New Scientist on evolution

[Anthony G Williams]

A valuable summary in the New Scientist magazine (19 April issue) correcting some common misconceptions about evolution. This article, plus more, is included on their website here: Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions - life - 16 April 2008 - New Scientist and all SF writers should study it in order to avoid errors (possibly I was a bit ambitious with the marsupial saurians in 'Scales'…)

A very brief summary of some examples of misconceptions:

Everything is an adaptation: it isn't true that everything has a purpose, some features of life are just accidental hold-overs from earlier developments, such as the appendix and the male nipple.

Evolution can't be disproved: in theory it could be, but all of the evidence collected so far supports it, and no evidence has been found to disprove it.

Evolution is limitlessly creative: there are limits (at least on Earth) to what has been, and probably can be, developed. Every intermediate stage needs to have had some survival benefit (e.g. primitive forms of eye are still better than nothing in detecting objects).

Natural selection leads to ever greater complexity: it can actually lead to greater simplicity since unnecessary features frequently disappear (e.g. eyeless cave fish).

Evolution produces perfection: "you don't have to be perfectly adapted to survive, you just have to be as well adapted as your competitors". Examples of inefficiencies in human beings are the eyes (birds have much superior vision), the lungs (much of their capacity is wasted because of the two-way air-flow; birds have a much more efficient one-way flow) and so on.

Natural selection is the only means of evolution: random genetic drift has a great influence, with chance often deciding which mutations survive and which don't.

It doesn't matter if people don't grasp evolution: our civilisation is facing many challenges which need some understanding of how science works to appreciate, and make sensible judgements about. "Any modern society which bases major decisions on superstition rather than reality is heading for disaster". Which makes it rather worrying that in a recent survey, when asked "Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals: true or false?", only 40% of US citizens polled "true", 39% "false" and 21% "not sure". In contrast the "true" response from most western European countries and Japan was around 75%.

Comment: among those not believing in evolution (according to their public statements) were several of the initial candidates for the nomination for the Presidency of the USA; a staggering admission of scientific illiteracy, in the same league as admitting that they couldn't read or write. Let's hope that the most powerful and influential nation on Earth ends up with a leader who has a much better grasp of scientific arguments than the present incumbent.

(an extract from my SFF blog)

 

[j d worthington]

It doesn't matter if people don't grasp evolution: our civilisation is facing many challenges which need some understanding of how science works to appreciate, and make sensible judgements about. "Any modern society which bases major decisions on superstition rather than reality is heading for disaster". Which makes it rather worrying that in a recent survey, when asked "Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals: true or false?", only 40% of US citizens polled "true", 39% "false" and 21% "not sure". In contrast the "true" response from most western European countries and Japan was around 75%.

Comment: among those not believing in evolution (according to their public statements) were several of the initial candidates for the nomination for the Presidency of the USA; a staggering admission of scientific illiteracy, in the same league as admitting that they couldn't read or write. Let's hope that the most powerful and influential nation on Earth ends up with a leader who has a much better grasp of scientific arguments than the present incumbent.

(an extract from my SFF blog)

I must admit that these are the items that have come to loom larger and larger with me over the past few years. Our scientific illiteracy in this country has reached an appalling state, while the resurgence of the most ignorant, inspissated, and hidebound forms of fundamentalism, neo-mysticism, and rank superstition have seen more of a heyday than they have experienced (among the educated) in over a century and a half.

As for the presidential candidates' ignorance on the subject... well, it used to be that politicians considered it necessary to keep abreast of such, knowing what a large role scientific knowledge and advancement played in our lives, not only individually but as a society, and in keeping us competitive with the rest of the world. This is something they've forgotten these days, confusing technology with science, it seems, and combining that with the same tendencies to superstitious ignorance shared by the most vocal (and most regressive) religious elements in our often benighted society....

 

[j d worthington]

Sorry for the second post, and I don't mean to run away with your thread, but the connection to that last comment seems germane to me.

I came across this -- one of a growing number of such reports that have been coming out over the past couple of years:

EPA scientists complain about political pressure - Yahoo! News

This makes me think of an argument I had with someone recently on regulations concerning greenhouse emissions, etc.; who was of the opinion that such changes should be left up to "the market trends" and "consumer decisions"... never mind the fact that we're not dealing with philosophical abstracts, but are fast coming up against the inexorable laws of physics with such things.

If we can't pull our collective heads out of our collective rears and realize that, and look for the truth, rather than riding some hobby-horse (either way), we bloody well may not have a future.

And then there's always our dear presidential nitwit's plan to give up to 15 more years for such emissions to peak before reducing them....

 

[The Procrastinator]

As an aside it always strikes me as bizarre, to put it mildly, that people who will piously put their hand up for the moral cheerleading squads of Christianity also like to leave things to "market forces" - one of the most amoral forces in existence. Faith in market forces is a strange kind of religion but it seems to be a pretty strong one with many followers.

What's up with the attitude toward science in the US? Sometimes I think us Aussies are pretty bad but I'm sure we would never score that badly on such a basic question. How can a country that is so advanced in so many ways be so backward at the same time? Puzzled bear.

 

[The Ace]

An interesting thumbnail of a complex subject.

I always find the 'Morals,' argument interesting, though.

My Father is an atheist so deeply entrenched, he's almost evangelical, but he is one of the most moral people I have ever met and it's thanks to him that everyone who knows me knows that I don't steal, lie or betray a trust, ever.

 

[Ursa major]

It strikes me, Procrastinator, that belief in the power of The Market is a religious belief, although rarely spoken of as such.

Even some people who oppose The Market fail to point out that it is simply a combination of various human traits and urges (both good and bad) held together by a more or less simple set of rules. They, and The Market's unthinking supporters, treat it as if it's in some way "natural", i.e. something handed down to us by either God or nature. But how can trading in a derivative be considered in any way natural? How can selling something you don't own be natural (and yet this happens all the time - sometimes leading to those attempts to drive down share and commodity prices)?

If a market produces bad results, the rules should be changed to remove or alleviate the problem; sadly, though, the response of most is to shrug and do nothing. (And yet even religious leaders have changed the actions and beliefs of their religions over the years, even at the risk of offending their God.)

 

[TorrnT]

I am pleased to see this.
No one wants to think they have lived their entire life as a lie.
I believe it will take many many generations before evolution will be readily accepted by the masses.
It is a shame that many people place more faith in horoscopes, that contradict many religious teachings, than they do in evolution.
Would I be correct in saying the fight is not between religion and evolution but against ignorance and hypocrisy? (eek, I feel the water getting a tad deep)

PS. Apart from people thinking evolution is contradicting the word of god, I should think evolution would be far more acceptable if when we died we evolved into angels, turning to dust, rings, "the reality bell" just a little too loud for some.
Of course all religious texts should be kept for moral guidance purposes unto someone updates them so the younger generation could relate better.

 

[j d worthington]

Sorry, but the bulk of religious writings are anything but moral -- read them closely, and you'll find they're almost invariably filled with the most appalling behavior (as well good) one can find... and that, quite often, being enacted by whatever deity is at the head of the food chain....

I used to have much the same idea; that such writings actually gave support to morality; but reading without blinders on, I've been forced to revise that view to the point of reversing it; it's we who create morality and see it in the religious writings, not the other way around....

 

[TorrnT]

Well, since you put it that way......

 

[mosaix]

An interesting thumbnail of a complex subject.

I always find the 'Morals,' argument interesting, though.

My Father is an atheist so deeply entrenched, he's almost evangelical, but he is one of the most moral people I have ever met and it's thanks to him that everyone who knows me knows that I don't steal, lie or betray a trust, ever.

You've been left a great legacy there, Ace

I hope my children will, one day, be able to say the same thing.

 

[The Procrastinator]

I agree with JD, I don't think its the actual religious texts as such that convey a consistent morality (can only speak with certainty of the Bible - have only read the Koran in bits, and can't remember too clearly) - but the social interpretation of it, in other words, the various churches and religious groups. Morality is conveyed by example, teaching etc - most people wouldn't read the actual Bible with any clarity of mind, they are more inclined to believe what they are told by figures of authority.

Ace, you were lucky to have a dad like that, mine was similar. But lots of people use atheism as an excuse to get away with stuff, and morals go out the door when religion does. Its hard to know how to deal with this, socially. Religion may have many points of weakness but it fills a social role in regulating behaviour that can be tricky to replace. Here in Oz we don't have a particularly strong religious tradition, and we've handled the separation of religious authority and government pretty well. Hopefully we can maintain the balance...

Yeah, Big Bear, the religion of Market Forces really gets my goat. They call it "rational" - who are they kidding?

 

[purple_kathryn]

What I've found is that people (not just so called "fundies") have said that they don't believe in evolution because they just don't think it sounds plausible (paraphrased).

Although by plausible they mean they don't understand it.

If I went through life disbelieving in everything I couldn't understand my life would be pretty limited. Maths for example.....

 

[TorrnT]

Everything is an adaptation: it isn't true that everything has a purpose, some features of life are just accidental hold-overs from earlier developments, such as the appendix and the male nipple.

I have to totally disagree with "just accidental hold-overs" held over by accident...This is where my small brain overloads...something just is not right about that statement made by "The New Scientist"

I have read how the appendix may have been used to house bacteria that may have helped in the digestion of rough plant matter, higher up in our evolutionary chain.
Many believe, in the future the appendix will disappear altogether.
But new evidence suggests it houses safe bacteria, when an illness causes diarrhoea.
Which was very common before proper sanitation. The appendix is lined with lymphoid cells, some consider these immune cells to be the guardian angels of the beneficial bacteria.
This proposal is based on a new understanding of how the immune system supports the growth of beneficial intestinal bacteria.

The male nipple on the the other hand, is bestowed to us thanks to the fact we are all females for the first 6 weeks of life, before the male chromosome takes effect.
(it seems to me there was/is a purpose)

Which makes me wonder.... did we evolve from females
Imagine if they ever proved that. (that would be shattering to the, "rib of Adam tale" as well as many male egos)

 

[Delvo]

We're not all females at first. We're all sexually undefined at first. (And even if that myth were true, Jurassic Park would still have gotten it wrong, because sex determination in birds is the opposite of the way it is in mammals anyway...)

The idea of "holdovers" is better illustrated not with whole organs existing or not existing, but with things that are arrangements in odd ways or have features that don't make sense. For example, a bunch of the muscles in our limbs twist and bend around the joints in funny ways that only make sense if you figure they got stretched that way from some other original position when our limbs were attached differently and moved differently... and the junction of our digestive and respiratory systems is just weird unless you consider the history of how it got that way, especially in humans, in whom that junction (the throat) seems to be specially modified to increase the odds of choking.

 

[TorrnT]

Sorry , I should have said, follows a female template, (my mistake) Information taken from Mark Leyner and Billy Goldberg, M.D.
Human nipples appear in the third or fourth week of development, well before the sex characteristics. (The sex hormones start to assert themselves at six/seven weeks.) As many as seven pairs of nipples are arranged along either side of a "milk line," a ridge of skin that runs from the upper chest to the navel.
Normally only one pair amounts to anything but cases have been known where extra nipples have been found but are removed with corrective surgery.

I have no problem with the word hold overs...It is the word "accidental" maybe I am being pedantic, In my mind an accident is something that can be avoided...
Hmmmm..I seem to have worked my way into a paradox.. Looks like I have to accept "accidental"

But, researching I found a possible "holdover"... Wisdom Teeth...
So..wisdom teeth are still accidentally with us.... ( wow, I do not like that terminology, it seems scary or something) LOL.
One of the few times my sense of order and reason takes a pounding.

 

[j d worthington]

The idea of "holdovers" is better illustrated not with whole organs existing or not existing, but with things that are arrangements in odd ways or have features that don't make sense. For example, a bunch of the muscles in our limbs twist and bend around the joints in funny ways that only make sense if you figure they got stretched that way from some other original position when our limbs were attached differently and moved differently... and the junction of our digestive and respiratory systems is just weird unless you consider the history of how it got that way, especially in humans, in whom that junction (the throat) seems to be specially modified to increase the odds of choking.

Not quite the same thing, but one that I've always found odd is the "design" of the urogenital tract, not only in humans but in many forms of life. Reminds me of a line from a comedian (can't remember for the life of me who) several years ago: something to the effect of God being the only builder to put a sewer through the middle of a recreational area....

 

[HardScienceFan]

I think it was Gould ,in conjunction with Vrba,who pointed out that the term 'adaptation'
is a misnomer anyway.
I think evolution is among the least understood phenomena in the population at large.
Fred Bookstein proved mathematically that most of the time,evolution isn't different from a random walk.
Yet chronoclines and morphoclines exist.
The fossil record is a poor tool to prove evolution.
I just read a thesis on evolution in the conodont genus Palmatolepis.
(Just using the Pa-element of a multielement taxon,but no matter).
if anything,evolution is mosaical,or leaves that impression in the fossil record)
Evolution takes place,but you have to divest it of ALL teleological connotations).

 

[j d worthington]

Teleology (save for, to some degree, human-based action and motivation) is a questionable concept, period....

 

[Delvo]

Sorry , I should have said, follows a female template, (my mistake)

But that isn't the case, either. Prior to the penis and scrotum, there's no clitoris, labia, or vagina, nor anything that had ever started to become like them or would ever have become them or was any more like them than like a penis and scrotum. Prior to the testes, there are no ovaries, nor anything that had ever started to become like them or would ever have become them or was any more like them than like testes. There's just nothing at all to identify the fetus with either sex.

Information taken from Mark Leyner and Billy Goldberg, M.D.
Human nipples appear in the third or fourth week of development, well before the sex characteristics.

Note the last 5 words there. Anything that happens before there are any sex characteristics can't be following one sex's template or the other's; if it were following either sex's template already, then it wouldn't be well before the sex characteristics because there'd already be sex characteristics there.

maybe I am being pedantic, In my mind an accident is something that can be avoided...
Hmmmm..I seem to have worked my way into a paradox.. Looks like I have to accept "accidental"...

(wow, I do not like that terminology, it seems scary or something) LOL.
One of the few times my sense of order and reason takes a pounding.

I don't understand what this dilemma is.

I think it was Gould ,in conjunction with Vrba,who pointed out that the term 'adaptation'
is a misnomer anyway.

How so? (The word's always bugged me because things "adapt"; they don't "adaptate"... but that's a separate issue from misnomers, which are about what words mean...)

The fossil record is a poor tool to prove evolution.

How so?

I just read a thesis on evolution in the conodont genus Palmatolepis.
(Just using the Pa-element of a multielement taxon,but no matter).

Why did you bring up Palmatolepis and then not seem to say anything about it, and what is this about "elements"?

if anything,evolution is mosaical,or leaves that impression in the fossil record)

Do you mean how it seems to create lots and lots of separate lineages instead of just a few? (Gould called this the "bush" diagram instead of the "line or ladder" diagram.)

 

[Dave]

There certainly is much ignorance about the Theory of Evolution, and about scientific Theory in general. Concerning Evolution specifically, I think it has always been that way because it directly challenges the Creation as written in Genesis, and also because Darwin himself believed in Intelligent Design. However, many people make and have made claims about The Origin of Species that are just not in it. I read it at school, but many people who think they know what is in it have never read it. For instance, it concerns the 'origin of species', not the 'origin of [our] species'; a very common misconception. Those that HAVE read it, and use its shortcomings to denounce Evolution, are failing completely to take on board the body of 150 years of scientific evidence that has come since, including a mechanism in DNA. As with all scientific theories, it is there to be reviewed and altered, tweaked where required, discarded if necessary; but while modern research has lead to major changes in the theory, the concept itself has only been strengthened. Out of my own interest, I have read some of these fundamentalist religious website to read what they say on Evolution, and they generally pick on a few parts of Darwin that were wrong and use those as evidence that Evolution as a whole is wrong. I cannot think of any other examples where someone would do that, and I'm quite gob-smacked every time I read them that such utter bilge can be believed in the heartland of the largest industrial country in the world. I would have thought that in 80 years they might have moved on a little from the Scopes "monkey-trial" era.

But the real problem is the lack of scientific education as a whole, and the continued falling standards. We live in a scientific world, we need science education more than ever. You ate breakfast this morning and your food had a label with daily allowances, energy, fat and carbohydrate content. You maybe watched TV adverts that told you 8 out 10 people preferred this product, but gave no sample size; and several advertised their products as 30% cheaper than another. The weather forecaster said there was 50% chance of rain, but the satellite picture had no clouds on it. You recycled some plastic bottles in your carbon-neutral car, then you threw away several electrical goods. You took a white medicine your Doctor prescribed, but didn't tell you why. Then you sprayed something on your Roses that came in a red bottle. Your house was flooded last year for the first time, but then it's only been there 20 years, and 100 years ago the river flooded right up to the railway, and just maybe that new building development has something to do with it. And your laptop isn't working and you think you broke it.

People seem happy to sleepwalk without asking why, or they understand so little that they can't ask why, so they just believe what they are told to believe by someone else who doesn't know or ask why either. We need to teach scientific theory, risk assessment, statistical analyisis, and basic Chemistry and Physics. In the UK, most schools now don't teach separate sciences but General Science. Some of the teachers only have limited science knowledge themselves. We have a whole raft of 16-18 year olds learning Media Studies and Travel & Tourism, while Universities close Science Departments.