a defect in this gene led to speech, articulation, and grammar problems. The expression of this gene in mice has great potential for future studies.

Primary article: http://www.cell.com/fulltext/S0092-8674(09)00378-X
News article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/science/29mouse.html?_r=1&ref=science

"Darwinism"

2009-05-26T22:00:00.000-07:00

Carl Safina wrote an interesting essay for the New York Times about how Darwinism Must Die So That Evolution May Live.

This article reminded me of a favorite Dr. Bob “myth”: Darwinism is not Evolution.

I thought that Safina’s essay made several good points, but one of it’s premises is that scientists are equating Darwinism and evolution. I would say that scientists are apt to honor Darwin and his ideas, but those who are less involved in science are the ones who propagate the idea that Darwinism = Evolution. If anyone realizes how far evolution has come from Darwin’s Origin, it’s scientists. If anyone realizes the importance of advances in the fields of genetics – which wasn’t even a part of the field of evolution during Darwin’s time – it’s scientists. I would argue that popular culture, religious debate, the general news media – really anyone BUT scientists – are responsible for equating Darwinism and Evolution.

These are some particularly notable lines/passages in the essay:

Charles Darwin gets so much credit, we can’t distinguish evolution from him.
…
Equating evolution with Charles Darwin ignores 150 years of discoveries, including most of what scientists understand about evolution.
…
Science has marched on. But evolution can seem uniquely stuck on its founder. We don’t call astronomy Copernicism, nor gravity Newtonism. “Darwinism” implies an ideology adhering to one man’s dictates, like Marxism. And “isms” (capitalism, Catholicism, racism) are not science. “Darwinism” implies that biological scientists “believe in” Darwin’s “theory.” It’s as if, since 1860, scientists have just ditto-headed Darwin rather than challenging and testing his ideas, or adding vast new knowledge.

-Lauren

Evolution of the Modern House Cat

2009-05-26T17:35:00.000-07:00

-Alyssa Martin

Why have cats become such a fixture in the human home when they have little to offer people in the way of survival? Most animals that have become domesticated served some purpose or another – sustenance, labor, clothing, etc. – and were pack-oriented and conducive to confinement. Recent studies on the evolution of the modern house cat have shed light on this curiosity, and have dispelled some of our misconceptions about the cat’s origins.

According to an article in the Scientific American, scholars originally believed that “the ancient Egyptians were the first to keep cats as pets, starting around 3,600 years ago.” Just as Darwin believed that the pigeons of England were descended from a common rock pigeon, scholars maintained that all domesticated cats descend from a common Felix silvestris or wildcat. Because the wildcat has emerged all across the Old World (from Scotland to Mongolia), oftentimes breeding freely with the domestic cat, scientists have had a difficult time uncovering the origins of the wildcat.

In 2000, a genetic team set out to solve this mystery by analyzing the DNA samples (mitochondrial and microsatellite) of “some 979 wildcats and domestic cats in southern Africa, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Mongolia and the Middle East.” The origins of the house cat would depend upon where the closest regional resemblance between wildcat DNA and domestic cat DNA could be established.

The results showed five genetic groupings or lineages, including the four wildcat subspecies “F. silvestris silvestris in Europe, F.s. bieti in China, F.s. ornata in Central Asia and F.s. cafra in southern Africa.” The fifth wildcat subspecies, F.s. lybica in the Middle East, also included all domestic cat DNA’s sampled. Clearly, domestic cats originated in the Middle East. Scientists were able to roughly establish when domestication occurred by examining the archaeological record, which showed that the first evidence of a pet cat emerged in Cyprus around 9,5000 years ago. Scientists inferred that cats must have been taken to Cyprus by boat from the Levantine coast; this suggests that “people had a special, intentional relationship with cats nearly 10,000 years ago in the Middle East,” or when the first civilizations emerged in the Fertile Crescent.

Because of the limited utility of cats for humans, it is likely that cats gravitated toward humans rather than vice versa. Scientists now believe that the emergence of the house mouse, Mus musculus domesticus, coincided with the emergence of the house cat, which was eager to exploit this development – “in the lingo of evolutionary biology, natural selection favored those cats that were able to cohabitate with humans and thereby gain access to the trash and mice.” As cats began dispensing with rodents, people probably saw the merit in keeping them (apart from their obvious aesthetic appeal).

Ultimately, domestication likely took thousands of years, as “the lack of human influence on breeding and the probable intermixing of house cats and wildcats militated against rapid taming.” It was not until Egyptian paintings from around 3,600 years ago that scholars were able to confirm full and robust cat domestication. In fact, the Egyptians were known for cat worship, as the cat goddess Bastet became the official deity of Egypt. Although Egypt tried to block the export of cats, cats were eventually propagated on grain ships and throughout the Roman Empire. Interestingly, “because no native wildcats with which the [domestic] newcomers could interbreed lived in the Far East, the Oriental domestic cats soon began evolving along their own trajectory.” This occurrence fostered genetic drift, which in turn led to the appearance of the very distinct Korat, Siamese, and Burman.

Breeding for particular traits did not occur among cats until relatively recently in the British Isles. In 1871, the “first proper fancy cat breeds—breeds created by humans to achieve a particular appearance—were displayed at a cat show” in London. A closer look at the cat genome has begun to reveal the origin of certain traits like tabby patterning, coloring, hair length, etc. Despite the people-friendly evolution and domestication of the cat, the domestic cat still retains many features of the wild cat. However, a couple traits have evolved to fit the domestic cat’s new lifestyle: shorter legs, smaller brain, and, as Charles Darwin observed, a longer intestine adapted to digesting kitchen scraps.

Darwin's Great Great Granddaughter Resigns as Oxford's Female Professor of Poetry

2009-05-25T21:03:00.000-07:00

-C. Paula de los Angeles
Although we witnessed Ruth Padel, Darwin's great great granddaughter make history as she was the first woman to be awarded the selective professorship of poetry at Oxford (started in 1708) last week, we can't applaud just yet. Previous winners include W.H. Auden and Seamus Heaney. The award of her prestigious professorship was shocking not only because she was the first woman, but because she won over Nobel-laureate winner Derek Walcott (This is not to say that Padel was not also recognized as a great poet, as she has won many national awards). Walcott withdrew from the race after Pandel leaked to the media that a previous Harvard student of Walcott's made sexual allegations against him in the 1980s. After The Sunday Times published emails that she had sent to the media, Padel has decided to resign.

Scandal! I wonder how this act may change how people view her poetry on Darwin...

News article link: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/05/25/books/AP-EU-Britain-Poetry-Professor.html?em

Sample of Padel's poetry:
The Miser

(from Chapter One: Boy (1809-1831)

The passion for collecting, which leads a man to be a miser, a virtuoso, or a systematic naturalist, was very strong in me. It was clearly innate. None of my sisters or brother had this taste.

Darwin, Autobiography

Cross the Welsh Bridge out of town, go up the hill
on Frankwell Street and you'll see, above the Severn,
brick pillars with the sandy bloom of an ageing dog.
Around the back, Father's surgery and waiting-room.

Outside, the Stable Yard: hay chutes, a piggery and toolshed.
Lower down, a bothy on the river bank
where plates of jagged ice, harvested in winter from the river,
lean one against the other. A dairy, where these blocks are dragged

to cool the milk and cream. The Quarry Pool
where he fishes for newts and tadpoles.
Collecting: to assert control
over what's unbearable. To gather and to list.

'Stones, coins, franks, insects, minerals and shells.'
Collect yourself: to smother what you feel,
recall to order, summon in one place;
making, like Orpheus, a system against loss.

(Editor's note: Darwin's father was an affluent doctor. The estate of his house, The Mount, bordered the River Severn)

Making faces may have been adaptive

2009-05-25T13:29:00.000-07:00

Apparently, faces of fear and disgust are polar opposite expressions and seemed to have been the first few facial expressions to have evolved. They may have evolved for the purpose of moderating sensations and external physiological experiences in the environment. In an article in Nature magazine in 2008, researchers state that fear can be used to monitor and scrutinize the surrounding - flared nostrils and widened, terrified eyes may be able to take in more of the environment in both the visual and olfactory sense. In contrast, when feeling disgust, the nose crinkles naturally to impede nasty odors that may be harmful. Eyes squint so that less of a disgusting scene is taken in. This is very interesting to me as I never thought of fear and disgust as polar opposites; they often come hand-in-hand in everyday expression that I have assumed they complemented each other. There was also a contrast in air intake, which increased for fear and decreased for disgust. Air intake was interestingly measured with MRI. MRI images show that fear opens nasal passages while disgust closes them!

The above study was performed by Susskind and Anderson at the University of Toronto. They had participants feign expressions of fear and disgust to gauge relative eye opening sizes and visual fields. However, artificially and forcibly expressing these emotions for this experiment may not be the most ecologically valid approach. It's difficult to disentangle real fear/disgust being voluntarily experienced from the participants simply putting on an expression that they have been encultured/conditioned to produce as corresponding to those emotions.

This idea is definitely not new as Darwin himself discussed in the Expression of Emotions in Man and Animal that facial expressions actually were like shields to protect the person. They were not simply used for communication and conversation purposes. Modern researchers second this idea - expressions did not originate from language as expressions are not as variable as language, i.e. there are different words for anger but the expression of anger is shared. However, expression as language also helped with survival purposes as understanding one another's facial expressions likely cohered social groups and implicit communication could be exchanged. For instance, understanding and copying a terrified gaze on someone else's face can instigate another individual to do the same and become more vigilant of his/her surroundings to ensure survival. Then I wonder if different extents of making a face, i.e. if you made a huge facial expression of disgust, proffers any advantages... Also, I wonder why there would a need to copy expressions and why that's such a prevalent theme in adaptation when physiologically and physically, we're all more or less equally equipped to make the same expressions? If this ability is hard-wired to some extent, wouldn't it be somewhat out of voluntary and conscious control and arise spontaneously?

-Bonnie Chien

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/33290/title/Where_funny_faces_come_from

Book Review: Spent: Sex, Evolution and the Secrets of Consumerism by Geoffrey Miller & William Heinemann

2009-05-25T09:10:00.001-07:00

Darwin's birthday coincides with the premier of the film, Confessions of a Shop-a-holic. While this might appear to be two mutually independent events, authors Geoffrey Miller and Willian Heinemann beg to differ. Shopping, they attest, is an trait we have acquired in our evolution and plays significantly in out current methods of selecting the ideal partner. They tie together evolution and our developed consumer spending habits to assert that the latter "“makes us forget our natural adaptations for showing off desirable fitness-related traits." In other words, money has the ability override our sexual selection abilities by granting us the ability to purchase desirable traits! Luckily, Miller et. al. continues their theory by asserting, luckily, we --luckily-- have evolved concomitantly since the introduction of consumerism and now, we have the innate ability to detect these purchased and fake traits and override their appeal! He uses these theories, loosely based on Darwin's sexual/social selection findings, to explain the impact of consumerism in our lives.

Additionally, he advances his findings by using them to explain routine and normal consumer decisions. For instance, he assert that often, extra features on an consumer electronic device are not purchased for their technical use, but for their abilities to provide the consumer with a way to discuss those features in ways that makes them appear more intelligent.

In my opinion, the book is mostly geared towards marketers and others in the business industry who aim to attract others' affinity for a living. Those looking for a scientifically sound explanation of how evolution and consumerism evolved together and fit into our modern lives should look elsewhere. There's hardly any attempt at empirically proving the assertions in the book. It's quite loony at times. However, it was still highly interesting to see how Darwin's findings can be incorporated into out daily, modern lives. "Spent" was also a fun and entertaining read, albeit I remind you it wasn't super educational, read. I recommend it for the curious, the stags, and the marketers.

-Teresa

Researchers model super-strong fish jaws

2009-05-25T05:56:00.000-07:00

A new study reveals that Dunkleosteus terreli, a schoolbus-sized ancient fish, had one of the most powerful bites in history: its jaws exerted maximum forces of about 7,495 newtons, or half the weight of a VW beetle.

Today, only the great white shark and a few types of alligators beat out the Dunkleosteus for bite-force. Dunkleosteus is a better biter than any other reported fish species, as well as modern mammals like the spotted hyena, whose jaws are built to cut through bone. (T-rexes, according to models, still had a stronger bite than Dunkleosteus.)

Dunkleosteus is a species of placoderm—giant armored fish that lived during the Devonian period (415-360 mya). Placoderms provide an early and relatively well-preserved example of vertebrate jaw development, so studying their function may teach us more about the evolution of vertebrate feeding, in general.

Researchers based their computerized model of a Dunkleosteus jaw on a simple four-bar linkage mechanism—essentially four rigid rods connected in a square—combined with “landmark morphological data” (details from the actual fossils?). By analyzing their model’s skull and jaw movements, they were able to draw conclusions about the giant fish’s jaw speed, rotation, and force.

They found that Dunkleosteus opened its mouth by moving both its upper and lower jaw (most animals only drop their lower jaw). They also discovered that the fish had unusually high jaw-opening speed, and (as mentioned above) an incredibly strong bite.

This combination of characteristics means that Dunkleosteus could “potentially eat anything in its ecosystem, including other placoderms.”

Aside from being a badass animal with an awesome name, my interest in biodesign makes Dunkleosteus especially exciting to me. A fundamental problem in the world of human engineering is how to generate big forces efficiently. Animals, and natural selection, deal with the same issue. I think that a huge amount can be learned from these kinds of models, and from a better understanding of how natural selection has, over millions of years, “approached” the problems we deal with as humans today.

Read the "science news" article here; the abstract it references here; or an open-access article by the same authors here.

-Anne

The Onion on Evolution

2009-05-25T03:29:00.000-07:00

Rhino, Tickbird Stuck In Dead-End Symbiotic Relationship

(not an actual post...)
-Anne

Human Impacts on Species Evolution

2009-05-24T07:34:00.000-07:00

I find this article to be particularly interesting after reading The Origin.

New York Times writer Cornelia Dean briefly describes human involvement in the domestication and evolution of certain species of animals. Then she goes on to explain a “growing environmental problem – the way human predation is causing target species to evolve at younger ages and smaller sizes, their short-term benefit but to the long-term harm of the species.” Humans “impose mortality” at certain points during the life cycle on countless species of animals. With the development of fire, hunting, agriculture and development, humans have mastered the alteration of the natural landscape. J. Stanley Cobb, a lobster expert from the University of Rhode Island, articulates: “if we believe that natural selection has shaped the life history characteristics of a species, then we have to believe that a different mortality regime will affect life history.”

Examples:

With global warming, plants in the Rocky Mountains are relocating to higher – cooler – elevations.

Some trees, shrubs and flowers in New England are blooming weeks earlier than they did a century ago.

The inhabitants of the tide pools of Monterey Bay is changing as temperatures rise and certain plants and animals adapt – or fail to adapt – to the warmer waters.

Over fished cod have started reproducing at younger ages and smaller sizes. This type of behavior is also increasingly found in a range of other species: bighorn sheep, caribou, and ginseng plants.

This adaptation increases the likelihood of reproducing before being killed, but the change can actually be harmful in the long run. An environmental scientist at the University of Calgary, Paul Paquet explains: “It’s forced evolution. It’s not working to their advantage.”

How are some policy-makers responding to this human-induced evolution? In the West, some environmentalists are attempting to maintain the genetic diversity of deer, bears, and other animals through the use of tunnels and overpasses that allow them to “access their full range, even if it is now divided by highways.”

I don’t necessarily think that we should build tunnels to preserve the genetic diversity of deer, but it’s interesting to consider the impact that humans have on the evolution of other creatures.

Read the full article here.

-Lauren

Overdue Library Books?

2009-05-23T08:25:00.000-07:00

Hopefully not this overdue! Peter Dizikes reports that the Boston Public Library was stunned when Julie Geissler turned up at their doorstep with a first-edition copy of Darwin's On the Origin of Species. The book, overdue by over eighty years, is one of three first-edition copies owned by the Boston Public Library. (According to Janet Browne, around 1,100 first-edition copies were printed in total.) Dizikes speculates that the library was able to acquire multiple copies because the book was intended for general sale to the public, rather than limited to academicians. Although none of the Boston Library copies have acquisition records, Dizikes traces their inscriptions back to Robert Gordon Tatham, a respected London doctor, and Charles Lacaita, a member of the British Parliament and botanist. The book returned by Geissler contains no information about its origin.

Ben Picozzi

Discerning the origin of flowers

2009-05-20T05:28:00.000-07:00

The unexpected explosion of flowering plant species 130 million years has been a mystery to scientists, Darwin included. Researchers at the University of Florida have published findings from a study on the original gene regulatory program that produced the first flower on all flowering plant's common ancestor. They studied the genetics of two very different species of angiosperms, Arabidopsis thaliana, a common flowering plant used in plant genetics research, and Persea americana, a primitive flowering plant; their aim was to see if the genetic circuitry that gave rise to each species' flower had any differences. The results found that the Persea's flowers contained genetic relics, gene regulation instructions that would facilitate the transformation of cones into flowers.

This discovery lends further insight into the sudden onset of angiosperms in a previously gymnosperm-dominated world, suggesting a mechanism for how angiosperms could have directly descended from gymnosperms. Further research into this genetic circutry could assist scientists in manipulating the traits of plants so as to make them more resistant to drought or disease.

-Andrew Plan

Remember the Audio Guide at Down?

2009-05-20T04:50:00.000-07:00

Apparently, Ruth Padel's poetry is good enough to land her a professorship. Padel, Darwin's great-great-granddaughter was elected the first female professor of poetry at Oxford univeristy after then-frontrunner, Darek Walcott withdrew from the competition. Quite an accomplishment.

For those who missed the audio guide, you Padel's poetry of Darwin is collected in her recent publication, Darwin: A Life in Poems. The themes of her poetry is drawn directly from Darwin's writings. For example, ""Vegetation he's never seen, and every step a new surprise. / New insects, fluttering about still newer flowers. It has been / for me a glorious day, like giving to a blind man eyes" is derived from Darwin's exclamation that seeing the South American jungle was "like giving to a blind man eyes".

Hopefully, Darwin would have approved!

Ben Picozzi

Where Darwin Went Wrong

2009-05-20T04:35:00.001-07:00

Richard Dawkins talks with Paul Davies at the Origins symposium on a range of relevant topics, including Darwin and the Oxford climate (“I don't get to wear my Hawaiian print shirt at Oxford”). During the talk, Darwin emphasizes the shortcomings in Darwin’s understanding of evolution, notably, his failure to properly understand Mendelian heredity.

In a recent journal article, Jonathan Howard analyzes why Darwin failed to discover Mendel's laws of inheritance. After all, Mendel solved the puzzle from his monastery garden. Why couldn't Darwin? Howard argues that Darwin’s failure resulted from his commitment to the study of qualitative characteristics – height, weight, etc. – which provide a poor starting point for correctly analyzing heredity because their expression is controlled by multiple allelic systems as well as environmental factors.

Consequently, when Darwin published his theory of pangenesis, he completely missed the mark. In The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication (1968), Darwin attributes the expression of phenotypes to the accumulation of “pangenes” from all over the body in the germ cells of the parents, which are then blended together during conception. On Darwin’s view, this accumulation is a continuous process, which constantly updates rather than a discontinuous one – hence, his notorious acceptance of the Lamarkian belief in the inheritance of acquired traits.

While Howard’s argument is interesting and potentially plausible, he downplays the importance of Darwin’s research motivations, namely, his overwhelming interest in the natural selection. In fairness, Howard does make moves towards this conclusion. He notes that in The Origin Darwin does rely on principles of heredity for his argument, for example, the recovery of the wild type from two, seemingly distinct recessive mutants, however, he brackets the question of the principles of heredity since his interest lies solely in proposing “atavism” as evidence for evolution. Nevertheless, Howard quickly passes over these examples as support for his thesis.

Cf. Howard et al. “Why Didn't Darwin Discover Mendel's Laws?”Journal of Biology, 2009; 8 (2): 15

Ben Picozzi

Distant Relative of Primates and Man?

2009-05-20T02:52:00.000-07:00

NY Times: Scientists have recently found a highly preserved skeleton of a creature supposed by some to be the key to early primate evolution. "Darwinius masillae" or "Ida" is a 47-million-year old animal that is "about the size of a small cat," and "has four legs and a long tail." The level of detail experts have been able to glean from her skeleton is astonishing; we can infer her diet, which was primarily composed of leaves and fruit in a rainforest environment. Jens Franzen of the Senckenberg Research Institute in Frankfurt, Germany believes "Ida" is like a distant aunt, and can tell us much about what anthropoid ancestors looked like a long time ago.

While some are hailing the discovery as a breakthrough in early primate evolution, some are a bit more skeptical. K. Christopher Beard of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh made the following remark: ''I actually don't think it's terribly close to the common ancestral line of monkeys, apes and people. I would say it's about as far away as you can get from that line and still be a primate." Rather than a long-ago aunt, Beard says, "I would say it's more like a third cousin twice removed."

If you're interested in learning more about this creature, there will be an upcoming special on the History Channel featuring "Ida."

-Alyssa

In Search For the Next Darwin

2009-05-18T17:36:00.001-07:00

-C. Paula de los Angeles

Wonder why we saw so many school children while we are at the Kew?

Kew Gardens is in search for the next Charles Darwin and has created The Great Plant Hunt in collaboration with the Wellcome Trust to get primary school children excited about nature.

To commemorate Darwin's bicentennial birthday, the Kew is sending the UK’s 22,000 state maintained primary schools "a treasure chest full of free resources to be used in the classroom, online and in the great outdoors".

Wow!

http://www.kew.org/press/great_plant_hunt.html

Human Evolution and Costly Signaling

2009-05-18T16:42:00.000-07:00

-C. Paula de los Angeles

Evolutionary psychologist, Dr. Miller believes that humans employ "costly signaling" such as having a Harvard degree or a BMW just as a peacock may use his ornate tail, as outlined in his new book: “Spent: Sex, Evolution and Consumer Behavior.”

While some may argue there are other reasons for attending Harvard or owning a BMW or iPhone, Miller argues that, ultimately, they are for signaling one's fitness, a way to demonstrate intelligence or one of the Big Five personality traits: openness, conscientiousness, agreeableness, stability and extraversion.

Interesting quote: “We evolved as social primates who hardly ever encountered strangers in prehistory,” Dr. Miller says. “So we instinctively treat all strangers as if they’re potential mates or friends or enemies. But your happiness and survival today don’t depend on your relationships with strangers. It doesn’t matter whether you get a nanosecond of deference from a shopkeeper or a stranger in an airport.”

Question: How does sexual selection work at the human level?

NYTimes article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/science/19tier.html?ref=science

Cooking is responsible for human evolution?

2009-05-18T15:37:00.000-07:00

Harvard primatologist and anthropologist Richard Wrangham’s new book will hit bookshelves on May 25. In Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human, Wrangham theorizes that the evolutionary success of humans was originally the result of mastering fire and using it to cook. In the past, scientists have said that tools and meat consumption lead to the development of modern man. According to Wrangham, our ancestors began cooking about 1.8 million years ago, and this lead to a more nutritious diet that required less eating time. Cooking also lead to a rich diet that shaped the human body, and lead to the development of the large brain.

I like this theory – it seems logical enough, although I’d have to read the book for myself to determine whether Wrangham makes a sound argument. I don’t believe there is archaeological proof that humans made fires 1.8 million years ago, and this is troubling because it seems like Wrangham’s argument requires that we assume this to be true. The absence of evidence does not disprove Wrangham’s theory, but it makes me consider his point of view with a critical eye an cautious mind.

-Lauren

On Science Jargon

2009-05-18T05:31:00.001-07:00

I was reminded of our conversations last Thursday by the first few paragraphs of this article. It discusses the various science jargon used to describe research efforts, and the interesting arguments that arise from the uses of semantics and the importance of word choice in scientific literature and the scientific community.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/life/45270017.html

Enjoy!
Kaitlyn

Digging for Darwin-NY Times Essay

2009-05-17T18:29:00.000-07:00

-C. Paula de los Angeles

A New Hampshire resident returned a first edition of On the Origin of Species to the Boston Public Library, overdue for 80 years!

Only around 1,100 first editions were published.

Those who have reported owning this edition include: "an intellectually curious member of the Victorian bourgeoisie, the unusual family story of an Italian exile in England, the agony of the Great War, the rise of American wealth and collecting, a Rhode Island scholar’s quiet bibliophilia, and a New Hampshire woman’s matter-of-fact generosity".

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/books/review/Dizikes-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&em

We ate the cheddar man?!

2009-05-17T11:45:00.000-07:00

An article in the Journal of Anthropological Sciences, reported on in the UK Guardian, argues that Neanderthals may have gone extinct because they were eaten by modern humans.

The hypothesis is based on discovery of a Neanderthal jawbone that appears to have been cut in the same way as the bones of deer that were consumed by early humans.

"Neanderthals met a violent end at our hands and in some cases we ate them…for years, people have tried to hide away from the evidence of cannibalism, but I think we have to accept it took place," said the (maybe overenthusiastic?) Fernardo Rozzi of Paris's Centre National de la Récherche Scientifique.

The discovery will certainly be met with much opposition from scientists with other (less-violent, but less interesting) theories—ie, Neanderthals were more susceptible to climate change, or couldn’t compete for food as effectively as humans.

mmm, cheddar men.

Anne

2 links...

2009-05-17T11:04:00.000-07:00

The New York Times's science section currently has an interactive(-ish) feature on the Origin of Species, with overviews of Darwin's different arguments and commentary by current scientists. Could be a good resource for presentations?

Here's the link to the 200th anniversary debate between Dawkins and former Bishop of Oxford Richard Harries--I think meant to re-create the famous Huxley/Wilberforce debate, but ends up being a (civil) discussion about the roles of religion and evolution. Kind of long (1 hr) but interesting!

Anne

Primate-lemurs!

2009-05-17T08:41:00.000-07:00

A May 16 New York Times article and a May 15 Wall Street Journal article reported on the discovery of fossilized remains from a “primate-lemur,” living 47 million years ago during the Eocene period.

Researchers believe it’s a candidate for placement in the human ancestral line. Although the fossil is lemur-like in most ways, it lacks several key features that monkeys, apes, and humans also lack--like a “tooth comb” (a tooth for fur-grooming) and a grooming claw.

During the Eocene period, there were two ape-like groups—tarsidae (ancestors of the tarsier) and adapidae (ancestors of the lemur). We’re not sure which of these groups gave rise to monkeys, apes, and humans. This discovery lends support to the less-popular belief that our ancestors were adapidae, rather than tarsidae.

The fossil, found in the Messel Shale Pit in Germany, is incredibly well-preserved: its stomach contained an identifiable meal (of fruit and leaves), and it was possible to see impressions of fur and soft body tissue.

That site has been the source of other well-preserved fossils, and made me wonder about the environmental conditions that make preservation possible. How rare are they? How many remains have we likely lost due to poor conditions for fossilization? I imagine we might have an entirely different picture of human history right now if our pattern of fossil discovery had been different.

The fossil is quickly becoming a star of the evolutionary world: it’s getting news conferences, a History Channel feature, a display at the American Museum of Natural History, and a book. This made me think about the economics of fossil-discovery, and the hype surrounding such a popular scientific topic. As Dawkins points out in “The Blind Watchmaker,” people are attracted to evolution (rather than, say, quantum mechanics) maybe because it appears so simple and accessible. To what degree is that accessibility exploited in the hype surrounding new fossil discoveries?

Anne

Human Nature Commonalities

2009-05-16T04:39:00.000-07:00

Rather than a hot news, this is more of a reflective thought...
We are all familiar with Paul Ekman's study of going around the world to primitive human communities and asking them to identify facial expressions of emotion. Although he sought to prove Darwin wrong that "the chief [emotional] expressions exhibited by man are the same throughout the world", he actually came back acceding that Darwin had a point. Other similarities across human civilizations include the cross-cultural tendencies to form communities, pay attention to kinship relationships, use language to communicate, socialize, and even adorn their bodies! Even more peculiar is that many languages use a word similar in meaning to "small person" to describe the iris (as English does too). Perhaps this relates to the shared belief that the pupil offers a small portal to the viewer of his/her reflection, hence "small person."

I am rather a appreciator of evolutionary psychology and following from my weekly observations and book review trying to instill hope in the field, I've found a niche for evolutionary psychology here in universal human traits!

So yes there are numerous traits that appear to be universal in humans as identified by researchers such as Paul Ekman, Donald Brown (who wrote "Human Universals"). However, anthropologists and evolutionary psychologists are now looking into the oddities and differences in human nature rather than the universals to shed light on the universals! Specifically, researchers have looked at cultural malleability in addition to genetic, biological predispositions. For instance, although even chimps have been shown to respond to the ultimatum game similarly as humans; i.e. they will perform 'altruistic punishment' and punish free-riders who parasitize the efforts of others, not all human societies in fact behave like this to the same degree. Many of our current misconceptions and overestimations of universality come from WEIRD subjects (I like this acronym!): westernized, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic.

So, I think the efforts of these evolutionary psychologists can be directed towards answering some of the questions we discussed in class on Wed, about whether science and religion can address similar issues such as morality. Jonathan Haidt, of the University of Virginia in Charlottesville and Craig Joseph, of Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois argue that evolution has favored human consideration of five social/moral issues: "fairness and justice; avoiding harm to and caring for others; in-group loyalty; social hierarchy and respect for authority; and the domain of divinity and purity, both bodily and spiritual." As the scientific underpinnings of these weighted values become clearer, I suppose science will be able to justify moral fortitude in humans without recourse to religion propounding God's grace in instilling this capacity based on his own image in human beings. Perhaps science will be able to explain the mechanism of our ability to absorb and enact ever-changing cultural norms and reconcile with religion that purports an external authority (god) serving as our moral compass. Well, maybe our cultural environment is that moral compass.

-Bonnie Chien
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090211/full/457780a.html

“Energetic Definition of Fitness” and Slower Snails

2009-05-13T05:43:00.000-07:00

Traditional definitions of Darwinian fitness emphasize reproductive design and adaptability to environment. The “energetic definition of fitness” emphasizes the distribution of energy among the following activities: food acquisition, metabolism, growth, reproduction, and survival.

Coinciding with the energetic definition of fitness, it appears that evolution is actually slowing snails down, leaving them more energy for other tasks. A BBC News article noted, “It is the first time that evolution has been shown to select for [lower metabolism] in individuals of any species.” Why would nature select for such a trait? According to evolutionary biologist Roberto Nespolo, “Animals that spend less energy [on maintenance] will have more surplus for survival and reproduction.”

Nespolo is currently conducting studies on this topic, and has found “significant directional selection on metabolism.” His team measured standard metabolic rate – the “minimal amount of energy an animal requires to stay alive” – by gauging the amount of carbon dioxide produced by each snail at rest. In a sample of 100 snails, Nespolo found that after seven months, the surviving snails had a 20% lower metabolic rate than those who failed to survive.

Even still, Nespolo’s team must now answer the question: “is having a slow metabolism linked to moving slowly?” The relationship between these two variables is critical to understanding what’s being selected for and snail energetics.

-Alyssa Martin

“Missing Links”

2009-05-13T04:02:00.000-07:00

How did mammals evolve from sea to land and back again? An article in The San Francisco Chronicle discusses the discoveries that have been made thus far with regard to intermediate sea-land links. One of the preeminent discoveries in this field was the discovery of Tiktaalik roseae:

“Tiktaalik was clearly a fish with scales, gills and fins, but at the ends of its fins were bones suggestive of developing fingers and toes. At the base of its fishlike head were bones found in land animals with flexible necks; its ribs were much more broad and robust than those of today's fish, and its flat head had eyes on top – much like those of crocodiles. Its gills were also modified to rely less on oxygen exchange in the water and showed indirect evidence of an ability to breathe air on land.”

Although Tiktaalik probably never walked, scientists conjecture that he was able to “prop himself up” in push-up style. Nevertheless, Tiktaalik constituted a clear intermediate step in the transition from sea to land. (See Tiktaalik for more discussion.)

After this remarkable finding, paleontologist Charles Carroll called the discovery “one of the most important evolutionary events in the history of vertebrate animals that made it onto the land – perhaps in the history of life itself.”

The article goes on to discuss the naturally selected transition back to sea again, as paleontologist Hans Thewissen recently discovered a “walking and swimming whale” in the waters by Pakistan. This species is thought to be a precursor to today’s whales and dolphins, explaining why these mammals have land-mammal characteristics like “fins, flukes and air-breathing lungs.”

Finally, an intermediate ungulate form – “Indohyus” – has freshly emerged that shares traits with horses, cows, pigs, giraffes, and the hippopotamus. As the Chronicle noted, “It looked like a fox-size deer that swam underwater and lived around the same time as Ambulocetus [the walking and swimming whale].” (See Indohyus for more discussion.)

What do these intermediate links mean in the grand scheme? Do they serve as evidence of steady evolution as opposed to punctuated equilibrium?

-Alyssa Martin

Is Technology Darwinian?

2009-05-13T03:44:00.001-07:00

Julian Vincent spoke before the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution (BRLSI) which contrasts technological and biological development. Technological progress, he notes, is often characterized as 'technological evolution'. However, Vincent claims, this metaphor is misleading since there are many ways in which technological progress does not follow principles of natural selection. He stresses the 'unguided' nature of nature of Darwinian thought and claims that technology as a human activity is guided. This, in turn, suggests important theoretical differences. For example, it suggests that theories explaining technological development may have greater predictive import than their biological counterparts. (For an interesting discussion of the limitations of various evolutionary theories in generating predictions, see Darwin’s Legacy, reviewed in the document list.)

A review of Vincent's work reveals that he is a leader in the field of biomimetics, that is, the concept of borrowing ideas from nature to further technology. While much of his work consists in specific applications of environmental "designs" – for example, he analyzes arthropod exoskeletons in engineering terms – he has also published on top-level biomimetic theory, including many of the ideas which underlie his speech before the BRLSI. In a 2005 book chapter, he argues that just like biology, technological development takes place on a field of limited resources – the same concept of limited resources in relation to population which motivated Darwin’s theories on the evolutionary mechanism. While technological resources are monetary – as opposed to the energy resources which are addressed by the influential Malthusian political-economic model – the same concepts of inter-organism and intra-organism resource conflicts apply. (Although obviously in the case of technology, the exact nature of selection is determined by the designer, or at least whoever is responsible for the designer’s paycheck.)

Biomimetics seems like an interesting interdisciplinary field, which combines biological insights with engineering and social theory. I encourage anyone who is interested in Darwinian natural selection, but is looking for a more applied subject to look into it as a potential research topic!

Julian Vincent is Professor of Biomimetics and Director of the Centre for Biomimetics and Natural Technologies within the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Bath.

Ben Picozzi

Your thoughts about evolution probably influenced by high school

2009-05-13T03:00:00.000-07:00

High school is a formative time for all -- you work out your identity, your niche in society, maybe learn a few important life lessons. Depending on what your high school bio class taught, it probably had a big say on your current views on evolution and creationism as well.

A survey conducted by faculty at the College of Biological Sciences at University of Minnesota sought to see if there was a difference in how biology majors viewed evolution and creationism compared to non-biology majors. Two-thirds of the students learned evolution but not creationism in high school, while only 1-2 percent learned creationism but evolution. A large portion of the sample, 29 percent of majors and 21 percent of non-majors, had both evolution and creationism covered in high school. The survey produced surprising results: regardless of major, students who were exposed to creationist perspectives in high school were more likely to adopt them in college, while students exposed to evolution were more receptive to evolution teaching in high school. 72-78% of students exposed to only evolution in high school said that it was scientifically valid, while only 57-59% of students exposed to only creationism said that evolution was scientifically valid.

The authors of the survey also did a review of studies to discern why a large contingent of high school biology teachers still teach creationism. The statistics are astounding: a fourth of biology teachers don't know that is unconstitutional to teach creationism, and another fourth are convinced creationism can be validated with scientific proof.

The article does not mention the views of students who were exposed to both evolution and creationism in high school. Regardless, the findings raise alarm, as high school teachings regarding the origins of man seems to have a lasting impact on students as they move into higher education. The faulty assumptions of biology teachers regarding creationism certainly don't help either. The protocol for teaching the origins of man in high schools is long overdue for a revamping, as no one is getting a complete and accurate story.

article link here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090501123336.htm

-Andrew Plan

Gaps in the fossil record?

2009-05-11T14:40:00.000-07:00

Another article on the various attempts to reconcile gaps in the fossil record with Darwin's (and other) theories about gradual evolution:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/11/MNCN16PJI0.DTL

The article gives several examples of various documented evolutionary transitions, including dinosaurs to modern birds and the case of the Himalayan warblers (what a great mystery novel title...).

Enjoy!

Kaitlyn

Woodstock + Darwin = Evolution FESTIVAL!

2009-05-11T02:02:00.000-07:00

http://www.evolutionfestival.co.uk/

OKay, so this has nothing to do with Darwin but still, the Evolution Fest looks like it's going to be ONE HELL OF A GOOD MUSIC FESTIVAL. I'm thinking about going, I mean, for 9.5 pounds, I get to implicity celebrate Darwin with a day full of explicitly awesome music and festivities.

-Teresa

Hobbit Brain explained by Hippo

2009-05-09T12:41:00.000-07:00

The hobbit is the common name for Homo floresiensis, a 1-m tall human. Studies of extinct Madagascan hippos by the Natural History Museum may reveal the origins of the hobbit's small cranial capacity. The reason reported is that both hippo and hobbit were island dwellers! The hobbit lived on the Indonesian island of Flores. The team of investigators believe that after the hobbits' ancestor, Homo erectus, became isolated on the island of Madagascar, the hobbit became a dwarf in all senses of the word, physically and mentally... I wonder if small cranial capacity/brain corresponded with decreased cognitive abilities? What's interesting is that this seems to be backward evolution! Rather than proceeding in the direction that eventually gave rise to Homo sapiens, evolution seemed to have taken a "regressive" path. However, this finding fits quite well into my new discovery of the term, ecotype as mentioned in my observations for the week. Perhaps dwarfism allowed better adaptation to the niche in Madagascar. Also, there are plenty of branching events in evolution that may eventually lead to extinction; this serves to remind us that evolution turns a blind eye to so-called "progress". It does not necessarily always choose the most efficient, supposedly adaptive path.
The hobbit's brain is about the size of a chimp brain. The Madagascan hippo may have evolved small brains for its big size for the same reasons as the hobbits. However, the hippo brain used for analysis comes from a 3000-year-old extinct Madagascan hippo. Perhaps the resource limitations on islands and the fact that the brain consumes tons of energy partially explain the adaptation of smaller brains. It would be interesting to investigate any indigenous peoples left in the world who still live in primitive conditions on islands. Perhaps any similarities between their brain size and the hobbit's will better justify the new observation that brain size shrinks with habitation on islands. I wonder if the smaller evolved brain size eventually became a bane for these organisms' survival and thus although being adaptive initially, eventually led to their extinction as bigger brained descendants took over.
Interestingly, domesticated animals also have been reported to have smaller brains than their wild counterparts. However, the decrease in brain size of domestic mammals is not necessarily associated with decrease in body size. Although many confounding variables are present with variations and correlations between brain and body size in domesticated animals (i.e. less stimulation, enrichment in environment can possibly retard brain growth), perhaps domesticated animals in their insular settings can shed some light on any more extreme shrinkage of brain size compared with general dwarfism of the body.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7243/full/nature07922.html

-Bonnie Chien

Evolution and Valuing Nature

2009-05-06T00:42:00.001-07:00

Paul Bloom, professor of psychology at Yale and the author of Descartes’ Baby argues argues that our psychological responses to nature result from evolutionary pressures. We are all “irrepressible taxonomizers”, he claims, a vestige of our evolutionary past in a world in which organizing the world into categories carried distinct survival benefits. After all, knowing predator from prey can be the difference between an untimely death and a quick meal. If this account is accurate, then Darwin’s own intense devotion to the classification of mussels resulted from the very same evolutionary mechanism which he would later propose!

Bloom further argues that our appreciation of nature – ethical, aesthetic, etc. – results from similarly deep-seated psychological traits, again, evolutionary holdouts. Appropriating E.O. Wilson’s “biophilia” hypothesis, Bloom argues that the vast quantity of empirical evidence suggesting some general human valuation of nature – for example, preference for landscape paintings – suggests some sort of evolutionary cause. (For a critique of Wilson's theories, and evolutionary psychology generally, see Darwin's Legacy.) While Bloom recognizes that the descriptive claim that humans value nature cannot generate any evaluative claim concerning the protection of the natural world, he does argues that the psychological benefits of exposure to nature do support the definition of nature as a good. Hence, although scientific theories cannot make value judgments, they can inform them. Of course, he concedes, “indiscriminate biophilia” makes little sense in an increasingly a-natural world. However, if correct, such psychological theories could generate novel arguments for the preservation of nature.

Interestingly, Bloom draws on the writings of Dennis Dutton, whose theories of art underlie much of his arguments on the psychology of nature. I had the pleasure (no pun intended) of hearing Dutton speak at a lecture at Stanford University earlier this year. While controversial – Dutton made comments were provocative regardless of which side of the analytical/continental philosophical divide one happens to fall, including a shot at a certain Bay Area philosopher – Dutton’s speech was interesting in that it provided a link between evolutionary biology and aesthetics. Roughly, the topic of the talk was the same as the article: the evolutionary nature of aesthetic values. Dutton claims that this nature might ground something like objective aesthetic values, in contrast with conventional views of aesthetics which its values as subjective. I strongly recommend to anyone interested in art and biology to look into this further.

Bloom is currently writing a book on pleasure.

Ben Picozzi

New genetic revelations regarding the origins of Africans, African Americans

2009-05-05T23:45:00.000-07:00

Here's another recent study I came across while reading about different ancestral populations; it's the largest study of the genetic diversity of Africans, spanning four million genotypes identified through the collaborative efforts of African, European, and American researchers.

So what does it tell us? Apparently Africans can be traced back to 14(!) ancestral population clusters, clusters confirmed by their correlation with ethnicity and shared cultural characteristics. The researchers were also able to use the data to approximate the migration of these ancestral populations, identifying southern Africa as the ancestral origin of humans. The data also found African American ancestry to be largely Niger-Kordofanian and European in composition. Even more remarkably, such extrapolations are consonant with established knowledge on the cultural and linguistic diversity in Africa.

Clearly this mother lode of genetic data has much potential beyond tracing population history and migration of African and African-American populations. Imagine the possibilities regarding healthcare -- scientists can use the data to identify what genetic factors specific to Africans and African-Americans increase susceptibility to certain diseases. Knowing the genetic nature of the overwhelming variety among Africans can increase the efficacy of public health initiatives across Africa. It'll be fascinating to see where scientists go with this potent genetic data...

article link here

study link here

-Andrew Plan

Size Matters for Mosquitos and Malaria

2009-05-05T15:04:00.000-07:00

By C. Paula de los Angeles

In reading about malaria, I came across an interesting blog that proposed controlling this infectious disease with genetically engineered mosquitos that had resistance to malaria. Essentially, these mosquitos would mate with wild ones and eventually spread resistance. In order for this to work, these genetically engineered mosquitos would have to be more attractive to the wild females than the wild males (sexual selection). But is it the mosquito of biggest size that always win? The answer appears to be no. In an experiment that varied mosquito size by controlling their diet, it was found that the middle-sized mosquitos were the most successful. This experiment was ideal because it was carried out in an isolated, malaria-filled part of Tanzania, meaning this public health policy could realistically be implemented. What a great way to use sexual selection to cure infectious disease!

BLOG: http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2008/05/size_matters_for_mosquitoes_but_mediumsized_males_do_better.php
Reference: NGHABI, K., HUHO, B., NKWENGULILA, G., KILLEEN, G., KNOLS, B., FERGUSON, H. (2008). Sexual selection in mosquito swarms: may the best man lose?. Animal Behaviour

Gates' Foundation Funding Super Cool Things

2009-05-05T07:22:00.000-07:00

The Bill and Melinda Gates' Foundation is funding three groups of British scientists who are working on some pretty amazing things. One group, out of University of Exeter, is developing a magnet that can test whether a person has malaria parasites in their bloodstream. Another group is building a library of all the various HIV mutations in humans, documenting the various ways the virus has evaded immune systems, with the hopes of being able to create a vaccine against a large number of the variants of the retrovirus. One other group, from the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, is attempting to understand and mimic the human body's ability to carry the bacteria that causes pneumonia without contracting infection- this seems to limit and improve the immunity to other illnesses the bacteria causes. The hope of this research is to create an inhaled vaccine against pneumonia. Each group was given an initial grant of $100,000, with the chance to apply for more grants as their research progresses. There were about fifteen other projects that the Foundation is funding, and they all seem pretty progressive! Though the failure rate for a lot of this research is high, it's exciting to see someone funding these projects that could generate great improvements in human health.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article6222056.ece

-Kaitlyn

2009-05-05T07:05:00.000-07:00

Origin confusion?

2009-05-02T10:32:00.000-07:00

Science Magazine and the New York Times both reported this week on a new Africa-wide survey of human genetics, the largest ever to be conducted in that continent, which claims to pinpoint more closely the geographic origin of modern humans.

Unfortunately, the two articles appear to report conflicting results.

The New York Times’s Nicholas Wade reports, “The origin of species is generally taken to be the place where its individuals show the greatest genetic diversity. For humans, when the new African data is combined with DNA information from the rest of the world, this spot lies on the coast of southwest Africa near the Kalahari desert.”

Science Magazine’s “news” section, in contrast, says the study concludes that “East Africa was the source of the great migration that populated the rest of the world.”

I wasn’t able to access the researchers’ data or original report (it may not be online yet), which probably clears up this apparent contradiction. I’m assuming that Science’s “great migration” and the Times’s “origin of species” are actually two different things.

Nontheless—confusing! Those are the kinds of quotes that news sources can run with, and which might spread misinformation. I’ll post an update/clarification whenever I can get access to the actual research (…or when something comes up on the New York Times’s “corrections” page?). Responses welcome if anyone can figure out where the confusion lies.

The study’s data provides a lot more interesting information besides that on the “origin" question. Africa, despite being the continent with the greatest genetic diversity, has been underrepresented in genetic surveys, especially because the most diverse groups (like bushmen and hunter-gatherers) are logistically difficult to reach.

This group of researchers spent over 10 years collecting samples from some of the most remote populations in Africa, eventually ending up with blood from 3194 Africans in 113 different populations. They then searched the samples for over 1000 genetic markers, and sorted the DNA into similar clusters.

They found (luckily for them!) that those DNA-based clusters mapped well onto cultural and language groups. For example, the click-language groups—such as the Khoisan of south Africa and the Sandawe and Hazda of Tanzania—share common ancestors.

Researchers also found, through comparison with African-American DNA samples, that most African-Americans have ancestors from all over Africa, making it difficult to pinpoint a person’s origins to a specific group (as some DNA testing claims it can do).

There is hope the data will be used eventually for medical research--for example, to better understand why people respond differently to diseases and drugs.

Anne

Crazy sea-grapes complicate Cambrian explosion

2009-05-02T04:50:00.001-07:00

A submarine expedition to the Bahamas has discovered a new species—the “Bahamian groma”—a single-celled organism about one inch in diameter.

The creatures are reminiscent of grapes, or balloons, or “doo-doo balls,” according to researcher Sonke Johnson of Duke University.

Although similar mega-amoebas have been discovered around the world—the first in 2000 in the Arabian Sea—these are different in one important way: they’ve made tracks across the ocean floor. Although the grapes appear to be moving too slowly to be captured with the submarine’s video capabilities, researchers are convinced the tracks they’ve made can’t be created simply by ocean currents. The organisms sometimes head out in multiple directions from one spot, and are able to go up and down the ridges and valleys of the ocean floor.

The idea that such simple organisms could have created the tracks throws a wrench in current ideas about the Cambrian explosion—the rapid expansion of multicellular, complex life that happened about 530 million years ago.

Before discovering the creatures, themselves, researchers found grape-tracks in the pre-Cambrian fossil record and assumed this meant that bilateral creatures—the types of things we normally consider capable of making tracks—were around in pre-Cambrian days.

If, instead, the Bahamian groma were responsible for the tracks, it means that the Cambrian explosion may have been even more explosive than we thought, taking animal life from amoeba to us in a shorter amount of time than previously believed.

As far as researchers know, the Bahamian groma is like a giant balloon. Filled with water and almost neutrally buoyant, it floats along the very surface of the ocean floor by “eating” the stuff in front of it and “pooping” it out behind. They’re fragile and impossible to study in captivity, however, so nobody really knows.

They clearly reproduce, “because there were sure a lot of them,” says Johnson. But that process, as well, remains a mystery.

I learned about the grapes (and stole pictures) from this blog article, which referred me to this press release as well as the original 2008 paper in Current Biology, “Giant Sea-Protist Produces Bilaterian-like Traces.”

Interestingly, wikipedia’s Cambrian explosion entry mentions that Charles Darwin saw the Cambrian explosion “as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection,” presumably because rapid diversification during the Cambrian period contradicted his ideas about slow, successive change. He acknowledges this in "Origin," saying that “several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks,” and that this problem “at present must remain inexplicable, and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”

-Anne

The origin of Native Americans

2009-05-02T02:36:00.000-07:00

An interesting article came out a few days ago that settled the long-standing debate on whether Native Americans descended from one ancestral population or multiple populations.

Full text can be found here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090428223836.htm

The article details a DNA study that provides very strong evidence for the descending of Native American populations from a single ancestral population. Says Karl Britt Schroeder, a lecturer at UC-Davis and one of the authors of the study:

"Our work provides strong evidence that, in general, Native Americans are more closely related to each other than to any other existing Asian populations, except those that live at the very edge of the Bering Strait"

The results of the study expands upon previous findings of what is termed the "9-repeat allele," which is a genetic marker that occurs in all 41 Native American populations sampled and is absent in all of the Eurasian, African, and Oceanian groups sampled. While the discovery of this allele strongly suggested the 'single ancestral population' theory, there was still a possibility that this allele's prominence could be due to mutations occuring separately in Native American populations or crossing over.

The study found that, in examining the bordering base pairs of the "9-repeat allele," there was a distinct pattern of base pairs not found in individuals without the allele, a pattern that is too short to have been promoted by positive selection and too prevalent to suggest multiple mutations. This is the first study supporting the 'single ancestral population theory' with evidence from DNA carried by both sexes.

In light of the results, it seems that the ancestors of the Native American population were indeed most likely to have been a single population that migrated in one wave to the Americas. This would account for the substantial genetic homogeneity both observed and inferred in Native American populations present and past, bringing to mind the innumerable cases discussed throughout the centuries of Native American populations genetically unequipped to combat foreign illnesses like smallpox.

-Andrew Plan

Origin of life may not have been from hot soup

2009-05-01T09:22:00.000-07:00

Darwin wrote that some "warm little pond" that contained all the necessary ingredients of life such as ammonia, light, heat, electricity, etc. would beget the first living creatures. This is not far from our current understanding of the primordial soup based on experiments by Urey and Miller that life had a "hot start". However, this belief has been under fire for some time because hot temperatures cannot support a stable environment for structures appropriate for life to form. However, new theories have emerged that so-called "psychrophiles", or cold-loving microbes, might be the new instigators of life. If we can imagine thermophiles living in hot sulfur springs, it's not too much of a stretch to imagine bacteria living in polar ice sheets and temperate glaciers. The sun's luminosity was 30% lower than now, producing a subzero earth.

Research in the past 10 years shows that freezing can concentrate and stabilize molecules more and allow formation of more complex structures. Experiments have shown that simple molecules trapped in ice veins can produce simple nucleic acids in the course of 30 years. However, I'm curious to know whether 30 years is an appropriate time frame for structure formation comparable to that in a hot environment. 30 years seems quite a contrast to the hot trigger from Urey and Miller's applied electricity. If a cold start is still questioned, the cold could've still acted as a selection factor for the common ancestral organism that gave rise to all life forms. Could that be defined as the more significant origin of life then? Well, the cold hypothesis can be quite powerful if seen in light of current exploration of possibilities of life on other worlds, i.e. Mars and various moons of Saturn. These are all very cold places!

-Bonnie Chien

What it would have looked like...

2009-04-30T10:21:00.000-07:00

In case you, like me, were wondering—

Evolution of the Mind

2009-04-28T14:40:00.000-07:00

An interesting article recently surfaced in USA Today about Darwin and cultural evolution:

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/religion/post/2009/04/65672551/1

The author argues that one cannot look to Darwin to explain the evolutionary developments of the human mind. From an individual and genetic perspective, homo sapiens have not evolved that much since 50,000 years ago. (In fact, some scientists assert that there isn’t sufficient genetic variation among humans to even justify the existence of separate “races,” as 99% of our genome is the same.) So how does one explain the intellectual leaps and bounds that humans have made?

Lord Colin Renfrew of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research states, “If we want to know why our world is different than 90,000 years ago, we have to consider the intellectual developments that took place by following the engagement between humans and the material world.” This inquiry reminded me of Richard Klein, an anthropologist at Stanford, who argues that some neurological mutation – possibly relating to speech and the FOXP2 gene – occurred around 50,000 years ago, enabling religion, art, and culture. In other words, it wasn’t evolution per se that led to the explosion of human intellectual potential. Whatever the cause of change, it was obviously evolutionarily adaptive as it allowed Homo sapiens to dominate other Homo species and migrate to the far-flung places of the world.

If you’re at all interested in this topic, Steven Pinker writes about the Evolution of the Mind. He does not believe that changes in the brain happened “overnight” or that there was a “magical mutation.” As Pinker notes:

“I don’t think there was a thunderclap or a divine spark that suddenly made one species smart. You can see, in our ancestors, there was a gradual expansion of the brain, there was an expansion of the complexity of tools. Even when our species evolved, it surely was spread out over tens of thousands of years.”

-Alyssa Martin

Cranes vs. Skyhooks: Metaphors for Evolutionary Mechanisms

2009-04-28T01:28:00.000-07:00

The Crane Metaphor for Evolutionary Mechanisms and a New Species!

Recently, Richard Dawkins, noted evolutionist and critic of religion, spoke before a gathering of American atheists to discuss various topics related to what he sees as the tension between scientific and religious thought. While unsurprisingly, the vast majority of his presentation dealt with the response to religious apologetics, he did make several interesting comments concerning evolution and the origin of life. Specifically, Dawkins raises the possibility of life’s having been seeded by a superior civilization, however, he argues, such a superior civilization “would have to evolved by some form of gradual process – probably in my opinion, rather similar to Darwinian natural selection – but if not Darwinian natural selection some kind of ‘crane’… rather than skyhook…” This seems to me to be a good metaphor for distinguishing between Darwinian evolutionary theory (and similarly naturalistic evolutionary theories) and the sort of pseudo-evolutionary theory described by C.S. Lewis in my previous post reviewing C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity.

This characterization of Darwinian natural selection as a crane and not a skyhook, which Dawkins appropriates from Daniel Dennett seems like an instructive metaphor for the following reasons: namely, that (a) evolution and natural selection are distinct, and that the latter is a mechanism for the former; and (b) the “crane” of evolution need not be limited to the single crane of Darwinian natural selection, but can accommodate other evolutionary theories (punctuated equilibrium, etc.). Interestingly, Stephen Jay Gould has taken issue with this latter feature of the metaphor, arguing that Dawkins/Dennett’s use of the metaphor is overly restrictive, since they attempt to use it to eliminate non-Darwinian evolutionary mechanisms – namely, Gould’s own aforementioned evolutionary mechanism – however, this charge seems spurious in light of Dawkin’s non-exclusive use of the metaphor.

A full recording of Dawkin’s presentation is available here on Dawkins’ website.

In other news, paleontologists have discovered the remains of a new form of primitive marine mammal, which they believe to be the missing link between seals and terrestrial mammals. The species has been named Puijila darwini or "Darwin's young marine mammal", in honor of Darwin.

Ben Picozzi

C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity

2009-04-27T13:44:00.000-07:00

Mere Christianity
C.S. Lewis
Reviewed by Ben Picozzi

Mere Christianity is C.S. Lewis' ironically-titled defense of Christian faith in response to what he regards as a world of evil; resurrecting the medieval understanding of the world as a battlefield. This worldview becomes even more poignant when one considers that the text is adapted from a series of radio broadcasts written by Lewis during the Second World War. Most telling is Lewis’ description of the earth as “occupied territory,” likening the current state of affairs to Nazi rule. He returns to this metaphor again and again, in his allusions to resistance, the coming invasion, and other commonplaces which are scattered throughout the text.

While viewed from a modern perspective, Lewis comes off as a staunch conservative – see his restrictive beliefs on extra-marital sex – he does offer hints of progressivism in, for example, his belief that the governments ought to separate the state definition of marriage from its religious counterpart.

One reviewer, whose thoughts are captured on the back cover, suggests that C.S. Lewis is an “ideal persuader for the half-convinced”, that is, those who are already leaning towards Christianity. I disagree. Rather, Lewis is an ideal persuader only for the fully-convinced. Anyone who does not share his belief that only the Christian God is consistent with our moral intuitions – or, even worse, holds contradictory beliefs – will not be converted by his arguments. As a philosophical text, Mere Christianity fails to deliver. Charitably interpreted, Lewis only demonstrates that we possess certain moral intuitions consistent with the existence of objective moral standards, a great distance from his conclusion that there must be something behind those standards in the form of the Christian God. (After all, Christianity does not have a monopoly moral objectivism.) However, this anti-relativist or anti-amoralist premise is the sword which Lewis continually wields against the demons of “pantheism” (defined by Lewis as belief in a god which stands outside of good and evil) and atheism. Of course, uncharitably interpreted, Lewis may not even succeed in getting this far.

Read as a historical text, however, Mere Christianity has value to anyone regardless of his or her beliefs. In particular, it offers insight into the mind of an extraordinary individual whose remarkable intellect is matched by his unshakable faith during what must seem to be his nation’s bleakest moment.

Beyond its Christian apologetics, the final chapter of the book is striking in its divergence away from the siege mentality which colors the text and towards a hopeful vision of the future. Lewis appropriates the scientific language of biology in describing what he sees as the final stage in human evolution – religious transcendence – which he admits, departs from the modern understanding of evolution through natural selection and instead rather reflects a radical spiritual change. While not properly scientific, Lewis’ choice of demonstrates the power which evolutionary theory holds, even among those who are inclined to prefer less naturalistic explanations – Lewis is quick to oppose scientific materialism to religion. His choice to conclude with this metaphor is puzzling, but perhaps understandable in the sense that just as the metaphor of agency provides a useful description of the evolutionary mechanism, selection provides a useful metaphor for divinity.

Speaking of Sexual Selection....

2009-04-27T09:46:00.000-07:00

From Friday's "Science News"--"Sex Roles Lose Their Universal Appeal"

Scientists at University of St. Andrews in Scotland are questioning the belief that men have evolved to be promiscuous, while women have evolved to be "choosy". After examining 18 societies (modern and traditional), reproductive success was observed with variation between "evolutionary normal" male and female roles. The distinct roles for male and female sexual tendencies were furthered by a 1948 experiment regarding fruit flies and the belief that it is more biologically "costly" to create an egg than sperm, so females must be more "choosy".

However, "in the last decade, studies of fruit flies and other animals have documented considerable variation in numbers of sexual partners and offspring for both sexes". Scientists from this study have noted this flexibility resulting in reproductive success, and suggest that a more detailed look at sexual roles should be examined.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/43212/title/Sex_roles_lose_their_universal_appeal

Kaitlyn

Book Review- Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker"

2009-04-27T06:17:00.000-07:00

Book Review- Richard Dawkins’ “The Blind Watchmaker”

Dawkins is well-known as a strong advocate of Darwinism, and “The Blind Watchmaker” is no exception to his arguments in favor of natural selection, evolutionary processes, and Darwinian concepts. The book is filled with various analogies and examples that every reader would be able to relate to: from biological references to computer science programs, political enquiries to geographical diagrams, Dawkins’ makes his arguments accessible to all levels of readers with various academic backgrounds. The book moves through the various facets of evolutionary thinking- natural selection, sexual selection, theories of what caused the first spark of life, the beauty and the inherent complexity of life forms, genetic “arms races” and the role of genes in furthering evolutionary processes. While Dawkins does touch on the most commonly believed theses in regards to the above topics, he also takes on the task of explaining some of the lesser known or recognized theories that have sprung onto the scientific scene in the last few decades. While at points, the reader might want to have more information solely on the most accepted theories, Dawkins does challenge his readers to put on their mental “hiking boots” and follow him on some of the wilder theories. With his easy to grasp analogies and sense of humor, it’s not too mentally painful to forge through his tightly researched and thoroughly informative book that highlights the role of the “blind watchmaker” in creating the complexities of life.

Kaitlyn

Evolution and engineering: really cool TED talk for anyone interested in biodesign!

2009-04-26T13:54:00.000-07:00

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/robert_full_on_engineering_and_evolution.html

UC Berkeley biologist Robert Full uses his 18 TED-minutes to discuss the field of biodesign, and the lessons engineers can take from evolution.

Although nature may inspire incredible designs, Full argues that it should be used only cautiously as a model for human engineering: “Evolution works more like a tinkerer than an engineer” —on the “just good enough” rather than the “perfecting” principle. Similarly, evolutionary “design” is limited in ways human designers shouldn't be (imagine an automobile that must be created with an automobile-making factory inside it).

That said, Full has dedicated himself to using designs evolved in nature as inspiration for some incredible machines.

Full’s lab realized that bugs (particularly cockroaches) are able to maneuver well over all kinds of obstacles. So (naturally) they put them on mini-treadmills (amazing footage of this) and through obstacle courses to study their movements, and designed simple, insect-inspired machines with springy legs that were incredibly successful at negotiating all types of terrain, and have potential to be used for all kinds of stuff, including future NASA missions.

To figure out how geckos walk up walls, they stuck them on vertical, see-through treadmills (more awesome footage). They discovered, after eliminating obvious guesses like friction and suction, that geckos adhere to walls through intermolecular, or Van Der Waals, forces. They built a gecko-inspired robot, and are trying to get closer to manufacturing the tiny, powerful hairs (setae) on gecko-feet that allow them to stick.

Since this talk (in 2002), a lot of advances in the field of biodesign have been made, many of them at Stanford—see http://bdml.stanford.edu/twiki/bin/view/Rise/StickyBot for info on Stanford’s own gecko-mimicry project, “StickyBot.”

Cool.

Anne