Slashdot Mirror
Convergent Evolution Upends Honeyeaters' Taxonomy
grrlscientist writes in with a beautiful piece of science, beautifully explicated. The poignant bit is that the birds in question are all extinct. "Every once in awhile, I will read a scientific paper that astonishes and delights me so much that I can hardly wait to tell you all about it. Such is the situation with a newly published paper about the Hawai'ian Honeyeaters. In short, due to the remarkable power of convergent evolution, Hawai'ian Honeyeaters have thoroughly deceived taxonomists and ornithologists as to their true origin and identity for more than 200 years."
There have been debates over the taxonomy of odd creatures (with similarities to other known creatures) forever. Sometimes simple physical resemblence just doesn't really tell the tale. Of course, evolution producing similar looking/behaving birds is nothing new either (just look at how similar African parrots and South American parrots are to one another).
The really great debates come when zoologists get into trying to classify an animal that looks like (or behaves like) two DIFFERENT known creatures. One of my personal favorites is the Red Panda. The bottom of its body and claws look like a bear's (you can see it clearly in this picture) and it eats only bamboo, just like a Giant Panda. But the rest of it looks like a raccoon. This cute little furball finally had to be given its own unique family, because no one was quite sure where to put the little bastard. And it's still debatable if it truly deserves its own family.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
This type of non-linear genetic branching is also found in some areas of the Appalachians.
Maliki liki Maka you crazy genetic rebels!
and I was looking forward to something about the birds AND the bees.
A cat with six toes is still a cat.
The link to the name is to a newer entry in the blog in question, which is not surprisingly hers.
Her slashdot page is here. I see no comments, I wish she would join more discussions, her journals are interesting enough.
Where'd all these girls come from lately, anyway? It's as if all these women were wondering where to get a man who wouldn't be too scary, and then "oh wow, I know a place where there's lots and lots of guys and they're all scared of US! Too bad they're all nerds, but you can't have everything..."
Free Martian Whores!
Bzzzt. Thanks for playing. Now go actually read real evolution textbooks and try to understand what it really is, and not keep using the strawman arguments your religious idiot fundies keep using.
Sounds like every economic theory I've ever read too.
When you let physicists define what 'scientific' means, you end up with unreachable standards.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Proposed text: "Evolution, like gravity, is just a theory. Please act accordingly."
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
I realize that in this case (being dead for 200 years) it is more difficult, but why don't they _just_ use DNA sequencing to determine the classification of animals?
Observation (of both behaviour and appearance) is influenced by the observer and is variable. Two people never see the same thing the same way. Ask a man and wife what colour the living-room couch is and you will get two different answers! =)
The DNA sequence will never lie, and that sequence will tell us FAR more about common evolutionary traits then our eyeballs will.
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
Nice blog reporting on a nifty bit of biological research. In the last forty years we have seen a change from constructing phylogenetic trees based on phenotype to constructing them based on genotype. This has resulted in a number of nice surprises like this. Good to see Mayr's hypothesis about these birds borne out.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
Forget about those concepts of evolution and those widdle cutey birds, because you're COVERED WITH SCORPIONS? Covvverrrred with scorpions!
You will now do my bidding. Give me all your lunch money!
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
The birds are the same? Evolution! They're not the same? Uh, convergent evolution. That's it!
Well what would you call it when two species that are not closely related end up developing the same features?
It really is just a theory folks. How about some warnings for the textbooks?
Oh, right, this is another of those "argumentation through lack of understanding" things. Of course you aren't going to know what any of these words (like "theory") actually mean. My bad. As you were.
The enemies of Democracy are
In a shameless reply to myself, I'd like to also add that the OP of this thread has an interesting point - seemingly contradictory evidence is claimed as supporting the same theory. Much like global warming. When your theory is defined such that it includes both sides of interpretation of any given piece of data, it is hard to argue against. (e.g., I heard on the news that it was getting colder and certain ice caps or something were growing, not shrinking, and that that is "exactly what is expected with global warming, because with something like global warming, the unexpected is going to occur." In other words, even though it SEEMS to contradict global warming, it really supports it, because this person's ideas about global warming are defined such that he has included any possible interpretation... or, perhaps it'd be better to say he has accepted global warming first and is trying to interpret the data to fit it afterwards. IMO, much of the theory of evolution is similar.
To the extent that some "examples" of evolution are still used even though they are silly, or hoaxes. In addition to previous example of the human example (that's a lot of the word 'example' in one paragraph), the moth thing in England was brought up, even though I'm pretty certain everyone agrees that no evolution occurred there, it was just a shift in population ratios.
What happened? You just posted a cut-and-paste troll, that's all.
My blog
I'm sorry but both you and the grand parent are talking without understanding the words you are using.
Excuse me? "JUST" a theory? A theory is something with hard evidence. It is something only fools wont believe. The only way to say a theory is not real is to bring hard tangible proofs for your HYPOTHESIS.
Because when something is not yet a theory, when it is not yet seen as a FACT, we call that a HYPOTHESIS.
I was always impressed by the similarities between sharks, dolphins, and icthyosaurs. Similarly, there's a phenomenal similarity between the flying reptiles such as the pterodactyls and bats with finger bones modified with flaps of skin to make wings. There's also the similarities between various species of gliding tree mammals, the flying squirrels and lemurs and the like. One can also talk of amazing developments with marsupials which had armored herbivores similar to a rhino and carnivores like a leopard-form. (and let's not forget that a Triceratops is built awfully similar to a rhino down to the armored hide, horns, and heavy, stocky legs.) All of these from obviously unrelated lines of descent converging on similar forms to satisfy ecological niches. If I recall correctly, there's also a type of fish that developed a false-placenta for live-birthed young -- it's not a true placenta because it isn't a placental animal but it serves the same purpose. I believe this fish was in the extended shark family.
The other thing that really amazes me is how the theory of evolution makes certain predictions that you'll simply not see contradicted. For example, there's the general rule that animals will adapt existing limbs for various purposes so you might see a rodent develop forelimbs into wings but you will not see a rodent sprout brand new wings from its back while retaining the previous four limbs. Even the weirdest body parts you can find can be seen to be modifications, not wholly new structures sprung forth from nothing. You won't see a bird suddenly come with three eyes or an elephant with a cyclopean eye or a cat with eight legs like a spider (barring genetic defects that will be unable to reproduce).
What's also amazing is how the lines between species get blurry. The old definition is that two populations are split as a species when they cannot interbred and create viable offspring. But we've seen from zoos that populations that don't mix in the wild can produce viable offspring such as ligers, tygons, then there's the blonde grizzlies that are a hybrid of grizzly and polar bear that did occur in the wild... All of these animals come from common ancestors if you go back far enough and it makes you wonder just how freely genes could be traded back and forth with the right technology and a proper understanding of genetics.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Really? What exactly is gravity's mechanism? What is used to exert this force? Mass is the reason for it, but what about mass exerts a gravitational force?
"Who modded this informative? Whoever it is must've been smokin' some of that martian pot!"
A "theory" is one of those not-quite-precise-enough words of which people may hold reasonably different definitions. We should just call it the "Axiom of Evolution" -- that will keep the philosophers happy. People can choose different sets of axioms, just be prepared to see where they lead.
I think you need to look up what "law" means in a scientific context. The only "Law" of gravity I'm familiar with is Newton's Law of Gravity, which is known to be inaccurate and has been supplanted (at the theoretical if not all practical levels) by Einstein's Theory of Relativity. So tell me how a law is something more than a theory again?
The scientific community is completely open to other explanations that have actual evidence behind them. Debate about evolution happens all the time, and is ongoing as further evidence is accumulated. Now if you mean that science hasn't embraced whatever non-evolutionary theory you think is being neglected, well that's probably because outside of some blogs there's little to no evidence for it. We've watched evolution* happen in controlled environments. If you've got anything resembling the tiniest fraction of the evidence for evolution, your theory would be considered. If it had as much evidence as evolution, you'd up-end biology (much like evolutionary theory up-ended it).
Lastly, am I supposed to be shocked or dismayed that a textbook contained an error? Scientific knowledge advances, things previously held to be true are corrected, and freshmen-level textbooks often lag behind. And is your argument really that a false "missing link" means that humans (as opposed to all the other life forms on the planet) didn't undergo evolution? That's not the "proof". It's a step in the family tree. Just because you incorrectly identified your grandmother does not mean you have no family tree.
* Deliberate trap for the "Well sure microevolution is observed fact, but that doesn't mean anything about macro" response. Feel free not to take the bait.
The enemies of Democracy are
Hawaiian birds are wimpy and cannot compete with other species.
You bastard! I wanted 22994.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
"Just" a shift in population ratios? Nice attempt to drive a wedge into the non-existent space between "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution".
For the record:
Shift in population ratios = change in allele frequencies = evolution.
The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
It only seems to contradict global warming if you have only a superficial understanding of it. "Monotonic increase of temperature" was never a theory of global warming, so because a piece of data contradicts your understanding means nothing.
Also, the moth thing is more an example of natural selection than the evolution of a new trait. We've observed evolution in labs with flies and plants. Again, just because a layman's example and understanding doesn't seem to completely explain the theory, that doesn't mean that's all the understanding or explanation possible.
The enemies of Democracy are
You clearly possess the tools to grasp the point I was making, but you are ignoring it.
Gravity is a fact. Our explanations as to the mechanism behind gravity are merely theories (and really only hypotheses at this point).
Similarly, evolution is a fact. Our definitions and explanations of the mechanism of evolution are a theory, and a work in progress.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
You quoted from a non-scientific dictionary. Theory is misunderstood by people like you. In the context of science:
1. You make observations.
2. You make a hypothesis based on your observations.
3. You test you hypothesis to see if it holds its ground.
4. If the hypothesis survives the tests, it becomes a theory, if not it's back to square one.
Maximum likelihood phylogram constructed from analysis of up to 421 nucleotide sites of b-fibrinogen introns 5 and 7 combined. At nodes are Bayesian posterior probabilities and ML bootstrap values (100 repetitions).
There are two kind of people in the world...the kind that thinks the new Day the Earth Stood Still is science fiction, and the kind that thinks it would have been if Klaatu had said to Barnhardt something like that.
Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
The Law of Gravitation and the Theory of Gravity are two related but different things.
The Law of Gravitation is (like most laws) is an equation describing the effect of gravity and nothing else.
The Theory of Gravity goes over gravities existence (or not) and how it actually works.
Theories can never become Laws (and Laws were never Theories) because they are two fundamentally different concepts within science.
Except that axioms, by definition, are not subject to modification based on observations. Theories are. Which is why scientists aren't called "natural philosophers" any more, and why the scientific approach to the world is so useful.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
That's why there is a theory of gravity. But there's a law of gravity also. The law of gravity has been observed since the beginning of time, correct? What exactly causes gravity is still a mystery.
the moth thing in England was brought up, even though I'm pretty certain everyone agrees that no evolution occurred there, it was just a shift in population ratios
"A shift in population ratios" is evolution by definition. Look it up.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
My sister recently took a college level biology course and when briefly going over the presumed evolution of humans, known hoaxes were mentioned as proof.
[[citation needed]] Textbook title and authors, edition, page numbers, excerpts. Your claim is a very common bit of creationist propaganda, and such claims tend rather strongly to fall apart under close examination.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
You quoted from a non-scientific dictionary. Theory is misunderstood by people like you. In the context of science:
1. You make observations.
2. You make a hypothesis based on your observations.
3. You test you hypothesis to see if it holds its ground.
4. If the hypothesis survives the tests, it becomes a theory, if not it's back to square one.
Almost.
1 - 3 true
4. If the hypothesis survives the tests you publish your findings
5. Other scientists test your hypothesis and publish their results
6. If no valid faults or omissions are found by anyone you have a theory
If at any point your hypothesis fails to be upheld return to step two
No, it's not a mystery, we've known for some time now that the cause of gravity is God. Represent.
Mod parent down, mod all other replies up (except this one). Parent is clearly FUD.
In other words, they have decided that no other explanation should be allowed. Furthermore, textbooks are full of errors, as are college science classes, etc. My sister recently took a college level biology course and when briefly going over the presumed evolution of humans, known hoaxes were mentioned as proof.
Well, I just finished teaching a college level biology course. Every college level biology instructor has their own style and, until we replace in-person lectures with a single set of instructional videos prepared by the federal government, that's just something you're going to have to deal with.
For example, my approach to "teaching evolution" was to emphasize three basic ideas.
First, "evolution" can refer to a lot of different (but slightly related) things. On one hand, evolution can refer to a general tendency for a population to adapt to its environment over successive generations. On the other hand, evolution can refer to the history of life on earth even including speculation about the earliest origins of self-replicating molecular systems.
Second, while "scientific proof" is fundamentally based on factual observation and certain forms of logical reasoning, the question of what it means to "prove" something scientifically is complex and may be a matter of degree. Consider, for example, the question of whether the earth is round or flat. In modern times, the "roundness" of the earth is a matter of direct observation (thanks to various space programs). In the time of Columbus, there was overwhelming indirect evidence that the earth was round (from navigation) but no space craft for direct observation. Finally, before navigation, it may have made the most sense to assume that the earth was round (despite personal experience that it was flat) but there wasn't even much indirect evidence. Putting it all together, the degree of scientific proof for "evolution" depends on which aspect of evolution is being referred to. For certain aspects of evolution there are still, most likely, entire "continents" of knowledge waiting to be discovered.
Third, it is populations rather than individuals that evolve and there are deep questions as whether an individual should try to "help" their population evolve and what, if anything, an individual who was so inclined could do to "help" their population evolve.
Basically, evolution is a huge complex topic that is still an active area of research and my goal as an instructor was to get my students to take a slightly more nuanced view of evolution than is portrayed in the popular media. In particular, I wanted to expose them to some of the deep questions in evolution: not as final answers but as actual questions - questions that they might even someday choose to investigate as scientists.
Yes, I didn't want to go in the details but you are right. People today are still testing the theory of gravity after all.
Well, I'm glad I proved I wasn't a flamebait :P
No gravity, like evolution, are scientific theories. Gravity is currently defined in part by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity which superseded Newton's theories. Some would argue that gravity is more incomplete than evolution because the mathematics of gravity break down at the subatomic level. While gravity can predict things like black holes, it cannot predict what happens inside the black hole.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Similarly, evolution is a fact. Our definitions and explanations of the mechanism of evolution are a theory, and a work in progress.
While I am willing to agree with you when it comes to micro evolution (we have observed it and use it all the time). Calling macro evolution a fact when it has not ever been observed is a different use of the word fact than I'm familiar with.
It's really a nice number. You may be aware of its factors (2*11497)... Yes, it's quite pleasant here. Thanks for inquiring and have a pleasant day. ~~G
It happens. I'm not sure about in college classes where you generally have to buy your own books for every class, but some high schools may have some older books still in use.
Likewise, I have seen shows on the Discovery channel and it's networks, that would say one thing about scientific item, then the next show would say something else. Or one would talk about a hoax, and the next would cite the hoax as a source.
It happens. Doesn't mean that I'm a creationist looking to undermine something, I'm just saying that old books and shows may not have the right information, and they can still be in circulation.
Xaotik Designs
It seems that you have been poorly educated about evolution, as was I, so I got up off my arse and actually looked into both sides.
Evolution is fact. To deny that is the same as denying genetic mutation, and that certain mutations would be better suited for survival in the enviroment they exist in. That is after all, what evolution by natural selection is all about.
Yes, there have been mistakes by individual scientists, such as with Nebraska man. Scientists should ideally publicize their mistakes (but as humans themselves they're not likely to promote their own mistakes). Part of what drives science forward is falsification, weeding out the incorrect stuff.
If the textbook that your sister was reading was full of known mistakes and hoaxes, then it's either a crap text book, or it's a creationist text book that presents how species come into being, that is through evolution via natural selection, by only showing mistakes, and not showing the over-whelming evidence in favour of the fact that all life on this planet is related.
It's also not just fossils that back up the fact of evolution, it's also the mountains of genetic data that we have. It all fits together.
No decent scientist, even the Christian ones like Francis Collins, rejects the fact of evolution.
The first problem in that statement is you bring up "belief". Scientists do not "believe". They prove or disprove. They leave things like "belief" up to religion and philosophy. As for evolution, the vast, vast majority of scientists accept it as the predominant theory of how life evolves because of the data. In the 150 years since Darwin no one has come up with any real proof that it is wrong.
Care to clarify what you mean by "numerous errors"? If you mean that over the years people have misclassified species, yes, that has happened. Based on observable data, a red panda was thought to be a panda. In light of advanced biochemical analysis and DNA, the red panda is actually more related to raccoons than bears.
Also be careful as to separate lack of adequate explanation to contradictory proof. For hundreds of years, Newton's theories of gravity could not explain why birds fly. A bird not flapping his wings should fall to the ground like the apple. How come they can glide? The issue isn't that Newton did understand gravity; the problem was no understood aerodynamics up until this century well enough to explain flight. Even with understanding of bird aerodynamics, insect flight could not be explained until the last decade or so. However, just because these two anomalies existed doesn't mean that scientists dismissed gravity.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I for one, welcome our new estrogen-based overlords!
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Well, if you want me to take what is in the next textbook seriously, yeah. Or at least, if you want me to believe in evolution as firmly as most scientists believe it
And you should get beyond that textbook if you want me to take your skepticism as anything more than that of an a-priori prejudice. If you will not believe in anything for which there has existed errors, then you cannot believe in anything, including anything you yourself have reasoned about.
(and I attribute that to having no alternative that matches their religious views or social pressures).
You mean no alternative which stands up to scientific scrutiny. There were alternatives which were hotly debated between until there was sufficient evidence to throw one away. To this day there are hotly debated variations on the theory to evolution. Sorry but as much as the disbelieving like to talk about the "religion" of science, having a scientifically valid way of upending the "orthodoxy" is highly desired, since that's how you get your name in the history books. What do you think Charles Darwin was in his day if not, in your parlance, a "heretic"? Oh and no he isn't a "saint" or "prophet" now, since we've modified and corrected his theories just as we have Newton's.
As for micro evolution, I decline to take the bait. But I will say that the delineation between micro- and macro- evolution appears to come down to a philosophical, rather than observable, difference.
Good for you. There is no observable difference, which is why it's not considered a difference by biologists, and only part of the "philosophy" of deniers who think that's a way to drive a wedge between theory and observed fact. The "trap" involves showing how it is logically impossible to believe in one but not the other.
And, lastly, the evidence of evolution thing... refer back to the interpretation-of-evidence comments that I made. Data does not support this or that theory by simply existing. Data is interpreted into evidence. The question of whether or not evidence is being interpreted correctly appears to be a very poignant consideration in light of the numerous errors that have been latched on to in support of evolution.
Fair enough, though I have to warn you that it's very telling that you yourself latch onto the errors, as if that's the only support of evolution and without those data points, the whole edifice is called into question. There are mountains of evidence for evolution, much of it verified as well as anything in biology can be verified.
As much as I'd like to get into a discussion about evidence for evolution or other theories and against evolution and other theories, I unfortunately don't have time nor is slashdot the best place anyways, hehe... so I'm constraining myself more to the philosophy of science side of things.
Yes. If you actually had evidence for an alternative theory, /. is the last place you should post it. A scientific journal would be the ideal place, as it would be the start of your ascent into the history books. Of course when this doesn't happen, it's because the religious cabal rejected your "truth" for their own "religion", and not that your idea fails scientific rigor. It couldn't be that coming up with a better hypothesis is excruciatingly difficult because the current theory is very, very good. Oh no. That's impossible. It must be that you are Galileo and science is the Catholic Church.
The enemies of Democracy are
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
There... go, read, watch, learn, enlighten yourself.
Thank you for making this post. It's good to see that someone out there understands this basic concept. Although, as a sister post notes, we do have a pretty good idea as to the cause of gravity.
Law of gravity: Objects attract each other according to their mass and the square of the distance between them. (F = GMm/R^2)
Theory of gravity: Gravity is caused by the interaction of gravitons at the quantum level, making gravity one of the basic forces.
Notice that theories describe the how and why of things, laws make concrete facts about the way things are.
Neither scientific laws or scientific theories (not to be confused with traffic laws or layman's theories, which describe different things entirely) are above being revised. In the case of laws, becoming more precise as our instruments become more precise, for instance, I believe that the universal gravitational constant (G, above) has been changed at various times as we are able to get better measurements. Theories, are often refined, partially revised, or scrapped altogether, often, we will use different theories depending on the model we are using (once again, scientific model, not like a car model, or like a car in general, get your analogies away from me! ;-) ).
The most important distinction between laws and theories, is that laws can be proven: measure the gravitational pull between two masses, if it fits the formula, voila! Gravity still works as predicted, the aprocralypse is not upon us yet. Theories, however, can only be disproven, you can say, "Gravitons cannot be the cause of gravity, here is my evidence, which the theory doesn't explain," but you cannot say, "Here is my proof that gravitons cause gravity." (you can try to get proof, but at most you will have a very strong correlation, which, as every slashdotter is fond of pointing out, does not prove causation.
"But," you say, "that means that everything we know could be a lie!" To which I reply, "Yes, yes it does, but that is unlikely, because most theories that actually have a name, have been shown to correlate with the facts very, very consistently, and although this doesn't prove causation, it's a pretty good indication that most of science is true."
The creator of this post (Jacob Smith) hereby releases it, and all of his other posts, into the public domain.
it would be reasonble that, given Ninjas and Pirates are both active in the same space, i.e. on the Internet, then over time, we're going to see their populations converge into some type of hybrid hooked-hand peg-legged metal star thrower with stealth parrots on their shoulders?
The first problem in that statement is you bring up "belief". Scientists do not "believe".
I very much beg to differ there. If you think scientific "proof" doesn't include, at the very least, some amount of belief, I think you are very wrong. For example - if this or that was proven in science, makes it into a science book, and is proven wrong later... what would you call it? Was it proven? 100% sure? It was wrong, so it apparently wasn't actually 100% sure.
As for evolution, the vast, vast majority of scientists accept it as the predominant theory of how life evolves because of the data. In the 150 years since Darwin no one has come up with any real proof that it is wrong.
We can argue all we want about proof and get absolutely nowhere. Look at global warming. Both sides think it's proven.
If you mean that over the years people have misclassified species, yes, that has happened.
misclassified != error? Hm. More specifically, though, I was referring to claims of this or that evolutionary discovery when it turns out it wasn't. Usually "missing link" discoveries, but others as well (different kinds of fish, this or that fossil thought to be something and turns out it is something else when a later, full one is found, the age of a fossil completely wrong based on one dating system and proven to be wrong when the same thing was found in something else with a known date, etc)
define "macro-evolution" please.
Good for you. There is no observable difference, which is why it's not considered a difference by biologists, and only part of the "philosophy" of deniers who think that's a way to drive a wedge between theory and observed fact. The "trap" involves showing how it is logically impossible to believe in one but not the other.
As you no doubt know, that wasn't my point... as far as I know, there has not been any observed macro-evolution, thus the debate is less observation and more philosophy. And then, of course, we start arguing about what defines "micro" and "macro," what defines a "species," etc...
Of course when this doesn't happen, it's because the religious cabal rejected your "truth" for their own "religion", and not that your idea fails scientific rigor.
Actually, I might be slightly different from what you are expecting. Obviously you've guessed my position on evolution and probably on what Christianity calls 'special creation.' I actually do not object to what I believe in not being considered a scientific theory. It's not. I would argue that something, on the other hand, can be supported BY science and scientific observation and yet not be a scientific theory.
What I more object to is that 'science' has ruled out anything supernatural, and in doing so, has decided that everything can be explained without the supernatural. In other words, science has defined itself as dealing with the natural alone - ok, I can go with that so far - but has then decided that the natural alone can explain everything. Including origins, oftentimes (atheistic evolutionists appear to want to argue scientifically about the origin of matter, for example).
It must be that you are Galileo and science is the Catholic Church.
Interestingly, creationists are often compared the other way around... Science is Galileo and the Catholic Church is the Christian Church. Most people make no distinction between evangelical Christians and Catholics, simply because the claim the same title, "Christian."
Semantics aside, I simply make these two claims. Let's see if Slashdot can handle the html.
There are some other outworkings of this, IMO, which directly affect evolution - e.g., evolution is accepted as being true because scientific evidence supports it, and scientific evidence that could point to a, shall we say, "supernatural" explanation (creation) is disregarded on the premise that the theory it supports (creation) is not a scientific theory.
Two claims? I also can't count. Oops.
Shift in population ratios = change in allele frequencies = evolution.
Not sure about the Peppered Moth (I have a book on the subject to read over Christmas, and I'm not going to spoil the story now by checking it) ... but perhaps the GP meant a shift in the population ratios of two different species? In other words, two species of moth, one dark, one white, but no interbreeding between the two. Change in environment leads to the flourishing of one species and the reduction of the other. This isn't evolution.
(Not trying to support the GP or the OP here, btw. The idea of suggesting that convergent evolution (in which organisms adapts to their environment over time) somehow contradicts or negates divergent evolution (in which organisms adapts to their environment over time) is a little nonsensical! Honeyeaters and waxwings seems a rather tame example, though -- if you really want to blow your mind about the power of convergent evolution, try the development of the eye in cephalopods and vertebrates ...)
I believe there are laws of gravity
All that means is that we observe that 'things fall'. We know how hard due to the theory of gravity, but the mechanics are still a mystery.
Evolution has been a theory for not very long... yes, ancient peoples had ideas of it, but I don't think you'd see them as particularly similar except from a philosophical standpoint.
Darwin isn't that much younger than Newton; anyway, evolution has laws in the same way that gravity does: creatures give birth to similar creatures, isolation + time = new species, and so on.
Instead of arguing from the "theory" side though, I'd rather say this - evolution is a theory, but the scientific community holds to it as if it WERE a law
You don't know what you're talking about. There's nothing past theory - that's as far as you get. If you want to replace evolution, you have to find something that explains all that evolution does and more and it has to last for a while. that will take some time.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
For example - if this or that was proven in science, makes it into a science book, and is proven wrong later... what would you call it?
I'd call it not math. Math is the only place where you can prove things; everywhere else, you can only falsify things.
Look at global warming. Both sides think it's proven.
Ahh, but all the scientists are on the side that thinks it's happening and are arguing a bit over how much is due to us.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Ahh, but all the scientists are on the side that thinks it's happening and are arguing a bit over how much is due to us.
It appears that that depends on how the problem is defined.
Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation. (wikipedia)
That sounds ok. On the other hand, going to google's list of definitions for the term, you get some rather interesting definitions, ranging from rise in temperature that "may be caused by greenhouse gases" to rise in temperature that IS caused by greenhouse gases (and they list them)... to one that says global warming IS "is the term given to the major consequence of the greenhouse effect."
AC cowardly says...
This, of course, is why most things ending in *ology aren't real science.
I'd be very curious to know how you managed to decide that from an article and a comment about taxONOMY (i.e. the study and method of naming the taxa)...
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
Macro-evolution is the observed result of changed caused by evolution over a long period, whereas micro-evolution is the observed result of change caused by evolution over a much shorter one. They're both examples of evolution. In fact, they're they're the same thing; only differing in the intervals between observations.
That's why there is a theory of gravity. But there's a law of gravity also. The law of gravity has been observed since the beginning of time, correct? What exactly causes gravity is still a mystery.
So it's basically the same as Evolution, then (other than more being known about how Evolution actually works) ?
I fail to see how this is relevant - lots of people have pages on google, and it's been documented that the federal government itself has politicized the issue, editing a number of papers on the subject prior to publication. Regardless, I challenge you to find a group of scientists who dispute that Global Warming is happening and that we're a likely cause.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
The first problem in that statement is you bring up "belief". Scientists do not "believe". They disprove(refute) or they support .
There, fixed that for you. It's much more accurate this way. Science can never prove anything, because there will ALWAYS be factors that are not or cannot be observed.
I otherwise fully agree with you. I just wanted to clarify this, because people with little or no understanding of science or the scientific method (like the poster below) will jump on you for it.
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
What I find interesting is that we apparently have enough money and ENERGY to waste running laboratories that research extinct species, but all those same scientists are gonna moan and wail if I say, "Let's drill in the ANWR." Where do they think the power comes from for running lights, computers, DNA sequencing machines, microscopes, etc...? Let alone MAKING lights, computers, DNA sequencing machines, microscopes, etc...
For instance, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory is a new "energy efficient" facility that spends nearly 1.2 MILLION dollars JUST ON UTILITIES per year. Well, if we assume 8 cents per kilowatt hour (approximately what I pay for my home), then we're looking at about 15,000,000 kilowatt hours used in JUST THIS ONE FACILITY. I googled "15000000 kilowatt hours"... guess what I came up with? This: http://www.lipower.org/newscenter/pr/2004/jan29.reap.html
That's right, the Long Island Power Authority spent $355 MILLION in order to save that exact amount of energy.
Now, I just bring up this one lab as an example of what labs in general cost in energy. This was an energy efficient lab, but there are TONS of labs out there that aren't nearly as energy efficient and so consume a LOT more energy.
You can't drive your SUV and you've gotta scrimp and save energy everywhere, but we can run a big power sucking lab for 10 years to find out if some obscure side branch of bird is related to another obscure side branch of bird.
And yes, I'm an "Anonymous Coward". I'd rather not get vilified because I dare to question the hypocrisy of ecologists.
When your theory is defined such that it includes both sides of interpretation of any given piece of data, it is hard to argue against. (e.g., I heard on the news that it was getting colder and certain ice caps or something were growing, not shrinking, and that that is "exactly what is expected with global warming, because with something like global warming, the unexpected is going to occur."
If that is actually what the "scientist" said, that is indeed moronic. Can you provide a reference? What do you mean by "the news"? Sounds more like some anti-global-warming moron trying to create a straw man.
OTOH, last I looked, there were good (ie. they have made accurate predictions) climate models that predict increasing average global temperatures while simultaneously predicting cooling around the poles. This is good science: show that your model fits some data and then try to understand what's going on. If your model does not make correct predictions (give it (today-n) years of data, and see if it can predict the last n years correctly), you need to change your model. That is exactly what science is.
Evolution is harder, since the physics is infinitely more complex--there are no precise predictive models of evolution in the physics sense, so whatever we see has to be incorporated into the theory without predictive testing. Evolution is thus more useful as a series of observations and a way of explaining them, rather than a proof in any mathematical sense. That doesn't make it wrong.
Elementary evolution theory does make a claim like "All complex life evolved from simpler life." If you now find a fossil of something complex that has no simpler ancestors, then evolution is wrong. Not that you can easily prove the bit about ancestors, but you get the idea. Finding that some complex life has simpler ancestors doesn't prove evolution, but it certainly makes it more plausible. Excuse the very shallow example, but you get the point.
"The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
Instead of arguing from the "theory" side though, I'd rather say this - evolution is a theory, but the scientific community holds to it as if it WERE a law.
That's because it's so well understood and supported by the observed evidence.
In other words, they have decided that no other explanation should be allowed.
On the contrary, a genuine alternative to Evolution would be almost incomprehensively big news.
I very much beg to differ there. If you think scientific "proof" doesn't include, at the very least, some amount of belief, I think you are very wrong. For example - if this or that was proven in science, makes it into a science book, and is proven wrong later... what would you call it? Was it proven? 100% sure? It was wrong, so it apparently wasn't actually 100% sure.
You seem to be living up to your handle. Others have tried, and failed. I figure, I'm bored, waiting for some code to compile, so I'll take a whack at the pinata!
As someone else eloquently explained, scientific theories can never be proven, only disproven.
Note that there are some very specific meanings to these words, in the context of science (which has roots in philosophy). Most people hear about proof for a theory and assume that the theory is being presented as 100% incontrovertible fact. And then these people (yourself included, apparently) crow about the hypocrisy of science and the shams being perpetuated when a theory is disproven. In other words, the thinking seems to be "Well, Theory A was PROVEN last year, and now it's been DISPROVEN! Science is a lie! All theories are equally valid, including my wild idea about how to travel through time/dinosaurs coexisted with humans/noah's ark existed/etc!"
Let's break it down (again):
1. Observe some phenomenon
2. Hypothesize something about said phenomenon
3. Search for evidence which supports/disproves hypothesis
If the body of evidence found (via research) supports the hypothesis and doesn't kill it, then voila, you have your own personal theory. Now go and publish your paper for peer review, which works like:
4. Publish paper with hypothesis + supporting evidence
5. Watch as your scientific peers attempt to eviscerate your theory and prove it wrong, stupid, and otherwise useless as a contribution to the pool of human knowledge
If no one can find evidence to disprove your theory, then congratulations, you have your own theory (hopefully named after you, or something catchy, anyhow). Maybe you'll get a Nobel, or a nice lab somewhere with go-fers, or at least a nice bonus.
Your theory will be used as fact until something comes up to question its usefulness as an explanation for whatever phenomenon was the starting point of this magical journey. Why? Because at some point you have to stop asking so many damn questions and just (logically) assume some things for the sake of argument. Until we build the Omni-Mind 8000 which interfaces with the quantum brane junction and knows everything, we'll just have to deal with the human mind and all its limitations. Having a body of educated guesses about why things do what they do allows folks to get some damn work done without having to build up a whole freaking theory of everything whenever they want to do something.
Now you just have to hope that some aspiring grad student a few years down the road doesn't revisit your theory and blow it all to hell with better equipment that finds inconsistencies with your theory.
As has been pointed out by others, this most certainly does imply that everything we know via the scientific method could be wrong! The thing is, though, that theories which stand the test of time (e.g. Evolution) do so because they are consistent with what we can observe. To date, no one has found credible evidence to support an alternate explanation for the origin of species. If you can cook something up, find evidence for it, and, most importantly, it survives the gauntlet of people looking for any logical reason to kill it, then more power to you!
Get it? It's not a religion. It's not an arbitrary belief system. It's not the same as whatever you go to church for. It is a process which we as a species have reached common consensus on as the best way to advance human knowledge.
Certainly there are those who try
A host is a host from coast to coast...
Unless it's down, or slow, or fails to POST!
What process do you think explains the diversity of life on Earth?
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Please clarify your definition of "natural", because your final point makes no sense.
scientific evidence that could point to a, shall we say, "supernatural" explanation (creation) is disregarded on the premise that the theory it supports (creation) is not a scientific theory.
This is a complete contradiction in terms. By "natural" in science, we are referring to that which can be observed and independently corroborated. By definition, any evidence must be natural and not supernatural, as supernatural indicates unobservable or unable to be corroborated.
Science deals only with the natural because the natural is the only thing that can be observed and measured. And, guess what... Science works. And guess what else, the scientific method that gave you the computer that you are typing this on is exactly the same as the scientific method that has (and continues to) worked out the theory of evolution.
One last little note:
And then, of course, we start arguing about what defines "micro" and "macro," what defines a "species," etc...
Not to get into an argument about it, but I just want to point out that WE define what species are, and our definitions are arbitrary. Nature doesn't really give a damn how we classify things. It will do its own thing independent of us. There is no difference, biologically speaking, between micro- and macro-evolution. The only real debate comes up when speaking about taxonomy.
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
The thing that always gets me is that most of the (few?) people who don't believe in evolution, do believe in all of the parts that make up evolution. They believe that you get your traits from your parents. You get them through DNA/RNA/some physical thing in the sperm and egg. They believe that mutation happens from things like naturally occuring radiation. They believe that if you have a mutation and you breed, you can pass that mutation on to your offspring. They believe that mutations that are bad will make it less likely that you will breed.
Then they say that evolution doesn't happen.
"misclassified != error? Hm. More specifically, though, I was referring to claims of this or that evolutionary discovery when it turns out it wasn't. Usually "missing link" discoveries, but others as well (different kinds of fish, this or that fossil thought to be something and turns out it is something else when a later, full one is found, the age of a fossil completely wrong based on one dating system and proven to be wrong when the same thing was found in something else with a known date, etc)"
The errors you note are, in order: mistaken anthropology (not evolution), mistaken paleontology (not evolution), incomplete evidence leading to faulty conclusions (applies equally to every field of thought and action), mistaken geology and/or chemistry (not evolution), and miscellany (while I suppose this COULD be an error of evolutionary science, it could be just about anything else as well, including nothing.
If you're going to debunk a science with its "mistakes", you could at least properly identify those mistakes and not pull them from only tangentially related fields.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
Great, I was hoping to get his take on macro-evolution because I wanted to take care of his misconception of that subject.
Usually it is "one species evolving into another completely different one, like a dog evolving into a cat".
Then I would tell him that macro-evolution does not work like that. Rather than a species evolving to become a member of an existing order (dog to cat), macro-evolution is about the creation of new Genus and orders, and phylums, and classes, etc. where they did not previously exist.
In this case, there ARE possible outcomes that would provide some evidence against evolution. If, for example, the estimated family tree produced by analysis of DNA did not fit even roughly with the earlier guesses based on morphology and geographic distributions, that would be difficult for biologists to explain. In this case, a branch of the tree turned out to be in the wrong place [as predicted by another scientist], but the rest of the tree matched reasonably well. Why? And why are there two groups of honeyeaters? Did the creator make a mistake when he designed the first round of honeyeaters and have to start over?
On the question of predictive power of climate models, I think you have misinterpreted whatever you read about global warning causing a decrease in temperature (see: http://discovermagazine.com/2002/sep/cover). Average global temperatures are rising, but this specific prediction has NOT YET happened. IF it does, it will not be an example of the theory fitting any evidence you throw at it -- it will be evidence of the predictive power of the climate models in question!
Not sure if these are scientists: Avery/... some other guy I forgot the name of
News article about MIT scientists with evidence against human-induced global warming
Dr. Ball, I think his name is.
Of course, I have heard scientists say that all real scientists believe it and don't dispute it.
Peer reviewed stuff on here...
I like to pose it to people thusly:
In science-speak a law is an equation, or something formulaic and bounded, while a theory is a collection of thought on a hopefully coherent topic. Typically a theory contains many laws, along with questions, conditionals, and known uncertainties.
Laws more or less represent simple machines, eventualities if you will, based on initial or persistent conditions.
For instance, in lay speech, "what goes up must come down" is essentially a law of gravity, and for non-exceptional definitions of "what" (e.g. not something "lighter than air") and for expected definitions of "up" and normative values of "goes", the law is true, and for millennium it was all as true as it needed to be.
We have always understood that conditions were part of the law, like we always understood that if we are under water and the "what" is a cork, then the law will not hold as the cork will go up and stay there for as long as we are likely to willingly observe.
It wasn't until the advancement of particular understandings came (though science I might add) to lead us to discover that the magnitude of "goes" was so important. Outside the original floaty exceptions "what goes up must come down" was a universal known. Then we discovered escape velocity and orbital mechanics and all that stuff, and now we know that what goes up may well never come down, or it may even come down in a context that invalidates our old definitions of "down". After all, in the old context, did the mars rover come down in the 12th century sense when it landed on mars? It matches our expectation of down, but surely not theirs. And we knew about escape velocity and orbital mechanics long before we could fabricate rockets of the type and strength necessary to prove or disprove that new understanding.
So that law of gravity, that what goes up must come down, is true but the domain over which it is true has been strongly circumscribed.
So in science, "a law" is a spesific expression of a "what" and sometimes it has a good dose of "how" stuck to it by necessity of expression.
But the only expression of "why", the only parts of science that purport to explain anything, are the theories.
And just like scientific pursuits, this description, this distinction, is a good starting place, but when you look deeper, when you understand what I have said for the analogy that it is, you will find that this explanation is only true in a limited and somewhat allegorical way... it can be picked apart and tested and disproved bit by bit until its all but gone... but now you are doing science.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
I'm not sure what you're referring to, but the Arctic ice caps are growing because it is getting colder. This is exactly as expected with global warming. It's still colder in winter and warmer in summer.
Now if, on the other hand, global temperatures showed a long-term (more than ten years) decreasing trend, that would be evidence that global warming is not happening. The problem is that people who don't understand the long-term view hear that there is cooling over a period of a few months or a few years, and think that it somehow disproves global warming. These are the same people who lose big in the stock market because they panic when the market drops and pull all their money out, locking in their losses. It's all about the long term, folks!
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
You're quite welcome for the post :)
To stick to true scientific terminology, a theory is never proven or disproven... proofs exist only in the world of mathematics. Theories are validated and invalidated. A prediction is made and a test is administered to a theory (an experiment), and this is what ultimately validates or invalidates a theory (or a portion of it). If the evidence invalidates, then the theory is revised to fit the evidence provided... rarely is the theory itself completely thrown away unless overwhelming evidence completely thrashes it to the point of it not being able to make any predictions whatsoever and it fails every test put forth to it.
This is what many cdesign proponentists fail to understand... our theories reflect all known knowledge on a subject and are being revised and updated damn near every single day. Our theories are not static, and they never will be. Textbooks will be outdated, new evidence will bring about change in our theories as well as reinforce them.
To put it simply, a theory is the logical framework built by all observed facts, data and research. To say something is "just a theory" is quite honestly an insult to the scientific community... one which many of us do not take lightly.
"Who modded this informative? Whoever it is must've been smokin' some of that martian pot!"
This isn't evolution
It's natural selection
As you no doubt know, that wasn't my point... as far as I know, there has not been any observed macro-evolution, thus the debate is less observation and more philosophy. And then, of course, we start arguing about what defines "micro" and "macro," what defines a "species," etc...
Have you seen an electron with your own eyes? No? And yet, I'll bet you would accept an explanation of electrical theory (especially if you were going to make a job out of it and your life depended on it)...
Where did that theory of electricity come from? Did it spring, fully-formed from the head of some scientist, who presented it to the Science Cabal to be accepted as holy writ?
Or maybe, it was built up over time, based on numerous observations by multiple people. My point, though, is that even though no one has seen an electron with their own eyes, it is accepted as fact that they exist with a certain set of characteristics. Why? Because it fits with the theory, and no one has found compelling evidence to the contrary.
Now, for Evolution, the original big idea came from Darwin (though I'm sure he must have been influenced by prior work) that species, isolated geographically, tend to diverge over time, creating new species. The mechanism by which this speciation seems to occur is called natural selection.
Darwin gets the credit for the whole idea, but the reality is that many people working over time have refined, and modified it. More importantly, many people have confirmed that the theory is the best explanation for what they are observing. No one has come up with a better explanation using the scientific method.
So, finally, to address your point that no one has observed "macro" evolution... This is silly. It is happening all around us, constantly. The fact that you don't live long enough to see it in anything other than bacteria is not a flaw in the theory, it's a flaw in your lifespan.
A host is a host from coast to coast...
Unless it's down, or slow, or fails to POST!
Perhaps the GP meant a shift in the population ratios of two different species?
Maybe that's what he meant, but isn't true. There's only one Peppered Moth species. (Enjoy your book!)
The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
I'd call it something you made up. Science does not prove hypotheses. It only collects evidence to support or falsify them. The hypotheses that have the best evidence for them get to be called theories and make it into textbooks, but they are not proven.
No, neither "side" thinks it's proven. The vast majority of climate scientists think there at least a 90% chance that most of the global warming over the past fifty years is due to humans burning fossil fuels and forests. Those climate scientists that do not agree seem to have a widely diverging opinions, ranging from claiming that the warming is due to other causes to denying that the warming is happening at all.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
This isn't evolution
It's natural selection
Not in the scientific sense -- natural selection refers to competition within a species, not between species. This should help.
it's safe to question about Gravity Theory at the time of Big Bang; or the Bang itself.
I wonder if convergent evolution is more likely than it appears. Given that birds can evolve most easily in typical ways, with the same selection pressure, the effect would be similar. As an example, a pressure for a mammal to be taller can be met in a limited number of ways (longer legs, longer torso, longer neck, longer arms, two-legged stance) - some will be easier for the mammal to evolve in than others (especially given if other environmental selection pressures are the same, including diet for building material, gestation period), and one of those is more likely to be selected for. Perhaps very often, one way is significantly easier, and so will be very likely the one selected for.
I'm suggesting that a species has affordances in how it responds to selection pressure. There are favored dimension of change. Another example is that to increase intelligence, the easiest way, affordance or dimension of change seems to be neoteny.
What I more object to is that 'science' has ruled out anything supernatural, and in doing so, has decided that everything can be explained without the supernatural.
Science has done no such thing. Science is not capable of decoding the supernatural and thus must leave it alone. This is completely different than "ruling out" the supernatural - in fact, it by definition CANNOT rule out the supernatural.
Something like 40% of scientists consider themselves religious, so clearly you have a fundamental misunderstanding here.
and scientific evidence that could point to a, shall we say, "supernatural" explanation (creation) is disregarded on the premise that the theory it supports (creation) is not a scientific theory.
No. This, I think, is the key to your misunderstanding. Science rejects creation as a scientific theory, not as an impossibility. This is why scientists bristle more at "intelligent design" than at creationism... intelligent designers are trying to claim science, when at best you could call it philosophy. Grabbing the title of "science" is analogous to me starting a dog-worshiping cult and then grabbing the title of "Christianity". The Christians would get pretty worked up if it picked up steam.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Being out of date happens more often to Atlases. Generally though the science taught at the high school level doesn't change that much. High school textbooks on average last less than 10 years, getting throughly damaged by getting taken home and back to school by students one year after another. The hundred-plus year old scientific theories taught at the high school level generally don't change that frequently.
So what explains the discrepancies you've noticed? Generally theories are dumbed down or simplified at the high school level so that they are easier to understand by students who don't have the mathematical baggage of university-level scientists. This also happens at the college level between first year undergraduate and higher levels in some fields like economics.
So first, different authors will chose different ways of "simplifying" the material for the target audience. Then there is another thing that does change more often than the useful life of a high school textbook, and that's the political makeup of school boards. School boards are often politically elected, comprised of people who do not have a scientific background in all the subjects for which they a) set the curriculum and b) select textbooks. Those school board members in fact can have political or religious agendas (Kansas?) that guide those decisions. Economics indicated that where there's a demand, somebody will be willing to supply the goods, and therefore there are people willing to write textbooks targeted to particular common view points of what information should be taught in high schools. Those "flexible" textbook authors are probably not leading scholars in the subject matter.
To sum up: high school textbooks are not peer reviewed and, even if they were, peer-review might not inform the textbook procurement process which can be highly politicized. Since high school yearbooks do not go through a rigorous scientific process, to judge "science" and scientific theory based on what they contain is a fundamentally flawed exercise.
When it comes to college-level classes, the textbook publishing industry has great interest in revising common textbooks every few years. This suppresses the used textbook market and forces students to buy new books to get the new question and problem sets necessary for homework assignments. I suppose in the days of the Internet, it may discourage cheating via the online purchase of solution sets from students who took the course during a previous year, but frequent textbook updates were already common practice 25 years ago, before the Internet. Politicization of the textbook selection process is probably less since the people making decisions are academics instead of people elected at large, However I would expect politicisation of the textbook selection process still happens in certain environments, such as colleges run by religious fundamentalist organizations. Again, economics says that someone will be more than happy to supply those colleges with what they want, even if it's scientifically inaccurate.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
The Kettlewell experiment has been re-done to counter the criticisms, completely vindicating his findings:
"In 2000 Majerus developed plans for experiments to establish where peppered moths rest through the day, and to examine if the various valid criticisms of Kettlewellâ(TM)s experimental protocols could have altered the qualitative validity of his conclusions. In the following year he piloted a new field predation experiment designed to overcome criticisms that Kettlewell had used too few release sites, resulting in the density of moths being too high; moths had been released onto tree trunks rather than branches; moths released during the day might not have found the best places to hide; mixtures of wild-caught and lab-bred moths might have behaved differently; and the behaviour of translocated moths might have changed because of local adaptation. During the main experiment in Cambridge over the seven years 2001-2007 Majerus noted the natural resting positions of the moths, and of the 135 moths examined over half were on tree branches, mostly on the lower half of the branch, 37% were on tree trunks, mostly on the north side, and only 12.6% were resting on or under twigs. Following correspondence with Hooper he added an experiment to find if bat predation might have skewed the results â" this found that bats preyed equally on both forms of the moth. He observed a number of species of bird preying on the moths, and the overall data led him to conclude that differential bird predation was a major factor responsible for the decline in carbonaria frequency compared to typica in Cambridge during the study period.[9] He described his results as a complete vindication of the peppered moth story, and said "If the rise and fall of the peppered moth is one of the most visually impacting and easily understood examples of Darwinian evolution in action, it should be taught. It provides after all the proof of evolution." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution
Sorry about the Wiki link but I did read it in New Scientist originally
Ah, there's the problem. A change in Allele frequencies does not always equate to evolution. Some organisms are classed as known stochastic mutators. They can mutate regularly, changing the frequency of a given gene in a manner that looks superficially like there is selection pressure, and then subsequent generations can mutate back with just the same frequency, showing that there is no actual selection pressure. HIV, arguably one of the most studied organisms out there, is believed to be one of these, with four alleles that show the behavior. HIV is also a demonstrated non-stochastic mutator, on other alleles.
Who is John Cabal?
Careful now. Evolution doesn't make any prediction of the (subjective) complexity of biology as time progresses. It's quite possible that something may evolve towards something more "simple" if there is a naturally selectable advantage in doing so (e.g. conserving resources, or improving camouflage).
Point is, it's not impossible, within the theory, to find a simpler descendant. But it's not as likely, since the natural environment seems to have a habit of encouraging biological complexity.
I think you need to look up what "law" means in a scientific context. The only "Law" of gravity I'm familiar with is Newton's Law of Gravity, which is known to be inaccurate and has been supplanted (at the theoretical if not all practical levels) by Einstein's Theory of Relativity. So tell me how a law is something more than a theory again?
It use to widely be taught in some schools that as a hypothesis became more and more accepted, scientists would move from calling it a hypothesis to a theory, and as it was further tested and shown to be correct it would be given the title of a "law" meaning that it would require extraordinary evidence to prove it incorrect and that the right explanation has been found.
I understand completely that this is not how science works. It only takes one well substantiated and repeatable experiment to blow any "law" out of the water. Furthermore our ideas of how things work will always be analogies suited to our monkey descendant brains. (Quantum theory and wave/light duality for example aren't things for which we have good explanations that our minds can grasp). However Hypothesis->Theory->Law is certainly how some institutions have dictated the terminology should be used historically and that has carried through to schooling of a couple of decades ago. I know it's what I was taught at school.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Ah, nothing like the predictive power of evolution for ya! Despite the fact that it's basically just a theory at this point, it can be used to "prove" pretty much anything you want! The birds are the same? Evolution! They're not the same? Uh, convergent evolution. That's it!
I keep telling everyone the same thing about gravity! Rocks fall down? Gravity! Balloons float up? Gravity with "buoyancy"! Humbug!
A while ago there were two papers I remember, where one of them observed that women dress sexier when fertile, while another observed women walk sexier when *not* fertile. Ah, inconsistent results that need more study, right? Nope! Evolution explains BOTH of them! Everything's consistent with evolution!
Right - I showed my physics teacher in high school a bunch of balloons with rocks tied to their strings - some floated, and others didn't! And he still insisted that no matter what they did, it was consistent with gravity! Everything's consistent with gravity!
It really is just a theory folks. How about some warnings for the textbooks?
Exactly! Every low-level science textbook should be required to define what they mean by science, and emphasize that science is the search for well-supported theory based on specific philosophical assumptions - and leave Truth in the churches and philosophy departments!
Without reading the background to these comments - I wonder: if the ratio is based on an observable (phenotypical) trait, and the trait is the result of a commonly occurring (genotypical) mutation in the population, or a coin-toss developmental process (the level of darkness was not entirely determined by the genotype) couldn't an environmental change produce a change in the observed ratio without actually changing the underlying genotype?
If blackness or whiteness at maturity was equally likely for a given genotype, and an environmental change resulted in higher predation of whites, then there would be more blacks at maturity. The observed ratio would track the environmental change, even though at (unobserved) birth the ratio would not. If the environment reverted to its former state, so would the observed ratio.
I guess the obvious test to see if the ratio could be explained this way would be to test the ratio against age of moth. It's an interesting example (I did briefly scan the wikipedia article mid-comment). I'm intrigued by the fact that the moth melanism reverted. I think I would have been more convinced that evolution had occurred if it had not reverted.
IANAEB (evolutionary biologist) - in my PhD thesis, I only observed evolution occurring in robot control hardware ;-)
Nobody is saying that we have text books stating that the earth is flat, but that they have examples of items used to prove points, where the example is no longer relevant.
I've been out serious classes for about 10 years, so if you want specifics, sorry, I can't cite page numbers. But I do remember times where we were given handouts that had something different than the texts because later evidence made the example inaccurate. Whether it's deciding whether to call it brontosaurus or apatosaurus, or whether the Pachycephalosaurus rammed like a mountain goat or swung it's head like a club. And more recently and not dinosaur related, whether pluto is a planet.
Scientific theory may remain the same, however individual examples used to prove said theory may later be shown as hoaxes or incorrectly labeled.
Xaotik Designs
Recent study, can't find link, took squirrels from cities and squirrels from the country side. Compared alleles, noticed definite shift between city and country. From this they concluded that the Town mouse and country mouse fable also seems to apply to squirrels.
Not at all. I just pointed out that your data is irrelevant to your claim. You can't judge science by what's written in a high school textbook. Your observations only point out out the sad state of science teaching in high schools, not any insight into the actual science of evolution. Point out some peer reviewed papers in journals on evolution that use the approach you mentioned and you'll have a point. Otherwise, it's a red herring.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
Actually, the 'law of universal gravitation' is F = GMm / r^2. Sir Isaac Newton's law of gravity. It's wrong. Close enough for interplanetary navigation, but a little off for the orbit of Mercury, and way off for the gravitational field near collapsed stars. For those we use the General Theory of Relativity.
There are other 'laws' in science. Ohm's Law, for instance, V = IR. When did you last lay your hands on a perfectly Ohmic resistor? Or how about the ideal gas law, PV = nRT? Great, if you've got an ideal gas handy. Shame there's no such thing.
A 'law' is usually a simple mathematical statement holding under certain idealised circumstances. It doesn't mean it's any more accurate than something called a 'theory'.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
It's actually back to square two, since you must not just ignore observations that you don't have working explanations for.
[url]http://xkcd.com/322/[/url]
In this case, it's not exactly an artificial wedge. At least, there really are two kinds of evolution in view.
A shift in population ratios == change in allele frequencies == evolution, yes. But that would be true even if there were no mutations--just shift in ratios of what was already there. Evolution-to-allow-common-descent requires mutations.
That's still evolution, just not the kind that's driven by natural selection. See Neutral theory of molecular evolution and Genetic drift.
The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
"A cat with six toes is still a cat.
Only if the cat can find another cat that will mate with it.
Same applies to Slashdotter's too!
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
No, mutation and recombination do not represent "two kinds of evolution". They are just two mechanisms involved in evolution by natural selection. The mutation rate in this particular case might be low (or zero), but that doesn't make it qualitatively different from other cases of evolution.
The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
Last I checked, after bacteria formed, goo was still around. "Shift in population ratios" is referring to a change in the numbers between different variations within the same species:
white peppered moth: 30
black peppered moth: 70
-> some measure of time ->
white peppered moth: 60
black peppered moth: 40
Evolution!*
Besides, the origin of life is not what evolution attempts to explain. For all the theory is involved, it doesn't matter if life was created by aliens, deity/deities, or formed from crystalline structures forming latices for organic compounds. Evolution just shows that life changes over time.
Note: these ratios do not reflect any actual studies, this is just a made-up example to explain "shift in population ratios"
Said, "It's just like dice but it's got more sides And it tells me who lives and who dies"
RE: Math is not the ONLY place where you can prove things.
I don't think so!!!
If I were to throw a brick at you... physically that brick will hit you.
Mathematically that brick must travel halfway from me to you... than a quarter of the way... 1/8, 1/16, 1/32.. etc... etc. Mathematically that brick will approach you but never hit you!!!
5. Profit ?!
Oh wait, you're a scientist? Umm...
5. Continue working as TA to pay off student loans!
I don't believe we've ever observed speciation occur. Nor have we observed macroevolution. Both of which facts are expected since speciation and macroevolution are so very rare.
Poe's Law?
Just in case.
Clever signature text goes here.
Just more than 100 years.
You clearly need to educate yourself about scientific terminology.
Such as?
Clever signature text goes here.
Examples?
Clever signature text goes here.
It has been observed.
Clever signature text goes here.
We have.
Clever signature text goes here.
What exacly does "God did it" explain?
Science has always been defined as dealing solely with what we can observe and measure. It's what makes science work. A basic principle of science is falsifiability.
Clever signature text goes here.
My sister recently took a college level biology course and when briefly going over the presumed evolution of humans, known hoaxes were mentioned as proof
You mean there's more than one known hoax in this field? How many can you name aside from Piltdown Man?
I'd call it not math. Math is the only place where you can prove things; everywhere else, you can only falsify things.
Math is a game of circular reasoning played with symbols. I'm not a math pro but I do know a thing about symbols: they're fungible.
Math proves nothing. At best it is a tool to build models of what we might expect when we can measure. It helps us improve the tools with which we measure. When we can measure and the measurements disagree with the math, we improve the math. The current state of math seems to be very good and when used properly often delivers predictions that anticipate measurements -- but it's not "proof". Measurements are proof. Samples are proof. Math proofs are paper, and most of them have more to offer as a form of carbon fuel.
Still, math can be a very useful tool.
Help stamp out iliturcy.