Scrub jays too weird for Wired mag?

_{News
March 13, 2015

Darwinism, Evolution, News

3}_{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: I already indicated sufficiently what I was talking about: one-celled organisms that are known to reorganize their genomes (resulting in a new genome) in response to environmental challenges. For which we asked for a scientific citation, but you have been unable to provide.Zachriel_{March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT}

Zachriel: I never endorsed Margulis's claims about Gaia. I wasn't talking about them at all. Margulis's critique of neo-Darwinism isn't "old". It's still very much alive. Her *alternative* to neo-Darwinism (do you know what it was? bet you don't) may no longer be much supported, but her negative evaluation of it re the origin of biological novelty is shared by many current evolutionary biologists -- the ones you can't be bothered to read. I'm not going to take the time to find particular pages in Shapiro, so you can save your breath. I already indicated sufficiently what I was talking about: one-celled organisms that are known to reorganize their genomes (resulting in a new genome) in response to environmental challenges. If you know as much as you intimate that you know about evolutionary theory, you will be able to find the examples yourself very quickly in the book, or on Shapiro's web site. Shapiro's notion is in direct conflict with the neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory that was taught to the public from the time of Weismann up until very recent times. Yet the biological studies vindicating Shapiro's view were available much earlier, from the time of McClintock forward. But the neo-Darwinian orthodoxy didn't want to talk about anything so "Lamarckian." And this is just one example of the control of the textbook and popular presentations of evolutionary theory by an "old guard" that is increasingly out of touch with the complexity of modern biology in general. The theory that Margulis was arguing against *does* still exist -- in many high school textbooks, in many popular presentations of evolution in books and on television, on many pro-evolution blogs, at the Dover ID trial, in the writings of Miller and Dawkins, etc. If you want ID people to stop criticizing that theory, and you have any influence upon the world of evolutionary biology, get your colleagues to tell Miller, Dawkins, the NCSE, etc. to shut up, and have your friends write to the PBS etc. and tell them to stop putting dated crap on television in place of recent evolutionary theory.Timaeus_{March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT}

Oh, and the other thread. Thank you for answering that question. I found all the answers very interesting.wd400_{March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT}

Timaeus, Well, I for one think we should keep terrible ideas out of school curricula. There are scientists who don't think HIV causes AIDs, for instance, but I don't think we should add that crtique of existing science in high school In any case, you are just wrong to think evolution biology is "rife with conflict". There are, as there always have been, conflicting interpretations within the field, but the like of Margulis (and to a lesser extend Shapiro) represent a very small minority of evolutionary biologists. Open an issue of Genetics, Evolution, American Naturalist or Molecular Biology and Evolution if you want to confirm this. Teaching that stuff instead of the well-established ideas within evolutionary biology would be a very strange way to go about building a high school course.wd400_{March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT}

Timaeus: But what you’re unaware of — based on your discussion — is that Margulis also offered a general critique of the neo-Darwinian view of the origins of evolutionary novelty. We're quite aware of it. What matters to science are her biological claims that have been substantiated. Her primary contribution was endosymbiosis. Her ideas on Gaia have not borne scientific fruit. She was also a staunch darwinist. Similarly, Darwin's theory of natural selection has been substantiated and is still part of current theory, while his theory of Pangenesis has been rejected and forgotten. Timaeus: I’m not saying the textbook should stop for a lengthy examination of Margulis’s views. Nobody cares about old fights. Endosymbiosis, however, is an important evolutionary mechanism, and is important to understanding biological history. Timaeus: So the high school textbooks give a false impression of the unity of evolutionary theory, by making use of a discovery of Margulis, and “coopting” that discovery to support neo-Darwinism Neo-darwinism is a catch-all phrase. It can means the original synthesis, or sometimes, the modern theory. But the theory that Margulis was arguing against no longer exists. Timaeus: As for your final sneer, I’ve read Shapiro’s entire book, which is more than you’ve done. Sure, but have exhibited no ability to recount what you read. All we asked for was a single example of Shapiro's so-called natural genetic engineering for the purpose of discussion.Zachriel_{March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

wd400: Your comment in 73 is irrelevant to the current dispute. I was not trying to convince Zachriel that Margulis's critique of neo-Darwinism was correct. I was pointing out that Margulis's critique exists, and that the critique of many other professional evolutionary biologists exists, and that textbooks give a false impression of one monolithic "evolutionary theory," when in fact the field is rife with conflict. I never suggested that minority opinions in evolutionary theory should get *as much time* in textbooks as majority opinions; but the *existence* of minority opinions among qualified practitioners shouldn't be deliberately concealed from high school students -- which is what Eugenie Scott's NCSE, in its heart of hearts, hoped for; hence its policy of opposing not only ID, but also every educational reform posed in the USA for teaching evolutionary biology more critically. If you look at the Discovery website, you will find that the Discovery policy is not that *less* Darwinian theory should be taught, but *more* -- and that some criticisms of the theory, not from ID books, but from peer-reviewed scientific literature, should be included in the teaching. (Obviously, in an abbreviated form, with just the main ideas, as is appropriate for the limited time available in a high school classroom.) Only someone who is opposed to the free and open debate about ideas would want high school students to be aware only of the strengths of neo-Darwinism while remaining oblivious of its weaknesses. By the way, I worked hard to reply thoughtfully to one of your questions, and you have not yet given me the courtesy of even an acknowledgment, let alone a reponse. See #36 at: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/okay-darwin-follower/Timaeus_{March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT}

Zachriel (74): I never denied that endosymbiosis was widely accepted. But what you're unaware of -- based on your discussion -- is that Margulis also offered a general critique of the neo-Darwinian view of the origins of evolutionary novelty. So the high school textbooks give a false impression of the unity of evolutionary theory, by making use of a discovery of Margulis, and "coopting" that discovery to support neo-Darwinism, without indicating that the same mind which conceived of endosymbiosis is not "onside" with some major claims of neo-Darwinism. I'm not saying the textbook should stop for a lengthy examination of Margulis's views. There isn't room. But it wouldn't hurt to have a short footnote to the effect that Margulis herself would not endorse the neo-Darwinian account which has "coopted" one of her suggestions. Even if the note also said that Margulis was in the minority among evolutionary biologists, I'd be content with the passing acknowledgment. Margulis's critique of the neo-Darwinian origin of biological novelty isn't merely historical criticism. It's a very live criticism, and it's shared by a good number of contemporary professionals in evolutionary biology (though you, not being such, aren't aware of that). I've already given you several names of people who, though they differ with Margulis in their own particular accounts of evolution, agree with her negatively, i.e., regarding the inadequacy of neo-Darwinism to account for the origin of most biological novelty. If you don't want to follow up on those critiques, that's your business. I've led you to water; it's your choice whether or not to drink. As for your final sneer, I've read Shapiro's entire book, which is more than you've done. If you're too lazy to read one of the most important books in evolutionary biology in the past decade (Carl Woese, who knows a thing or two, called it a "game changer"), you have no business mouthing off about evolutionary theory on the internet.Timaeus_{March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

Timaeus: The fact that you are struggling with my comments on Margulis and Gould shows that you are well behind me in reading *the actual words of those authors*, as opposed to reading *popular paraphrases of some of their isolated ideas*. Actually, we're more familiar with their actual words than popular paraphrases. Timaeus: Margulis’s critique of neo-Darwinism, complete with quotations and links to her words, has been discussed at length on this very website, a couple of years ago. So? As already pointed out, historical criticism only has historical value. What persists are the findings, such as endosymbiosis, which is now widely accepted. Timaeus: The scientific citations you are demanding are given copiously in Shapiro’s book. We asked for one example, something you can't seem to provide. You've exhibited no knowledge of Shapiro or his ideas on Natural Genetic Engineering.Zachriel_{March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT}

It’s a waste of time talking to you. You haven’t read enough of the theoretical literature.
LOl. One reason to ignore Margulis’ critique of neo darwinism is that it's very bad. THis is the person who let this paper get published, after all: http://www.pnas.org/content/106/47/19901.full It would be bizarre to teach the not-very-well-supported opinions of a hand full of evolutionary biologists in high school.wd400_{March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

Zachriel: It's a waste of time talking to you. You haven't read enough of the theoretical literature. The fact that you are struggling with my comments on Margulis and Gould shows that you are well behind me in reading *the actual words of those authors*, as opposed to reading *popular paraphrases of some of their isolated ideas*. Margulis's critique of neo-Darwinism, complete with quotations and links to her words, has been discussed at length on this very website, a couple of years ago. I can't remember the exact columns, but if you Google "Margulis" "Elizabeth Liddle" and "Timaeus" all together, you will probably be able to find the discussion and the link to Margulis's exact words. And Gould's *Structure of Evolutionary Theory* is easily available. I've already indicated that you need to read Gould's critique of adaptationism and functionalism (a separate issue from punctuated equilibrium). The scientific citations you are demanding are given copiously in Shapiro's book. I don't intend to go through the pages of his book and type out the references for you. If you are too lazy to read Shapiro's book, you aren't serious about evolutionary biology anyway. Besides, Shapiro has a website with massive technical resources on it; you can find even more detail there than is in his book. James Shapiro, University of Chicago. I trust you have the internet skills to take it from there. Do some reading, and then, when you are up to my level in evolutionary theory, we'll talk. Finally, you continue to have reading comprehension problems (as so many "sciencey" types do these days). I did not say that I "wanted" schools to "provide books" in ID. I said that I would not *forbid* those science teachers who, in their personal judgment as science educators, thought that reading a book by Behe or some other ID proponent might be helpful to some students, from mentioning such books on a supplementary reading list. I said nothing about "providing" such books, i.e., I said nothing about making such books course textbooks, or even about putting them in the library. But your reading is so sloppy you jump to conclusions. Of course, sloppy reading is nothing new in critics of ID; in fact, it's more the norm than the exception.Timaeus_{March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT}

Timaeus: Margulis’s endosymbiosis is found in the textbooks, but her criticism of neo-Darwinism isn’t. Huh? Endosymbiosis is a fundamental change in the then prevalent view of evolution. The criticism only has historical interest. While endosymbiosis is critical to understanding evolutionary history, it doesn't mean that much of evolution isn't due to neodarwinian processes. Timaeus: Gould’s punctuated equilibrium is found in the textbooks, but his serious critical analysis of Darwinian adaptationism isn’t. Huh? Punctuated equilibrium is a significant change in the then prevalent view of evolution. The criticism only has historical interest. Punctuated equilibrium isn't contrary to darwinism or neodarwinism. Timaeus: such as the inheritance of acquired characteristics in some one-celled organisms due to genome restructuring We've asked several times. Please provide a scientific citation so we know exactly to what you are referring. Timaeus: If you read my answer with due care ... We did. You wanted the school to provide books on Intelligent Design in the context of the biological sciences. Intelligent Design is not valid science, certainly not accepted science by the biological community, so should not be provided to students with the imprimatur of science.Zachriel_{March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT}

Zachriel: "We're familiar with Shapiro's scientific publications." Horsecrap, Mr. Schizophrenic. If you were, you would know what he has to say about genome restructuring. Stop BS-ing.Timaeus_{March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT}

Zachriel: You are misleading about what's found in the textbooks. Margulis's endosymbiosis is found in the textbooks, but her criticism of neo-Darwinism isn't. Gould's punctuated equilibrium is found in the textbooks, but his serious critical analysis of Darwinian adaptationism isn't. As for Shapiro, while some of his ideas about evolutionary theory are not yet generally accepted, some of the biological data he discusses has long been accepted -- such as the inheritance of acquired characteristics in some one-celled organisms due to genome restructuring -- but is not mentioned in the textbooks because the Darwinians who control the school curriculum don't want any "Lamarckian" heresy to be taught to the kids. The goal of those behind the curriculum is always to give evolutionary biology a facade of unity that it doesn't have, and that is done entirely for political purposes. Your childish final comment about pseudoscience betrays a deep disrespect for the science teachers of America. You don't believe they are competent to compile reading lists for bright students who want to read outside the curriculum. You think you know more about science pedagogy than they do, and more about the psychology of 13-17-year olds than they do. I pray that you are not a science teacher; your classroom would be one of indoctrination, not education. But that makes sense, as Darwinian theory, in all its guises, has always had much more quasi-religious materialist-reductionist dogma in it than real empirical science. You also don't read carefully. Your comment about "the introductory level" shows that you are still thinking about the hopelessly bad system, currently employed in most U.S. states, of teaching biology before the other sciences, in ninth grade, and of introducing evolutionary biology at that point, while the students are still trying to learn basic cell biology, basic genetics, etc. (and haven't yet done any high school chemistry, and thus are lacking in the chemical knowledge needed to understand even the basic biology, let alone evolutionary theory). If you read my answer with due care, you would see that my proposal was to teach basic biology in the early high school grades, deferring evolutionary theory until the upper grades, so that when students are introduced to evolutionary theory they already have a good understanding of basic biological concepts (the structure and physiology of cells, mitosis, meiosis, nucleotides, amino acids, oxygen cycle, carbon cycle, food chains, etc.). With those basics in hand, evolutionary ideas could be taught at a higher and more sophisticated level than they can be at present. There is certainly nothing in Shapiro's idea of genomic re-engineering that a high school senior could not understand, if that student already knows the basics of genetics and cell structure and function from previous courses.Timaeus_{March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

Timaeus: in 65 You insisted. Timaeus: In other words, you are too lazy to read Shapiro’s book. We're familiar with Shapiro's scientific publications. Are you saying you can't summarize any specific examples for discussion? That's very odd. If so, then we can defer this part of the discussion.Zachriel_{March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT}

Zachriel (64): Note this exchange: Timaeus: Regarding Shapiro, if you really do want specifics about organismal re-engineering of the genome, as you say you do, you will find them in his book entitled *Evolution*. Zachriel: In other words, you won’t name a single example worth discussing. Timaeus: In other words, you are too lazy to read Shapiro's book. And if you're too lazy to read Shapiro's book, then your thoughts on evolutionary biology are completely worthless. Anyone who claims to know evolutionary biology and hasn't read Shapiro's book, which came out more than 3 years ago, is a fraud and a poseur. All serious evolutionary theorists have at least read it, whether they agree with it or not. The fact that you haven't read it (along with the fact that you seem utterly unaware of the basic struggle between the structuralists and the functionalists) tells me you are not actually in the field of evolutionary biology, but are just another internet BS-er about evolution, like 99% of the atheists/materialists who post here. Fraud and poseur, Zachriel; fraud and poseur.Timaeus_{March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT}

Zachriel (re 65): After sounding half-reasonable previously, in 65 you sound infantile. You might try conversing like a grown-up. It's painful to give up one's childhood, I know, but it's a necessity of civilized existence.Timaeus_{March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT}

OFF-TOPIC Timaeus: Why do you keep saying “we”? A number of theories have been proposed concerning our use of nosism. If Zachriel were legion,
group of poseurs ultimate expression of internet group think hive commune of pedants committee weird cult collective pseudonym like Bourbaki five guys collective tri-unity imaginary playmates being of more than one mind royalty, pluralis majestatis the Z-team, a team of Zachriels schizophrenic because it annoys you editorial, pluralis modestiae someone with a tapeworm best friend is a pooka dissociative identity disorder a bizzare pseudo-world affectation gaggle of grad students Jovian clique nervous tick possessed by demons a group of concerned citizens Got a mouse in your pocket? fellow at a Darwin institute gang of Z elaborate avatar created by a theist to explore the worldview of materialism
Zachriel_{March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT}

Timaeus: does there come a point where the original model is no longer adequate, even with modifications, and a new evolutionary theory is necessary When a new evolutionary theory is proposed that explains all the observations better than the current theory, then that is when the theory gets replaced. Otherwise, the old theory muddles along. In any case, speculating about a possible new theory is fine, but teaching such speculation to schoolchildren is not. Timaeus: Regarding Shapiro, if you really do want specifics about organismal re-engineering of the genome, as you say you do, you will find them in his book entitled *Evolution*. In other words, you won't name a single example worth discussing. Timaeus: when I introduced evolution — which I would put in the senior grades (eleventh/twelfth grades in US terms) — I would give a brief historical overview of evolutionary theory, ... followed by discussion of more recent developments; and the various critical remarks of Gould, Margulis, Shapiro and others, and the theoretical basis of those remarks would be discussed. All of that, including Gould (punctuated equilibrium) and Margulis (endosymbiosis), excepting Shapiro (natural genetic engineering), are already found in many high school textbooks. As Shapiro's ideas are relatively new and not yet generally accepted, it's appropriate they not be taught at the introductory level. Timaeus: Nor would I forbid teachers from putting a few ID books on a list of “further readings for keen students who are interested in learning beyond the course requirements.” Pseudoscience has no place in high school science classes.Zachriel_{March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT}

Why do you keep saying “we”? Has anyone else authorized you to speak for them? Or are you a crowned head of state? If neither of these conditions apply, please stop saying “we” and say “I”. I want to know whether I am addressing a single person or a group.
Every time Zach uses that affectation in speech it should cost him 3 UD preferred-member bonus points. Or maybe we could determine some other appropriate penalty for him -- but merely pointing out how stupid his royal we sounds hasn't helped yet so far.Silver Asiatic_{March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT}

Zachriel: Why do you keep saying "we"? Has anyone else authorized you to speak for them? Or are you a crowned head of state? If neither of these conditions apply, please stop saying "we" and say "I". I want to know whether I am addressing a single person or a group. You are taking one statement out the Altenberg literature without looking at the whole context. The whole context makes it crystal clear that the big question is how far the neo-Darwinian model of evolution can be merely supplemented -- by throwing in "other mechanisms" (which still operate within a largely Darwinian superstructure); does there come a point where the original model is no longer adequate, even with modifications, and a new evolutionary theory is necessary -- one in which the Darwinian mechanisms are not necessarily abolished, but in which they no longer take center stage? That is what the work of Wagner, Newman and other "structuralists" is about; the neo-Darwinian model is inherently "functionalist", and you can't get to a "structuralist" model merely by touching up a "functionalist" model, any more than you can get to a chocolate ice cream sundae by merely touching up a Greek salad. If my comments still do not make sense to you, I recommend that you read the discussions of structuralism of functionalism in Gould's opus magnum, and that you have a look at some of the recent writings of Wagner, Newman, and Denton. Regarding Shapiro, if you really do want specifics about organismal re-engineering of the genome, as you say you do, you will find them in his book entitled *Evolution*. Indeed, I would say that anyone who comments on current evolutionary theory as if he knows all about it ought to have read that book. As for your final question, do you mean "biology" or "evolution"? Regarding biology, I would teach them basic cell biology, basic genetics, basic physiology, and basic ecology before discussing evolution at all. That would be in ninth/tenth grades in US terms. Then, when I introduced evolution -- which I would put in the senior grades (eleventh/twelfth grades in US terms) -- I would give a brief historical overview of evolutionary theory, with some general discussion of Paley, Lyell, Lamarck, etc., followed by a discussion of Darwin's ideas, followed by a discussion of Mendel's ideas, followed by a discussion of the Modern Synthesis, followed by a discussion of Crick and Watson and the cracking of the genetic code and the resulting "solidification" of evolutionary theory in the 1960s, followed by discussion of more recent developments; and the various critical remarks of Gould, Margulis, Shapiro and others, and the theoretical basis of those remarks would be discussed. I would not at any point mention creationism, the Bible, or religion (except in a general way when explaining the contrast between Darwin and Paley). I would not make mention of ID mandatory in any state or school district, but I would not forbid teachers from mentioning the names of Behe etc. as examples of certified, published scientists who doubt the efficacy of neo-Darwinian mechanisms to generate new body plans. Nor would I forbid teachers from putting a few ID books on a list of "further readings for keen students who are interested in learning beyond the course requirements." This is where I differ from Scott and the NCSE, who would greatly downplay any appearance of disagreement among evolutionary biologists and who would make any mention of the names of ID theorists or their books in a biology class illegal (because unconstitutional). I am a much less intellectually tyrannical person than the NCSE folks. I believe that in an open intellectual atmosphere, good ideas will defeat bad ones and silly ideas will be marginalized. You don't need to ban and censor criticisms of mainstream theories. The NCSE believes the opposite. So contemptuous are they of the natural curiosity and open-mindedness and reasoning ability and basic intellectual honesty of high school students, that they want to "protect" those students from hearing "dangerous" ideas, i.e., ideas which challenge the consensus (which in point of fact is no longer even really a consensus). Part of our problem is that you keep talking about "modern evolutionary theory" and I keep talking about "neo-Darwinism". The culture-war activity against ID has been largely led by hardcore neo-Darwinists. Read the transcripts of the Dover trial. It's mostly 1970s evolutionary theory that the "expert witnesses" were pushing. (Some of the examples of fossils and the computer simulations were of course more recent, but the theoretical framework was old.) I don't hate "modern evolutionary theory" as such; what I hate is the misrepresentation of "modern evolutionary theory" as the dated conceptions of Ken Miller, Eugenie Scott, Richard Dawkins, Barbara Forrest, Robert Pennock, etc. I don't want that archaic and theoretically unimaginative "evolutionary science" pushed in ninth-grade biology as "settled science." It's not settled science, it's dated science; already clever young biologists are mocking the evolutionary theory of Richard Dawkins. If we are going to teach high school students evolutionary theory -- and I think we should -- let it be the evolutionary theory of smart biologists at the University of Chicago, like Shapiro, or smart biologists at Stoney Brook, like Newman, not the theory of retired propagandists like Richard Dawkins or of cell biologists (not even evolutionary biologists) like Ken Miller who have not published any scientific articles since 1999.Timaeus_{March 18, 2015
March
03
Mar
18
18
2015
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT}

The problem is that the population size and number of generations is woefully small to even begin to consider a change of allele frequencies.
I beg your pardon? In a tiny population an innovation can be fixed very quickly, even by drift alone, but especially if it confers any kind of advantage.
Vervust et al. (2009), emphasis added: The presence of the species [Podarcis sicula] on the latter islet [Pod Mrc^aru] is remarkable, as it was introduced there in the context of an ecological experiment in 1971 (NEVO et al., 1972). Although the founder population consisted of ten adult specimens (five males and five females) only, the species has successfully colonized the island, eradicating the original population of Podarcis melisellensis in the process.
Piotr_{March 18, 2015
March
03
Mar
18
18
2015
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT}

Piotr: The problem is that the population size and number of generations is woefully small to even begin to consider a change of allele frequencies. Hence they write (from your quote above):
Genetic mitochondrial DNA analyses indicate that the lizards currently on Pod Mrc^aru are indeed P. sicula and are genetically indistinguishable from lizards from the source population [supporting information (SI) Fig. 5].
Population genetics can explain this change, something you think I see as an "evolutionary milestone." As to my 'confidence,' this paper was discussed here over 7 years ago. I don't know that the paper was out yet, or that it was open at the time. What was available was available in articles about the experiment. What I remember being said was that they transferred this lizard species away from an island where it was in competition with another species, to an island where there were no lizard species, hence no 'competition.' When they say "originally populated," that doesn't necessarily mean that it was populated with the other species at the time the 'sicula' lizards were moved to the new island. From what you've quoted, it's really hard to determine; but, at the time I remember it being reported as a transfer to an island where there were no species. (If the original species was in competition with another species, then if you're looking for something novel to happen you would likely want to move it to a situation where it is removed from that competition.) Also, if you search the document, the word "competition" doesn't show up.PaV_{March 18, 2015
March
03
Mar
18
18
2015
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT}

Timaeus: As far as I understand the history of the term, “Pangenesis” was not used by Lamarck. No. Pangenesis was Darwin's theory. Timaeus: I was talking about the capacity of some organisms to re-engineer their own genomes. We responded generally to Shapiro's view, but we'll look at any specific evidence. Timaeus: The Altenberg conference was intended to explore such possibilities Here's the official statement from the Altenberg conference:
The new concepts include (but are not limited to): evolvability, developmental plasticity, phenotypic and genetic accommodation, punctuated evolution, phenotypic innovation, facilitated variation, epigenetic inheritance, and multi-level selection.
Not much of a revolution. Most of those mechanisms have already been incorporated into evolutionary theory or relegated for further study. Timaeus: So if you (and whoever else is represented your “We”) think that someone would only criticize neo-Darwinism because of some alleged religious motivation, think again! Of course scientists criticize. It's what they do. But you have to have evidence to change the paradigm. Timaeus: Indeed, teaching young people that there are differences and that scientists are eagerly looking for ways to determine which version of evolutionary theory is more correct is an excellent way of getting them excited about a scientific career. That's intrinsic to the scientific process, not to a particular branch of science. We asked for specifics, but you really haven't provided any. What would you want to teach to children about biology.Zachriel_{March 18, 2015
March
03
Mar
18
18
2015
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

Zachriel: As far as I understand the history of the term, "Pangenesis" was not used by Lamarck. It might provide a theoretical explanation for how Lamarckian evolution could work, but as far as I know the word and its exact meaning are Darwin's, not Lamarck's. But this is a minor point. We are agreeing that Darwin allowed a role for Lamarckian explanation. (By the way, the account of Lamarck and Darwin in Gould's Structure of Scientific Revolutions, esp. 178-179, is more or less in line with my own.) Why do you say "*We're* aware"? Are you the Queen? Or are you writing on behalf of a group, e.g., the gang at Panda's Thumb? Your remark on Shapiro is not clear to me. You seem to be saying that I was referring to some reference in Shapiro to epigenetics. But I was not. I was talking about the capacity of some organisms to re-engineer their own genomes. He discusses this in many places, notably in his book *Evolution*. The question is not one of "contradicting" neo-Darwinian notions, as if they are entirely wrong. The question is of *the relative importance* of notions such as natural selection and random mutation. You are misrepresenting the current range of views if you are implying that all evolutionary biologists think that the recipe for success is to mostly keep neo-Darwinism and tinker a bit at the edges, "extending" NDE a bit with a few other ideas. Some evolutionary biologists think that random mutation and/or natural selection are much less central factors. The Altenberg conference was intended to explore such possibilities, but of course, there are always going to be those (Coyne, Dawkins, Ken Miller, Eugenie Scott, etc.) who belittle anyone who thinks outside the box in which their own dated training in evolutionary theory has imprisoned them. Finally, I did not say that Shapiro or anyone else in particular endorsed ID. It is, however, noteworthy that often the criticism of neo-Darwinism in Shapiro, Margulis, Newman, Wagner, etc. resembles the criticism offered by ID writers. So if you (and whoever else is represented your "We") think that someone would only criticize neo-Darwinism because of some alleged religious motivation, think again! Shapiro, Newman, Wagner, Margulis, etc. are/were all atheists or agnostics. The theorists I'm talking about are/were (Margulis is dead, hence the slashed alternative) part of the community of professional evolutionary biologists. Some of them are at the peak of their careers, actively publishing and researching. I do not say that high school biology has time to cover in detail all of their ideas, but it would be wrong for the biology curriculum to pretend that evolutionary theory is something monolithic and that there are no fundamental differences between the theorists. Indeed, teaching young people that there are differences and that scientists are eagerly looking for ways to determine which version of evolutionary theory is more correct is an excellent way of getting them excited about a scientific career. I hope you are not working under the false assumption, which I have already corrected in replying to Aurelio Smith (who as yet has not been honest enough to accept my correction and retract, but is still standing on his pride), that my position here is anti-evolutionary. At no point have I suggested that the schools should deny that the overwhelming majority of biologists endorse evolution. I am talking about giving a more representative picture of the varying views on the causes of evolution. But the NCSE has steadily opposed legislation that would allow teachers to do that. It wants schoolteachers to be forced to follow curriculum and textbooks that are narrowly and programmatically neo-Darwinian. Its idea of "high school science teacher" is "paid mouthpiece of the state for the promulgation of the reigning theories"; my idea of *any* high school science teacher is "one who presents science in its richness" -- and that richness includes the indication of disputed ideas and unsolved mysteries, and the sense that "the experts" don't always know it all and that "the consensus" is not always right.Timaeus_{March 18, 2015
March
03
Mar
18
18
2015
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT}

Timaeus: I know indeed that Darwin tended to adopt Lamarckian suggestions in later editions of the Origin. He did more than that. Darwin proposed a Lamarckian theory called Pangenesis. This isn't usually taught in basic biology because it's irrelevant other than for its historical interest. Timaeus: I was talking about actual changes to the genome stimulated by encounters with the environment. I take it that you have not read Shapiro or any of the school of evolutionary theorists springing off the work of McClintock. We're aware of Shapiro's ideas. Epigenetics is one of the often cited mechanisms. It's not clear that he is really proposing anything radically new. The historical record strongly supports natural selection as the primary mechanism of adaptation, and understanding of how toolbox genes work and how they evolved has extended, but not contradicted, the basics of evolutionary theory. Everyone's an ~~Einstein~~ Darwin. Nor do any of these ideas support Intelligent Design, construed as an outside agent, rather than the workings of internal 'intelligent' mechanisms.Zachriel_{March 18, 2015
March
03
Mar
18
18
2015
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT}

Zachriel some history lessons for you adapation theory is not neo-Darwinian mkay?
The most famous scientist associated with adaptive theory is Charles Darwin whose studies in the 1830s in the Galapagos Islands established a fixed relationship between organism and its habitat. Before Darwin, other scientists such as Empedocles, Aristotle, William Paley, Lamarck and Buffon accepted that fact that species changed, but didn't fully understand the reason behind the changes or that adaptation was a continual process without a final form. Adaptation theory proposed three changes when habitat changes: habitat tracking, genetic change or extinction. Of the three, only genetic change is the adaptation
Andre_{March 18, 2015
March
03
Mar
18
18
2015
01:16 AM
1
01
16
AM
PDT}

Zachriel: I did not say that Darwin had disproved Lamarck. I said that it was a popular trope that Darwin had disproved Lamarck. I know Darwin's writings firsthand, so yes, I know indeed that Darwin tended to adopt Lamarckian suggestions in later editions of the Origin. But the textbook popular presentation of Darwinism is never based on what Darwin actually wrote, but on idealized positions. Science popularizers are quite frequently ignorant of the actual messiness in the history of science; they have a narrative they want to put across, and facts don't bother them too much. So you get the gross oversimplification that Darwin believed that evolution had to wait until useful variations occurred by accident (which was the position of later neo-Darwinism), as opposed to the Lamarckian idea that constructive variation could spring from environment-organism interactions. The fact that Darwin himself wavered over mechanism and never entirely abandoned Lamarckian notions is conveniently glossed over. And it is the neo-Darwinian "Darwin" that most of the public has been taught in high school and popular writings about evolution for about the past 70 years. On another point: I was not talking about epigenetics. I was talking about actual changes to the genome stimulated by encounters with the environment. I take it that you have not read Shapiro or any of the school of evolutionary theorists springing off the work of McClintock. I have not suggested "making vacuous complaints about well-established science." What I am saying is that the presentation of evolutionary theory in the past has typically been of a one-dimensional neo-Darwinism. That is not reflective of the actual state of evolutionary theory today. It is ridiculous to have high school students still thinking about evolution as Dobzhansky thought about it, when over the past few decades the landscape has seriously changed. High school teaching necessarily simplifies, but there is no excuse for its simplifications to be those of 1975 rather than those of 2015. High school students are bright enough to understand *in general outline* the difference between different evolutionary theories. If you can explain to a high school student the difference between Big Bang and Steady State theory, you can certainly explain the difference between an evolutionary theory that is heavily adaptationist and one that isn't. And it's nothing short of academic dishonesty to leave high school students with the impression that evolutionary theory is a polished piece of work with only a few details to fill in, when in fact evolutionary theory, along with all of biology over the past 25 years, has been in tremendous flux as volumes of new knowledge pour in. This has nothing at all to do with ID; it's a point of science pedagogy that applies, mutatis mutandis, to the teaching of chemistry, physics, earth and space science, etc. in the high schools. In history class, students are taught conflicting theories of, say, the cause of the French Revolution; similarly, in science class, students should be given some idea of the diversity of theoretical opinion that exists among scientists; otherwise, they are being given a false picture of what science is as an intellectual enterprise.Timaeus_{March 18, 2015
March
03
Mar
18
18
2015
12:38 AM
12
12
38
AM
PDT}

Timaeus: There is no excuse, in 2015, for not letting high school biology students that neo-Darwinism is a greatly simplified model of evolutionary change. It's not that simplified. A lot of evolution, including adaptation, still occurs within the neodarwinian framework. Timaeus: Students are taught now, for example, that acquired characteristics are never inherited {...}; but we now know this is not true, at least for some one-celled organisms. Are you referring to epigenetics? If so, epigenetics doesn't seem to persist past the 2nd generation. That would make it a phenotype, not a genotype. In any case, you can't learn epigenetics without already understanding genetics, so genetics is the appropriate subject for an introductory text. Timaeus: (the old “Darwin disproved Lamarck” trope) Um, Darwin didn't "disprove Lamarck". Darwin actually proposed a Lamarckian theory of inheritance. It was Mendel who discovered the genetics of inheritance. Timaeus: But the NCSE doesn’t want teachers to have the freedom to alert students of those criticisms. What? You want teachers to mention epigenetics? Timaeus: Part of science education should familiarize students with the scientific process, which includes the criticism of existing theory in the light of new evidence. Sure, but you don't learn the scientific process by making vacuous complaints about well-established science.Zachriel_{March 17, 2015
March
03
Mar
17
17
2015
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT}

Zachriel: We were taught about the Bohr atom in high school -- *and* were taught that it was a simplified model. And that was many years ago. There is no excuse, in 2015, for not letting high school biology students that neo-Darwinism is a greatly simplified model of evolutionary change. Random mutation and selection used to be almost the whole story in evolutionary theory. Now there is vigorous debate about how important random mutation is as a source of evolutionary novelty, and how far selection is involved in a good deal of evolutionary change. Students need to be made aware of that. When you say "What proposed changes?" I'm puzzled. Are you unaware that over the past 20 years or so, various states and school boards have proposed and in some cases enacted policies in science education that include "teaching scientific theories more critically"? My point was that the NCSE has issued a blanket "No" to all such policies, *even when they explicitly guarantee that neither creationism nor ID will be taught in the biology curriculum*. It follows that the NCSE stance is based not merely on the desire to keep "religion" out of science classes, but on the desire to protect the status of classical neo-Darwinism, which is pretty much what is taught in high school biology textbooks. Students are taught now, for example, that acquired characteristics are never inherited (the old "Darwin disproved Lamarck" trope); but we now know this is not true, at least for some one-celled organisms. High school students should be made aware of this. There is nothing wrong with teaching neo-Darwinian theory as long as the teacher is allowed to inform students of criticisms of that theory. But the NCSE doesn't want teachers to have the freedom to alert students of those criticisms. It wants "Miller Darwinism" or "Dawkins Darwinism" to be what is taught in the high schools. That's the problem -- doctrinaire science which kills the spirit of criticism and inquiry. Science education must go beyond merely teaching students simplified versions of current theories. Part of science education should familiarize students with the scientific process, which includes the criticism of existing theory in the light of new evidence. Students should learn something of why certain scientific theories eventually replaced others, and why even our most certain scientific ideas today may not seem so certain tomorrow. Any teaching of science that regards science as "stuff" that "students gotta know" falsifies the nature of science, and makes it into the equivalent of teaching history as nothing but a series of names and dates.Timaeus_{March 17, 2015
March
03
Mar
17
17
2015
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT}

PaV
If you can’t see the problem for population genetics, then this is a problem for you. It should be clear why it is a problem.
Namely? Excuse my ignorance, but I'd really like to hear the details.
I think caecal valves are a large-scale phenotypic change.
That's what I find funny. For most IDers they are just a piece of muscle, but for you at least they are an evolutionary milestone.
And the island they were place on had NO lizards there. That there was no competition factors into what happened, and you’re not keeping track of that in your response.
You are speaking with such amazing confidence as if you had read the published reports on those lizards. Your complacency is surprising and hard to excuse, since the original article is open access:
Here we address these issues by examining the outcome of a remarkable 36-year experimental introduction with the lizard Podarcis sicula. In 1971 five adult pairs of this species were moved from the small islet of Pod Kopis^te (0.09 km2) to the nearby Pod Mrc^aru (0.03 km2) by Nevo and coworkers (12). Both islets lie in the middle of the South Adriatic Sea near the larger island of Lastovo and belong to Croatia. Although the islet of Pod Mrc^aru was originally inhabited by another lacertid lizard species (Podarcis melisellensis), repeated visits (twice yearly over the past three years, beginning in 2004) show that this species has become extinct on Pod Mrc^aru. Genetic mitochondrial DNA analyses indicate that the lizards currently on Pod Mrc^aru are indeed P. sicula and are genetically indistinguishable from lizards from the source population [supporting information (SI) Fig. 5]. [Herrel et al. 2008]
Piotr_{March 17, 2015
March
03
Mar
17
17
2015
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply