Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Scrub jays too weird for Wired mag?

Categories
Darwinism
Evolution
News
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

That’s, like, weird. From Wired:

As she gathered more and more data on different populations of the birds around the island, Langin had a revelation: The birds, members of one single species, had split into two varieties in different habitats. Island scrub jays living in oak forests have shorter bills, good for cracking acorns. Their counterparts in pine forests have longer bills, which seem better adapted to prying open pine cones. That may not appear to be something you’d consider a “revelation,” but it really is—if you believe in evolution. Ever since Darwin and his famous finches, biologists have thought that in order for a species to diverge into two new species, the two populations had to be physically isolated. Those finches, for instance, each live on a different Galapagos island, where their special circumstances have resulted in specialized bill shapes. Yet the two varieties of island scrub jay (they haven’t technically speciated—yet) live on the same tiny island. If they wanted to meet each other for a brunch of acorns and/or pine nuts and perhaps later some mating, they could just fly right over.

This is very, very weird. It’s an affront to a sacred tenet of evolution you probably learned in school: Isolation drives speciation. Well, speciation can also come about in a broadly distributed population, with individuals at one end evolving differently than individuals at the other, but nothing kicks evolution into overdrive quite like separation. Without it, two varieties should regularly breed and homogenize, canceling out something like different bill shapes (though rarely the two types of island scrub jay will in fact interbreed). And the island scrub jay isn’t alone in its evolutionary bizarreness. In the past decade, scientists have found more and more species that have diverged without isolation. Langin’s discovery with island scrub jays, published last week in the journal Evolution, is perhaps the most dramatic illustration of this yet. More.

Okay, first, knock out the bong pipe. Shower and put on some shoes. Have a look at the job board.

Darwin was wrong about everything except the fact that you could make a living somewhere, high in California. Turns out you can. About the rest, we dunno.

The birds had to be smarter than you. Not so hard.

By the way, all that Darwin’s finches stuff is nonsense too.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Timaeus: Many, many popular books on physics in the 20th century and beyond have featured non-Newtonian insights... But the typical popular conception of evolution is still the neo-Darwinian. There are popular books on Intelligent Design, gluten-free diets, astrology, and how the mind is made of woo. Timaeus: The popular conception of evolutionary theory isn’t nearly as sophisticated as the popular conception of physics. The basics of introductory evolution remains branching descent and natural selection, just like the basics of introductory physics remains force and momentum. The popular conception of evolution primarily concerns the sweep of evolutionary history, dinosaurs and ape-men. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faRlFsYmkeYZachriel
March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT
Zachriel: Not true about physics, not true at all. Many, many popular books on physics in the 20th century and beyond have featured non-Newtonian insights. All the popular books on cosmology, for example (Gamow, Sagan and Shklovskii, Robert Jastrow, etc.) And of course, there are the works of Paul Davies, which were popular science bestsellers, and Hawking's Brief History of Time, another well-known science book in its day. There have also been popular books like The Tao of Physics which explore the decidedly non-Newtonian aspects of modern physics in relation to religious and philosophical concepts. You can tour the internet and find hundreds of sites discussing quantum craziness; science fiction stories for decades have made use of relativity strangeness; etc. The average half-science-aware reader of today is well aware that Newton's physics has been transcended in many respects. But the typical popular conception of evolution is still the neo-Darwinian. If you ask nine out of ten generally educated people what causes evolution, they will say something that amounts to: "random mutations plus natural selection." Rarely will they have another idea in their head. Even most of the science geeks who post on the internet and affect to know all about evolution still chatter more about random mutations and natural selection than anything else. The popular conception of evolutionary theory isn't nearly as sophisticated as the popular conception of physics.Timaeus
March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT
Zachriel: You can’t point to a single scientific paper in support of natural genetic engineering Timaeus: Shapiro can. Notably, we have listed several of the mechanisms Shapiro considers, but you have not been willing to name just one for the purposes of discussion.Zachriel
March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT
Zachriel: "You can’t point to a single scientific paper in support of natural genetic engineering," Shapiro can. But you refuse to read his book or check out his website, where many such papers are cited. So the conversation ends due to your laziness -- or your fear of what you will find if you read Shapiro. I'm amazed at the arrogance of internet Darwinists. Here we have Shapiro, molecular evolutionary theorist at the prestigious University of Chicago, author of a book deemed by Carl Woese (discoverer of a whole new kingdom of life) a "game changer"; I cited Shapiro as an example of someone whose views on evolutionary theory might be just a wee bit more up-to-date and sophisticated than those of Eugenie Scott, Ken Miller, or Richard Dawkins (which are the sort of views that ninth-grade students have been fed for about 50 years now). And on the other hand we have "Zachriel," who speaks of himself in the plural and whose accomplishments in evolutionary biology are -- what exactly? Yet Zachriel speaks dismissively of Shapiro! And without even having read his book, to boot! The lack of intellectual humility in the Darwinist camp is astounding.Timaeus
March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
When it was pointed out the ID is NOT anti-evolution. Also you can’t won’t point to a single scientific paper in support of unguided evolution, but you want it taught to school children. What a bunch of lying, double-standard spewing losers evolutionists are.Joe
March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT
Zachriel:
When it was pointed out that most of Shapiro’s mechanisms (regulatory sequences, symbiosis, hgt, evo-devo, epigenetics, polyploidy) are already largely incorporated into evolutionary theory,
There isn't any evolutionary theory. Unguided evolution doesn't even have any entailments. Obviously Zachriel prefers to obfuscate rather than educate. Pathetic...Joe
March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT
Timaeus: The fact is that since about the time of Sputnik up until now, the mainstream public conception of evolution has been the neo-Darwinian. And the fact is that since about the time of forever, the mainstream public conception of physics has been Newtonian.Zachriel
March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT
Aurelio Smith: I never said that I thought or hoped that Shapiro was an advocate of ID. Why are you consistently incapable of reading what I write and getting it straight? Do you have trouble absorbing the meaning of clear prose? Or is it ideological bias that makes you read all kinds of things into my posts that I've never said? I mentioned Shapiro only as an example of a secular, peer-reviewed, full-time evolutionary biologist (at a major university, to boot) who is critical of neo-Darwinian evolution. There are many, many others, including Wagner, Newman, etc. The fact is that since about the time of Sputnik up until now, the mainstream public conception of evolution has been the neo-Darwinian. What most people pick up about evolutionary mechanisms in school (and in popular presentations in books or on television) is the view of typified by Eugenie Scott, Ken Miller, or Richard Dawkins. That's dated now. The curriculum should be changed -- *not to include ID* (I have to repeat, for the benefit of the deaf and thick people here), and *not to include creationism*, but to include a much more complex and nuanced understanding of evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory should be taught at greater length and in more depth in high school science classes. But ninth grade is not the place to do it. From what I'm being told, the students in many districts can barely tell the difference between carbon and hydrogen, and students like that aren't going to be able to follow discussions of DNA etc. Ninth grade should lay down the basic foundations of science: chemistry, physics, and biology. Evolution should be taught in specialized biology courses in the upper years, where it can be treated at the length it deserves.Timaeus
March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT
Aurelio Smith: You still haven't apologized to me for completely misrepresenting my position re creationism and ID, but that's par for the course with Darwinists. No intellectual honesty anywhere in the pack. As for views of Shapiro, Carl Woese, who knew more about biology than anyone who has ever posted here or ever will post here, called Shapiro's book "a game changer." I'll take Woese's estimation over your secondhand or third-hand opinion.Timaeus
March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT
velikovskys (99): If you were paying attention -- which you obviously weren't -- the split personality remark was a joke, based on Z.'s ridiculous and pompous habit of referring to himself as "we". I was not actually accusing him of having a split personality. But by now I'm used to the Darwinists on this site: (a) not reading carefully and (b) not comprehending what they read.Timaeus
March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT
as to: "The ideas, mechanisms, processes Shapiro gets excited about are all encompassed by and consistent with modern evolutionary theory." I guess if you throw out random mutation and natural selection as primary players from 'modern evolutionary theory' you could have a point: A few comments from the 'non-Darwinian' evolutionist, James A. Shapiro PhD. Genetics Shapiro on Random Mutation: "What I ask others interested in evolution to give up is the notion of random accidental mutation." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/jerry-coyne-fails-to-unde_b_1411144.html -Comment section "Establishing that teleological questions are critical will itself take a considerable effort because we need to overcome the long-held but purely philosophical (and illogical) assertion that functional creativity can result from random changes." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Upright_BiPed/genetic-recombination-not-random_b_1743647_175499059.html How life changes itself: the Read-Write (RW) genome. - 2013 Excerpt: Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that genetic change is the result of cell-mediated processes, not simply accidents or damage to the DNA. This cell-active view of genome change applies to all scales of DNA sequence variation, from point mutations to large-scale genome rearrangements and whole genome duplications (WGDs). This conceptual change to active cell inscriptions controlling RW genome functions has profound implications for all areas of the life sciences. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23876611 Shapiro on Natural Selection: "My argument remains that the innovative process in evolution is rapid natural genetic engineering rather than gradual selection of small changes over long periods of time. This argument does not deny a role for selection. I simply assert that it is unrealistic to ascribe a creative (virtually deus ex machina) role to natural selection." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/theory-of-evolution_b_1294315.htmlbornagain77
March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT
Aurelio Smith: The ideas, mechanisms, processes Shapiro gets excited about are all encompassed by and consistent with modern evolutionary theory. When it was pointed out that most of Shapiro's mechanisms (regulatory sequences, symbiosis, hgt, evo-devo, epigenetics, polyploidy) are already largely incorporated into evolutionary theory, Timaeus refused to discuss any specifics.Zachriel
March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT
Timaeus: Until you have read his book, this conversation is over. In the meantime, I’d advise seeing a doctor about that split personality problem. Talking about yourself in the plural is not a good sign. Neither is using insults instead of reasoning.velikovskys
March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT
Timaeus: I *refuse* to. You can't won't point to a single scientific paper in support of natural genetic engineering, but you want it taught to school children.Zachriel
March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT
Zachriel: In addition to having reading comprehension difficulties, you are willfully stupid. It is not that I am "unable to provide" examples. I could open my Shapiro book and find plenty of them. But I *refuse* to. Got it? I *refuse* to. Do you want to know why? It's because you haven't read one of the most important books in evolutionary theory in the past 10 years, and you're proud of the fact that you haven't read it, yet want to pose on this site as an expert on evolutionary theory. I refuse to co-operate with that kind of laziness, combined with that kind of pompousness. *I'm* not the one who made the claim about natural genetic engineering. Shapiro did -- Shapiro, and all the other research biologists upon whose research he draws. I couldn't care less if you doubt *my* word, but you're doubting Shapiro's word. If you think he's wrong, then prove it. Go over his examples in front of me and everyone here and show what an incompetent fool Shapiro is. But in order to do that, you're going to have to stop being lazy and actually read what he says. I will not do your work for you. Until you have read his book, this conversation is over. In the meantime, I'd advise seeing a doctor about that split personality problem. Talking about yourself in the plural is not a good sign.Timaeus
March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
Timaeus: “We” are quite able to provide what you want, but don’t wish to invest the time to do the lookup You can't name a single example of 'natural genetic engineering', much less provide a scientific citation with evidence. You don't have to support your claims, but most people will discount them if you are unable to do so.Zachriel
March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
03:37 AM
3
03
37
AM
PDT
I know reading comprehension isn't a high priority of yours, but me and Timaeus were talking about how the education system has changed in the past few decades. Maybe you've been going a little too heavy on the sauce while watching march madness, I don't know.Curly Howard
March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
08:12 PM
8
08
12
PM
PDT
Curly Howard:
I hope you weren’t quoting me with “things change,” Mungy.
Let's pretend that I wasn't quoting you, even though this comment by you is there for all to see:
Things change.
Can we stop pretending now? Do you actually disagree with my analysis? evolution = "things change" unless they don'tMung
March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT
I hope you weren't quoting me with "things change," Mungy.Curly Howard
March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT
From what I know, most high schools teach most students chemistry, biology, and physics; each are a full year course and taken in some combination in grades 9,10,11. In grade 12, the higher level students can take a college level science class of their choice if available, while the lower students took an "environmental science-type BS" class in grade 9, then take the general chem/bio/phys trio in grades 10, 11, 12. In my opinion, the problem is the quality of teachers being recruited to teach science classes. The salaries are way too small to expect enticement of quality educators with a passion to teach who know their stuff.Curly Howard
March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT
>> evolution = "things change" => "things change" >> creationism = "things don't change" => "things don't change" >> evolution > creationism => false Ouch! Computers are indeed stupid. For sure they cannot be trusted to inform us that evolution is true.Mung
March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT
Curly: Your description of the problem makes sense to me; it would certainly explain the psychology of Eugenie Scott; if she herself was trained in high school that way, she probably cannot imagine that high school science could ever be any different. So she thinks in terms of "stuff you gotta cover in a hurry." It's a pretty pathetic manner of science education. Anyhow, my view is that you cannot possibly do justice to evolutionary theory in the first year of high school; if it gets crammed into only a week or two of the semester, it will be shallow and useless. It can't be treated properly until the senior grades, when more time can be given to it. All my comments on teaching different versions of evolutionary theory have presupposed that we are talking about a unit on evolutionary theory that is several weeks long, and in a senior grade. Are there no high schools, in your experience, which teach biology in the senior grades?Timaeus
March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT
Soitenly. Things change. Better or worse. What students get in high school now is as you said, the basics of the chemistry of life, parts and functions of the cell, anatomy and physiology, etc. They also get the very basics of evolution. All of this is overly simplified and they are expected to learn this all to a certain degree, depending on the individual teacher. This is generally how the secondary education system works in the US. Students are spoonfed information and basically expected to memorize it. Application of knowledge comes during college. It's not ideal but it's the best we can do currently. Evolution is an integral part of general biology, there is no reason it should be removed from curriculum while cellular biology, or anatomy and physiology stays.Curly Howard
March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
06:33 PM
6
06
33
PM
PDT
Curly: Well, perhaps my high school experience was different from that of most. I was surrounded in my year by dozens of very bright students, who went on to become university profs, chartered accountants, engineers, senior civil servants, etc. In our classes we studied masses (no pun intended) of Newtonian physics, wave/particle duality (with lots of experiments on wave motion), philosophical/cultural critiques of science, cosmology, arguments regarding life on Mars, and all kinds of meaty things, not to mention math coming out our ears, including calculus, matrices, vectors and dot products, formal logic, etc. I can think of two dozen fellow students, offhand, who would have loved the chance to study varying theories of evolution and even have a classroom debate over them. And they all would have scoffed at the idea that any court of law had to "protect" them from any "wrong" scientific ideas. But of course, this was long ago, in the Dark Ages, when knights rescued ladies fair, and when there were were intellectual standards from kindergarten up; thanks to the philosophies of brain-dead hippie educators starting in the 1960s, there has been a steady decline in standards. So let's say for the sake of argument that the average student these days is nowhere near the level I'm describing. Let's say the average science student is more likely to need remedial help than to be capable of wrestling with really tough theory. In that case, one can't have it both ways. One can't argue: "These students are bright enough to understand neo-Darwinian theory, but aren't bright enough to understand criticisms of neo-Darwinian theory." That's rubbish. There is nothing *conceptually more difficult* about the criticisms of the theory than the statement of the theory. So while it is true that a student who cannot follow a basic lesson on meiosis will not be able to follow Shapiro's critique of neo-Darwinism, it is also true that the same student won't be able to follow Mayr's or Dobzhansky's exposition of neo-Darwinism either. And if the students are so bad that they can follow neither the theory nor its critics, then what they need is very basic biology (and chemistry) before they are taught anything about evolution at all. I would therefore suggest that evolutionary theory be moved entirely out of ninth grade and that ninth grade concentrate on much simpler biological basics, such as "what are the parts of plant and animal cells," and "what are the functions of each of these parts," and "what are the main characteristics of reptiles, mammals, birds, arthropods, molluscs," and "how do the oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon cycles work," and "what is a nucleic acid," and "what is an amino acid." Glad to meet you, Curly. Hope to hear Moe from you. (Nyuk, nyuk.)Timaeus
March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT
Timaeus, unfortunately I am afraid you have far too much confidence in the students, at least students here in the US. I am sad to say it, but "intellectually capable" is not a good descriptor of the majority of students.Curly Howard
March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT
wd400: You're a typical modern "science geek" -- you have no patience for reading a coherent piece of prose. Yet unless you have a learning disability, you should be able to read my longest post above in 2 minutes. I bet you are the kind of guy who can't bear to wait more than three rings on the telephone before you hang up. That's probably why Zachriel hasn't read Shapiro's book. Even though it's short as books go, only about 150 pages, it's longer than the 15-page attention span of most readers of science material. Anyhow: if you want the short and skinny, suited to your attention span: Your ideas on high school science education stink. Is that the kind of brevity you are looking for?Timaeus
March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT
Truth be told, Timaeus, you write far too much to say so little. So I've not read all of the post above or the one in other thread. The little I did read leaves me shrugging my shoulders, but your beliefs are your own and I don't see much point wasting your time or mine on them. Especially not if a reply would elicit another avalanche like these posts.wd400
March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT
Zachriel (81): "We" are quite able to provide what you want, but don't wish to invest the time to do the lookup, especially when "ye" (your name is Legion) need to read the Shapiro book anyway, to become responsible participants in current discussions about evolution. By the way, Legion, I can recommend a good shrink, if this multiple personality problem persists. But I suspect you won't want much to do with him (v. Mark ch. 5.).Timaeus
March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT
wd400 (re 79 above): Thanks for your in-depth and enthusiastic engagement.Timaeus
March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT
wd400: You are shortsighted when it comes to science pedagogy. You want science education to be about transmitting official truths, rather than imparting a critical way of thinking. I want the reverse. Mentioning that there are people who think HIV does not cause AIDS could provide a good "teaching moment." The students will doubtless have heard that view in the popular media anyway, so there is no way of "protecting" their shell-like little ears from hearing it by keeping all mention of it out of science class. More useful would be a short discussion, or at least a passing reference (one sentence, maybe even just one subordinate clause) to the view in the textbook, with a footnote citing the works in which Duesberg, etc. made their case, and citing a number of works in which that case was soundly refuted. That would lead the Duesberg-inclined students back to a body of literature which (a) would dispel any illusions they had regarding AIDS and (b) would give them an idea of the scientific process -- how bad ideas are studied, analyzed, and refuted. It's the same with ID. I'm *against* mandating the inclusion of ID in the science curriculum, but in particular local cases, on a voluntary basis, a talented science teacher could easily, without endorsing ID, use ID notions -- which in many cases his/her students will have heard a lot about, and may be inclined to support -- as a "teaching moment" to get students thinking about broader questions in biology or in science generally: does science deal only in efficient causes, or should it take into account formal and final causes as well; what is "methodological naturalism" and what bearing does it have on origins questions; how do historical sciences differ, if at all, from experimental sciences; what is the difference between teleology and teleonomy, and is one more appropriate in biology than the other; what does the extremely frequent use of machine analogies in molecular and cell biology, even by atheistic scientists, imply; etc. Again, this need not take a huge amount of time. A 20-minute classroom discussion at the end of the unit on evolution might be sufficient to have the desired pedagogical effect. And the fact that ID was mentioned, rather than being censored, would create the impression among students that scientists are open to new ideas, even if they end up rejecting those ideas, and that courts aren't necessary to determine what science teachers can teach. You and Zachriel have far too little confidence in both the science teachers of the nation, and the students of the nation. Not only are the students intellectually capable of handling the existence of disagreement among scientists; the discussion of such disagreements would make science more *interesting* to them. If they see science as a "live" field in which there are rival claims which research is needed to settle, they will conceive of science as something they might want to pursue as a career; if they see science as a "dead" field, in which the experts have settled everything but a few details, then they will regard science class as just the transmission of "stuff you gotta know" to pass the course, or to get into dentistry school, or whatever. Science class would then be something like the old "names and dates" method of teaching history. Young people are excited by the prospect of a field in which intelligent experts can disagree, and the more high school science can portray science as that sort of endeavor, the more young people will want to major in science at university.Timaeus
March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT
1 5 6 7 8 9 10

Leave a Reply