Slashdot Mirror
Darwinism Must Die So Evolution Can Live
Pickens writes "MacArthur fellow Carl Safina, an adjunct professor at Stony Brook University, has an interesting essay in the NYTimes that says that equating evolution with Charles Darwin opened the door for creationism by ignoring 150 years of discoveries, including most of what scientists understand about evolution — Gregor Mendel's patterns of heredity, the discovery of DNA, developmental biology, studies documenting evolution in nature, and evolution's role in medicine and disease. Darwinism implies an ideology adhering to one man's dictates, like Marxism, says Safina. He adds that nobody talks about Newtonism or Einsteinism, and that by making Darwin 'into a sacred fetish misses the essence of his teaching.' By turning Darwin into an 'ism,' scientists created the opening for creationism, with the 'isms' implying equivalence. 'By propounding "Darwinism," even scientists and science writers perpetuate an impression that evolution is about one man, one book, one theory,' writes Safina. '"Darwinism" implies that biological scientists "believe in" Darwin's "theory." It's as if, since 1860, scientists have just ditto-headed Darwin rather than challenging and testing his ideas, or adding vast new knowledge.'"
This is why most biologist refer to Darwins theory plus all the addition thoughts of the last 150 year as neodarwinism
Darwins basic idea still stands so it doesn't seem illogical to use his name for the theory
That is, as the Brits say, bollocks.
The issue is that this ignorant view may be perpetuated in America. I have never heard anyone in Europe utter such crap.
Let us pray that Obama can wipe public references to deities into oblivion.
I'm sick of pandering to the ill-educated buffoons who want to drag civilisation kicking and screaming back into the dark ages.
Darwin wasn't utterly and completely right first time out of the bag. So what?
His discoveries have been validated, refined, added-to, improved in ways he could never have predicted.
Again, so what?
Darwin laid the bedrock, the foundation, upon which stands much of modern science, let alone biology.
And until you can give me a reason why we should metaphorically bury the giants upon who's shoulders we collectively stand, I will resist this utterly foolish idea.
I sit here in this cafe, drinking a latte and typing on my laptop computer. Both the latte and the PC are hot, one from being prepared that way, the other as a result of internal processes. Both are hot as I have defined them.
Does the fact that one requires an external entity to prepare it make it any less hot than the one that becomes hot of its own accord?
Newtonian physics/mechanics is in common usage and although there's no 'Einstienian", there is the term 'relativistic' applied to the branch of physics he's most famous for
The only people who go on and on ad nauseum about "Darwinism", as if it were the be-all and end-all of Evolutionary Theory, are the Creationists.
The reason no-one talks about "Newtonism" or "Eisteinism" is because neither of those things threaten the basis behind the belief systems of a significant chunk of the planet (and therefore the power weilded by the people behind them). Why waste time attacking something you couldn't care less about ?
I could be hanging out with the wrong scientists, but I rarely hear anyone describe what they work on as "Darwinism". There are "evolutionary biologists", who research evolution, not Darwinism. The well-accepted name for the process is evolution, and as far as I can tell nobody calls the idea Darwinism, though Darwin is widely credited as having had an important early role in its development.
We do actually speak of Newtonian mechanics, for what it's worth. Probably more than anyone in science actually speaks of Darwinian evolution. So we've sort of already done what this guy is asking for, it seems?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I don't think many popular science writers, or whoever it is that shapes the public understanding of scientific issues, have read, let alone endorse, The Origin of Species. It is truer that most of them do endorse the so-called Modern Synthesis, a synthesis between evolution-theoretic ideas and genetics, which cristallised around the mid-40s and is, arguably, not the last word in the theory of evolution. But I don't see how having Darwin's name associated -in all justice- to the Modern Synthesis cluster is any more harmful to the theory than having Einstein's name associated -in all justice- to the theory of relativity.
On the other hand, from TFA:
"Using phrases like "Darwinian selection" or "Darwinian evolution" implies there must be another kind of evolution at work, a process that can be described with another adjective. For instance, "Newtonian physics" distinguishes the mechanical physics Newton explored from subatomic quantum physics. So "Darwinian evolution" raises a question: What's the other evolution?
Into the breach: intelligent design."
Of course. This is just as it should be. Intelligent design is a powerful source of evolution. Or how does the writer think Airbuses emerged from the Wright brothers' prototype? The passage I just quoted implies that there is no legitimate evolution that is not Darwinian. This is plain silly.
Darwin didn't have a true theory because the idea he had had no predictive power and little explanatory power, therefore was inherently untestable and not able to be used to answer questions. He wasn't aware of DNA, genes or chromosomes.
Arguably his hypotheseses were quite testable - just not by the science and technology of the time.
Also, not understanding the underlying mechanics of a system does not automatically invalidate a theory explaining them. Exhibit A: Gravity.
This is an issue of semantics, and of marketing strategy. A rose by any other name ... still evolved from its Rosoideae anscestors in the wild fields of Asia.
Computers are useless: they can only give you answers. -- Pablo Picasso
Correct me if I'm wrong, but these days the term "Darwinism" refers to a 19th century understanding of evolution, specifically to distinguish it from modern evolutionary theory.
The only people who use "Darwinism" to mean "theory of evolution" are creationists.
sic transit gloria mundi
A quite skim over the article. It's rubbish. That Darwin distracts from all the others who have helped strengthen our understanding of how the variety of life on the planet came to be, I'll accept that.
That 'Darwinism' must die so people can understand evolution? That's just bollocks.
Education must simply improve, and ignorance should never be tolerated.
This is a good idea. Just ask any proponent of creati...err...intelligent design.
A lot of other people have torn to pieces the idea that we really call it "Darwinism" in meaningful discourse. They're pretty right. Our understanding of evolution has, err, evolved, over the years since he first propounded his theory.
That said, he laid the foundations for evolutionary biology, and deserves to leave his name in history a bit. If you've never read The Origin of Species, give it a shot. It's a solid work, and quite accessible. His application of the scientific method should be a case study for all scientists.
For any interested, there's a pretty good article about him over at the International Herald Tribune at the moment.
Darwin did make predictions based on his observations. He observed a flower with an extremely long distance to it's store of nectar, up to a metre if I recall. He predicted a wierd kind of insect (maybe a moth) that must have a massive, metre long tongue to drink the nectar as an example of the two organisms evolving together. The moth was observed and catalogued about 20 years later if I remember right.
I'm really sorry anyone is comparing any scientific idea to "Creationism" or the current flavor of the month "Intelligent Design" which from every angle I can see is neither. Evolution as a general study covers everything from punctuated equilibrium, to impact of ionizing radiation on nucleotides. There must be dozens, maybe hundreds of different disciplines, technologies, framed of reference, scientific venues, and interrelated studies. This would be like comparing a sequoia to a blade of astro-turf, and arguing they are equal because they are both green.
Creationism is a belief system in search of evidence to justify it's validity. This someone opening a box of puzzle pieces, cutting all the none conforming bits off the pieces, and forcing them into some semblance of a presupposed picture. In short this is a mental illness. It is someone who places more importance in the way they want things to be, than the way they in fact are. This is magical thinking. Most human beings develop beyond this level of function at about the age of 10. It is no more ludicrous than Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.
The nature of science is you have an idea. You test it against the world. If the data doesn't match the theory, the theory is wrong, and you need to rethink it. No handpicking data to match your theory. Scientist who do that are called frauds, and lose the respect and recognition of their peers almost instantly. This isn't to say that there isn't belief, politics, and hubris among scientists. It's hard to ignore human foibles, but at least one can account for them. Magical thinking doesn't even try. Those same foibles are point and purpose to magical thinking, and any truth that happens there is purely coincidental.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Nice copy paste. Then again, that's typical Creationist behavior. No wonder you had to AC this.
That's a lot of words to say "I'm a religious nutball".
Nice try, I guess. Problem is, you base the entire tirade on "a theory must provide a way to be falsified, and evolution does not". That's a made-up requirement. A theory makes predictions. The method of falsification is when one of its predictions is shown inaccurate. Take survival of the fittest, for example. It's a bit of a chore to do tests, but go buy yourself a fruit fly farm and get to it. You have your method of falsification right there. Of course, creationists do generally not actually understand the completely random element in evolution. They cannot seem to fathom it. So odds are you'll make all the wrong requirements and assumptions there as well. Probably expecting a brand new species to pop out of it or something.
On a lighter note, I find it hilarious that you manage to say this "While he has evidence that the car is red by way of personal testimony, he has no way of confirming if this is true or false, since he might have been lied to, regardless if he was or not", then finish off with swearing loyalty to a thousands of years old book full of hearsay.
Actually, it _still_ isn't testable, since it has idiocies like "sexual selection" tacked on to it as a catch-all for everything it couldn't actually explain. (Why did the peacock evolve such a big and handicapping tail? Hur-hur-hur, to impress women, Beavis.)
The problem is that no matter how you slice it, it proposes that an organism can also evolve towards _less_ fit, i.e., that sometimes natural selection works against the logical direction or in some random direction. You can't falsify something with such a catch-all clause. It predicts that something will get more fit for the environment... except in the unpredictable cases where it actually evolves to be less fit.
It's like saying that gravity makes bodies attract each other... except when they repulse each other, or make each other move in a random direction. That's not falsifiable, i.e., plain old not science.
Why do I call it idiotic?
A) Because it handwaves away half the problem. Ok, so male peacocks evolved so to impress the females. But why did females evolve that trait then? Going strictly natural selection, if that tail were indeed a disadvantage, some females would be randomly born with a preferrence for smaller tails and mate with males with smaller tails, their children would have less of a disadvantage, repeat. So natural selection would guide things towards removing that handicap anyway.
Just because sex is involved in selecting that, it doesn't mean it is the only factor or evolutionary pressure. If it were a disadvantage for males, then natural selection among _females_ would phase it out.
B) Because it doesn't even try to see if there's another advantage to that. It's a catch-all "I don't know why it's like that, so it must be about sex." And I mean other disadvantages like:
- disruptive camouflage. Just because for the advanced image recognition circuitry of a primate something stands out like a sore thumb, it doesn't mean it's like that for other species too. E.g., an orange tabby tomcat is actually very well camouflaged for its prey, because its many lines prevent a mouse's simple circuitry from figuring out the shape of the cat. E.g., the lines of the zebras are a nightmare for lions.
A peacock's tail's patterns would be a right nightmare for many species of predators.
- apparent size. Most animals don't have the circuitry to really figure out the real size of an opponent, so a bigger total shape means a bigger animal. E.g., there's a reason why your cat puffs up and turns sideways when it tries to scare off a potential enemy. For your advanced brain it's the same cat, but for another cat it's "whoa, it just got a lot larger." E.g., just putting a tophat on a kid makes him/her look like a less tempting prey to a hyena, because it looks bigger.
A peacock's tail makes it look freaking big. A lot of the smaller predators would be a lot less inclined to mess with it.
- protecting one's young and females. Many species essentially take a personal risk to try to lure a predator away from their children. Even a personal disadvantage can be an evolutionary advantage if it helps save your kids.
- aposematism. Sometimes you want to make yourself visible as an easily recognizable warning. E.g., see ladibugs being that brightly coloured. It was actually an evolutionary advantage to make sure that whatever bird tasted a ladybug once, can easily recognize and avoid others.
But here's the fun part: sometimes it's an evolutionary advantage to imitate such a species. If the predators already are "trained" to avoid species X, it can be an advantage to look like species X although you don't have the same defenses.
So the peacock could have simply evolved to look like _something_ that the predators would rather avoid. E.g., to show a bigger version of a pattern of a more dangerous predator, or of a toxic/stinging plant that everybody avoids, etc.
- changing conditions. Just because something looks like a pure disadvantage to you now, it could have been an advantage against
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
The problem with Darwin is that nobody actually read his books but everybody is talking about him. Therefore he is one of the most misunderstood man in history. :-)
It is the same with Slashdot, everybody comments on stories they didn't read. Including me right now
They do believe in natural selection obviously, since you can't make predictions (hence, do any science at all) from ID.
From a strict technical, linguistic-nazi, point of view : they don't *believe in* natural selection, they *believe that natural selection is an useful model they can use*.
Usually the phrase *believe in* implies some form of faith.
Whereas scientist *just pick up* a model they consider the best for the situation, based on how much usable it is for making accurate predictions.
No faith required.
But apart from the nit-picking about words, I agree with you : ID is useless because its principle simply contradict the way science work - it's not a model you can use to make any useful prediction at all.
Sometimes deprecated model are used because they are accurate enough in a simpler subset of problems : Newton's physic is simpler to use than Einstein's, yet still good enough at low energy/speed/mass.
In the case of evolution and natural selection, the model is currently still the best one, considering the tons of additional material that has been added to it.
And considering the fact that each time a completely brand new branch of biology appears (like genetics), the data produced results still in accordance to what would expect when using the evolution and natural selection models.
Currently that's the best model we have and a better one has yet to come.
ID is no possible contender, as its fundamental principle aren't scientific : scientific model are made to be used to make prediction, and to model the world in order to understand it better. ID tells us that everything is done on the will of some higher being (and thus nothing could be predicted) and some things are just too complex to be explainable (and thus you can't model the world).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
He adds that nobody talks about Newtonism or Einsteinism
No one talks about "Darwinism" except the creationists. The reasons he gives are exactly the reasons they invented the term - it's far easier to discredit a dead guy from 100 years ago than it is a scientific concept.
By making it seem like the work of one man with millions of blind followers it appears more fallible.
Their tactics are pretty ironic really.
Also, other, bigger scale "experiments" over evolution have been made and passed: astronomers at the time rejected the idea of evolution because the earth couldn't possibly have been around for long enough to allow the process to take as long as suggested. Of course, that statement was based on the idea that the sun was a ball of fire (ie, combustion) and there wasn't enough fuel in there to make the fire burn that long. When the two scientific theories were put against each other, astronomy lost: they eventually figured out that stars work with nuclear processes and, therefore, last that much longer.
unfortunately i can't muster enough stamina to read all the statement form this AC, but if he whant an example of evolution he should read this
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html
an article about an evolution of a new genetic trait in bacteria, and it is a reproducible experiment!
that perhaps prove evolution?
Allow me just a few points. BTW I am an evolutionary biologist. Carl Safina, with all due respect, is not.
First, let's get one thing straight that the author of the article confuses. "Evolution" is the observation that all living things seem to be related, plus the observation of the change of the living world in time. This observations are older than Darwin. "Theory of evolution" is any theory that tries to explain this observation. "Neodarwinism" or "Synthetic Theory of Evolution" is one particular theory that involves the mechanism called "natural selection". Natural selection is a mechanism that can be observed. Darwin's greatness was in linking this mechanism to the rise and change in complexity of all living things, and in the ability to foresee the consequences that only recently started being fully understood.
1) "Equating evolution with Charles Darwin ignores 150 years of discoveries"
First, nowadays formally we use the terms "neodarwinism" or "synthetic theory of evolution". "Darwinism" is most often used in certain popular (non-scientific) texts, and also by creationists.
2) "Using phrases like Darwinian selection or Darwinian evolution implies there must be another kind of evolution at work, a process that can be described with another adjective."
Well, of course, as any of my students would immediately ask "what about lamarckian evolution?" (an alternative explanation for the process of evolution, largely rejected or falsified by observations)
3) "And isms (capitalism, Catholicism, racism) are not science."
Yeah, right, like electromagnetism, empiricism or autism.
4) "What Darwin had to say about evolution basically begins and ends right there."
If this only was so simple. Darwin, as I mentioned before, not only proposed natural selection as an important mechanism of evolution, but also was able to point out the consequences, ranging from kin selection to the role of sexual reproduction.
5) Do you really believe that creationists would less fiercely attack a "synthetic theory of evolution"? The problem is much, much deeper than just an association or a given name.
Cheers,
j.
Two seconds on google shows this is a copy-and-paste almost 9 months old. Original content, please.
http://talkingtotheists.blogspot.com/2008/05/story-thus-far-noted-youtube.html
Let's poke some holes in your argument though, even though I'm sure you won't be back, it may serve as an amusement for slashdotters and a deterrent for more of your ilk with their recycled arguments.
1)Your first argument that in order for a theory to be considered valid that it must be proven "not false" is patently untrue.
When a scientific hypothesis becomes a scientific theory it is because all evidence to that point provides overwhelming support for the hypothesis. Redefining what science is not a justification for an argument, and invalidates most of your following reasoning. A theory is a theory not because experiments prove it "true" or even "not false", but because experiments have failed to prove it false.
2) If your blue watermelon example were a proper scientific hypothesis, it could be disproven, because a requirement of a scientific hypothesis is that it must be disprovable (and not necessarily provable). Add in your hypothesis of why it turns red when opened, and you have a true scientific, disprovable, hypothesis. (I'd open it under argon because if that were the case, rapid oxidation would most likely be the cause).
3) Quote:If evolution be not true, the only explanation for the appearance of varied life on the planet is intelligent design.
A scientific hypothesis or experiment does NOT pose an ultimatum like this. Science is not an either/or endeavor. It is a pursuit of truth, with each experiment leaving a puzzle piece.
4) Quote:Evolution states by addition of new traits (new organs, new anatomy)....since detrimental or beneficial mutations are only alterations of already existing traits, and can not account for an increase in the number of traits any given life form possesses.
I'm going to take a red car, and over the process of 10000 coats paint it slightly darker red each time. At the end,it will be black. I will then show you a picture of the original car. Will they look the same?
I also point you to the origin of mitochondria in eukaryotic cells. Any microbiologist or decent microbiology text will show that they were obtained, rather quickly, by endocytosis, and altered by the cell to work for it.
4) Quote:Evolution theory would predict that the process of gradual change and increase in traits is an ongoing process, and therefore should be observable in todays living animals and plants
It is very convenient how you leave out bacteria, which have been proven over and over again to evolve on an observable timescale.
5) Quote:A kind is the original prototype of any ancestral line
I won't even go into how uncouth it is to define your own terms in an argument. However, as evolution is a slow process (and you use it in your argument and thus cannot come back and say that you disagree), where would you draw the line of a "prototype"? The transition of species from a common ancestor is a gradient, not a series of steps.
6) My final argument.
Quote:If no such common ancestor can be found and confirmed without bias
That one statement says more than enough.If someone's logic trumps your own, you will cry "bias". Quite simply, that makes it "not false" that you are not a scientist.
- Sol
Find a fossil that doesn't fit the record. You show us a 200 million year old fossilized Koala..
Ok, that makes more sense then. However, I'm not sure that the standard view of sexual selection is that the feathers are a disadvantage that just happen to impress females. As you said, if the tail was a disadvantage that would seem absurd.
What do you think is wrong with the more likely scenario that the tail is neutral to survival, while at the same time being preferred by females thus giving the male a reproductive advantage. I don't know what the peafowl's habitat is like, but the somewhat awkward creature could thrive due to a lack of natural predators. After all, the tail doesn't prevent the bird from flying, and flying is always a strong defense. The females preference could also have a logical basis since individuals that are healthy and well-fed would be better able to produce an extravagant tail.
It's also possible that the tail could have multiple purposes. It could have one of the survival advantages as you outlined so well above as well as the reproductive advantage from sexual selection. There's no reason it has to be only one or the other, is there?
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Darwinism implies an ideology adhering to one man's dictates, like Marxism, says Safina
Yes that's correct. Nonetheless there is a reason one still refers to "Marxism": While biologists accepted Darwin's fundamental discoveries and built on them, social and economic sciences spent the last century trying to refute Marx's theories. Theories that do represent a good model to understand our society.
Check out my cross-platform apps
Any theory that can not explain how to both validate and falsify its claims in this manner can not be taken seriously.
Carl Popper thoroughly dismantled that idea in his 1935 book "Logic der Forschung". You should try reading it; the English translation of the main text is quite accessible. Looking at the problems you have with logic you may struggle with some of the appendices, but they're not necessary for the main argument. It may help bring your thinking from the 19th to the 20th century. Incidentally, I am aware about the controversy in science regarding falsification, but it doesn't apply here -- I'm not aware of any serious scientists who claim that what Popper described isn't science (isn't to "be taken seriously"); the controversy is whether Popper's method is the only thing science is.
Unfortunately, Darwin never properly demonstrated how to falsify his theory, which means evolution has not properly been proven
A perfect illustration of what the RA was saying. You think the claim that Darwin didn't do it is the same as the claim that it hasn't been done. You think work stopped on the subject 150 years ago.
As said before; if something is not false, it must therefore be true
That's not what you said before. What you said before was "if it can be shown that something is not false, it must therefore be true" (my emphasis), which is a completely different statement.
The whole issue of what is valid science and what isn't is a fascinating one, and you touch on some important issues, but you bury them in such sloppy logic it's no wonder you've been modded down. If you really care about this stuff -- and it seems you do -- then, seriously, take a philosophy 101 course where they'll teach you the basics of how to put an argument together (and how to take one apart.
For the moment, it might be worth a look at this article, which addresses some of the issues you raise and describes more current thinking on those issues (although it's a bit unfair to Popper: it claims that "One thing [Kuhn, Feyerabend and Lakatos] thought in opposition to Popper - there was no point that could be ruled off as the dividing line between 'rational' science and 'non-rational' non-science." In fact, Popper argued the same thing: "My criterion of demarcation will accordingly have to be regarded as a proposal for an agreement or convention" (Carl Popper, "The Logic of Scientific Discovery", Routledge Classics 2002, p15, author's emphasis) -- in other words Popper doesn't believe the dividing line to be absolute either).
Come back when you can discuss coherently the 21st century questions about the relationship between evolutionary theory and the scientific method, instead of the 19th century questions.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Lungfish? Manatees? Feathered dinosaurs? Egg-laying marsupials? Darwin's own Galapagos Finches? That argument is silly, because it glosses over the fact that these processes happen on a timescale we can't observe.
Instead of the classic vulgar misreading of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in which this and that scientific principle is "just a theory" ("So why can't I call creationism _my_ theory?"), this is what he was writing about -- periodically changing the paradigm of thought to one that melds better with the sum of current observations. In short, a good idea that is more about the culture of science surrounding evolution.
However at least the Catholic church isn't dismissing the idea's, which is a long way from the outright attacks made by more fundamentalist churches. The thing about this debate is that while fundamental theist's attack science and the theory of evolution using doubt, no counter-argument is made that has any impact on the faith of proponents of Intelligent Design.
Science and Religion are different bodies of knowledge, but not mutually exclusive because both use reason as a tool for different goals. There are scientific people who are religious and religious people who are scientific. Making a science based argument about the ignorance of Intelligent Design to someone who has a predominately religious background make both sides dig their heals in. That's why this debate has become so polarised.
I've found that having an understanding of the doctrine that supports scientific investigation and framing that discussion so that it attacks the underpinnings of Intelligent Design an important tool. Building and demonstrating an understanding of the theocratic aspects of this debate is an important tool to disarming the proponents of Intelligent Design and helping them understand why science is important to their faith.
A scientific argument explaining the shortcomings of Intelligent Design to a religious person really just reveals their ignorance of science and, as such, they feel ignorant of science but it's not important to them.
A theocratic argument explaining the shortcomings of Intelligent Design to a religious person reveals the shortcomings of Intelligent Design when compared to the discoveries made by a study of Evolution.
When confronted with one of these discussions I point out that Intelligent Design limits how far humanity explores nature, or in theocratic terms "the works of God". I go on to point out that there is nothing in the Theory of evolution that attacks Christian beliefs but, in fact, uses science as a tool to uncover the amazing wonder of how nature works, or in theocratic terms "the glory of God".
It's at this point that proponents of Intelligent Design start to join the dots for themselves. The insecurity they feel about Darwin's idea's attacking their belief system give way to the possibility that Intelligent Design could actually be a form of blasphemy, something that is important to a religious person.
I think it's important to frame the debate this way because the Intelligent Design position cleverly deceives religious people into accepting ignorance over education and promotes the notion that science aims to dispel religion. Science and Religion have to co-exist in society if we are to dispel ignorance and fundamentalism.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
By pure extrapolation slashdotters _will_ be able to live on pizzas and coke in approximately:
25 years/generation * 40000 generations = 1 million years. Assuming of course that slashdotters reproduce.
http://www.transitional-fossil.com/
now fuck off
Utter tosh, both the article and this comment. We refer to Newtonian mechanics and Einsteinian space time so why not Darwinian Evolution. As for creationism, its just another religious ideology and you either fight its proponents to the death or you let them kill you. Politics is not civilized and grown up and we still settle political (read religious) differences with war. Darwinian evolution does not need proof in the terms offered by this post because it is a theory not a law. We use it because its predictions work. Find a better theory and we will adopt it, otherwise shut the F up.
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
I'm _not_ against darwinism or natural selection. I'm just against the "sexual selection" cludge. That's all. Remove that kludge, and I'm perfectly content with Darwinism.
It's not a "kludge". Some traits will, almost certainly, propagate solely due to them making the organism more attractive to a mate. Indeed, given that successful reproduction is the ultimate expression of "fitness", one would assume that traits existing solely for 'sexual selection' would be quite common.
Texans?
Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
If evolution be not true, the only explanation for the appearance of varied life on the planet is intelligent design.
Uh, no. There are other "theories" with just as much evidence as intelligent design.
For instance, there's my "poof" theory. In the "poof" theory, all of the life forms on earth "poofed" into place from another universe. Or universes. Doesn't matter. Anyway, my "poof" theory explains the variety of life on earth, because these alternate universes from which life is "poofing" have much more variety than Earth does. How come we don't see it happening now? We do, actually. Haven't you heard of unicorns? Not everything that poofs into place survives, and you don't always get a breeding pair, either.
What's that? Intelligent Design is better? Nope. We have exactly as much evidence for your Designer and your Designer's methods as we do for my "poof" theory. Sure, I can't show you my alternate universes, but you can's show me your Designer, His Workshop or anything else.
For that matter, there are plenty of other whackos out there who've got a theory with just about as much evidence as mine, such as Michael Cremo (author of "Forbidden Archaeology" and sort of a Hindu creationist), the late Fred Hoyle (panspermia), or Periannan Senapathy (author of "Independent Birth of Origins"). You have to show your Intelligent Design is better than them, too.
Not at all. "How To Falsify X" is a necessary part of the evaluation of any scientific theory X.
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
It would be a pity if we had to purge the name "Charles Darwin" from the history of science in order to satisfy some religious fanatics who simply refuse to live in a world where not everyone shares their superstitious beliefs. That they would insinuate themselves at all in the world of Reason is outrageous. How many advances in biology and medicine have been delayed because of researchers' fear of these medieval god-botherers getting all up in their beeswax?
I'm starting the countdown until we tell all the "fundamentalist" bullies in this country to go fuck themselves right...now.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Darwin's ideas are, in point of fact, a species of orthodoxy, just like creationism. The important thing to remember is that religion and science deal with new ideas in precisely opposite ways.
If a creationist theologian examines the notion that man is descended from other apes, he refers to the assertions of his orthodoxy, and sees that God created Adam on the seventh day, and therefore rejects this new idea. If an anthropologist examines the idea that such and such a hominid was an ancestor of man, then he sets out to prove that the notion is inconsistent with known fact. He sets out, in effect, to prove that evolution did not happen in this case.
The statistician's name for this notion is "the null hypothesis". In setting out to prove an idea, you set out to disprove the null hypothesis. In this game, the null hypothesis is considered innocent until proven guilty: any reasonable grounds whatsoever for accepting the null hypothesis is allowed. If under those slanted rules, the null hypotheses fails, then the idea must be considered consistent with all the facts currently in hand.
Scientific theories perform some of the same functions as religious dogmas in casual reasoning. They can, of course, be wrong and this wrongness can temporarily slow scientific progress. But when it comes down to real work, the core function of a scientific theory is completely opposite to that of religious dogma. Scientific theories are not touchstones; they are sources of ideas to disprove as null hypotheses. The published empirical data are the touchstone against which the scientist sets out to crush the tenets of scientific theory, if he can. If he fails, then he has advance scientific knowledge.
It is their reliability as sources of failing null hypotheses that makes scientific theories practically useful to researchers. The reason a scientist, in his gut, reacts against creationism is he is sure that he will set out to disprove it and succeed.
Now the notion that we've made a religious fetish of Darwin reflect a fundamental misunderstanding about how the differences between theology and science. Scientists are not necessarily philosophers of science, so when they are invited to a debate by theologians, they often unconsciously slip into arguing on theological grounds, or they simply fail to communicate because neither side has any intellectual context for understanding the other, and neither side is aware of this.
If theologians new how scientific theories are actually used they'd be less anxious to seek the imprimatur of the scientific community.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Any theory that does not provide a method to falsify and validate its claims is a useless theory.
Example; if someone said a watermelon is blue on the inside, but turns red when you cut it open, how could you prove them wrong? How could they prove they're right?
Exactly!
My electronics theory professor theorized that electronic devices work by the flow of magic smoke. He then proved his theory by releasing the smoke from an electronic device and showing us it no longer worked.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
There are two issues here and they are often conflated:
Evolution as a process and evolution as a path.
The "process" of evolution is what Darwin documented extensively in "The Origin of Species" and scientists have proved beyond any doubt. The "process" of evolution is a fact.
The "path" of evolution, i.e. where and how a specific species has come to exist is a "study." We can speculate, research, and document what we think archaeological remnants mean, but we can *never* prove that A begot B beyond any doubt. We can only speculate that somewhere in the path of evolution Archeopterix is a predecessor to modern flying birds based on similarities and features.
The beauty of science over religion is that science isn't required to be all knowing and infallible. We can and do make mistakes, but all mistakes are not equal. As Isaac Asimov wrote, the mistakes of science are not arbitrary, they are of the character of increasing precision.
We used to believe the world was flat. That was because the earth looked flat to the available technology of the time. We then measured that the earth MUST be round. The earlier "flat earth" was not wrong, per se' it was the best we could do. The round spherical earth was a better model. Well now we know that the world isn't spherical, it is kind of egg shaped. Again, the spherical thing wasn't wrong, it was the best we could measure. It isn't as if science is going to through up its hands and say, "oops! the world is flat, we were wrong" because the nature of scientific errors aren't like that. The mistakes of science are in the form of new knowledge correcting old conclusions in an ever increasingly accurate set of models.
No, he didn't just make that up, it's a basic tenent of the neo-creationists, who have been taught to make an argument that sounds almost like it's making sense unless you've actually studied biology or the history of science.
What's worse is these evil fundamentalist fuckers want to teach our kids this superstitious bullshit. That's what we need, a generation of young people who know how to make a sensible-sounding fallacious argument. Then they can all be stockbrokers.
I say, they can take my Science from me when they wrest it from my cold, dead fingers (by the way, my gun is in my other hand).
You are welcome on my lawn.
If I believe in evolution, I usually reply something to the effect of, "It's not a religion that one might believe in... You can either prove it or you can't." The notion of being able to falsify scientific hypothesis seems to be a bit beyond the conceptual grasp of a large portion of the population.
I'm a Christian. Yes, I've seen evidence that there's a God, in fact, rather recently. But my belief in God isn't based on evidence, it's based on faith. That's why it's called religion. Any time a belief system is based on faith rather than repeatable experiments, we have to call it a religion.
I know this is going to ruffle a few feathers, but I'm sick of this debate being rehashed again and again. For many, many years, what was taught as evolution in public schools was largely based on blind faith in evolution. The conflict over evolution in schools had nothing to do with science and everything to do with conflicting belief systems, i.e. atheism versus theism. And for that reason, the teaching of evolutionary theory was slanted toward whatever personal agenda the teacher had with respect to the above debate. Science got lost in the process.
And evolution itself was largely a matter of religious belief for the century after Darwin. Biology was one of the few sciences which accepted a theory which was provably false by anyone with a basic knowledge of statistics. The early theories of natural selection were mathematically sound, but to go the step beyond and claim that "random change" would differentiate species only indicated the discipline's misunderstanding of randomness, and was based largely on faith. It was as if, unable to find a specific cause of speciation, biologists just gave up critical thought and claimed "random chance did it". It was intellectually lazy, and Americans knew it. And this version of evolution would be taught as late as the 1990's.
So when you hear someone questioning darwinism, or evolution, this is what the debate is about. They are probably not aware of the more recent advances in the subject, probably cannot elaborate on any of the specific theories regarding speciation (which, to biology's credit, are actually listing falsifiable hypotheses now). It is not about science, but bad science put forward in the attempt to make a larger cultural change, a shift away from belief in God.
There is no conflict between science and religion, because both seek the truth, but work in different problem domains. That said, though, there's no place for faith in science, and one need not "believe" in it the way one might have faith in the second coming of Christ. The debate over evolution should serve as an indicator of how bad things can get when science attempts to step outside of its proper boundaries into the realm of philosophy and religion. I do not want future spacecraft designed by faith any more than I want future public policy governed solely by science. (While I'll admit that science can inform public opinion, it cannot resolve the ethical and moral questions.)
So before you go about bashing evolution bashers, please remember: most of these people were taught falsehoods in the name of science. Once you address that issue, you'll find that there's really very little left to debate.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
At least, its argumentation doesn't evolve.
You are equivocating on the word faith. This is a common error, please don't perpetuate it.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/equivocation.html
would help you in your life immensely.
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
Stepping back from the article for a moment... it's not just evil fundamentalists who have honed that skill. Think politicians, marketers, ad execs, the RIAA, and plenty of others. Much of society is based on saying things that sound truthy but aren't quite true.
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
So creationism or Intelligent Design are individuals or religions' way to integrate current science into existing dogma. So what?
Religions have been morphing and changing for 1000's of years for various reasons.
Shoot, most of the material I read on evolution practically implies intelligence in the process, that it approaches deism. The consumer level science outlets are the worst.
It's not just a straight copy paste, every time this is posted it's slightly different. After a few thousand posts, it may turn into a cogent argument!
That doesn't seem to me to prove evolution. You could say that god creates things that match, that go together, and He must have made a moth to match that flower.
Not that it's not an insightful prediction, and not that I believe in creationism at all, but it doesn't seem to me like that prediction is based on anything other than understanding the reproduction of flowers and knowing that, given that structure of flower, there must be an insect able to pollenate it.
All things dull and ugly,
All creatures short and squat,
All things rude and nasty,
The Lord God made the lot;
Each little snake that poisons,
Each little wasp that stings,
He made their brutish venom,
He made their horrid wings.
All things sick and cancerous,
All evil great and small,
All things foul and dangerous,
The Lord God made them all.
Each nasty little hornet,
Each beastly little squid.
Who made the spikey urchin?
Who made the sharks? He did.
All things scabbed and ulcerous,
All pox both great and small.
Putrid, foul and gangrenous,
The Lord God made them all.
Buildings don't start falling down because they're based on Newtonian physics and Newton's theory has had centuries of refinement. Likewise, Darwinism is well understood in the sciences and there is nothing wrong with associating his name with the theory.
We won't get "creationists" to see reason by changing the name. If we called it something else, they'd find something wrong with that term as well. You simply cannot expect a single word to be an intrinsically accurate representation of an entire theory.
Creationists fall into the categories of people too stupid to understand the science and people who deliberately misunderstand in order to win rhetorical arguments. Both kinds of people are a lost cause. We should let them all move into a bunch of religious states and nations and stop sending them technology; everybody would be happier that way.
I think the key to winning the evoultion vs. creationism argument is to have respect for the other side. I know this is hard to do when creationism seems so ludicrous, but keep a few things in mind.
Firstly, properly constructed creationist theories are not falsifiable. If I said that God created the universe 5,000 years ago, but he made it look as if it'd been around for billions of years in order to test our faith, you couldn't prove me wrong. Radio-Carbon dating is based upon the assumption that at one time the ratio of carbon isotopes was at a certain level - you can't use it to prove the age of an object unless you first posit that the object had, at one time, a certain ratio of isotopes. If I just claimed that the object never had that ratio because it was never alive (i.e. that fossil was created as a fossil), you couldn't prove me wrong. Falsifiability is KEY to science, which means creationism can never be science, but it also means that creationism can never be shown to be wrong.
Second, There are intelligent creationists out there. I am working with a guy who got a Ph.D. in theoretical computer science at Stanford. He's absolutely brilliant, and he's also a young earth creationist. You're never going to win a guy like that over by telling him he's stupid and that he's destroying science.
The ONLY way to win someone's mind over is to be patient and respectful. Every human being (even creationists and republicans) deserves that much.
My blog
No, but they're the ones who demand that the rest of us believe in it.
Sorry, there's something much worse about religious fundamentalists than simply sophism. There are lots of places in the world where the dead get stacked like firewood thanks to their superstitions.
No, the religious fanatics in the US must not be allowed to force their insanity on our children. The only time I want any "intelligent design" taught in school is during a class called "Survey of World Mythology".
You are welcome on my lawn.
Economist chart on thinking evolution is true/correct.
This post climbed Mt. Washington.
...they eventually figured out that stars work with nuclear processes...
There is also the fact that the sun's mass is not enough to gravitationally oppose the huge outward pressures generated by a thermonuclear reaction at the needed temperatures. Gravity is simply too weak to overcome the strong nuclear and electrical forces that would have to be present in such a thermonuclear reaction furnace.
What? Balancing the pressure equation of state is how we numerically predict the structure of the Sun in the first place. Where did you hear that?
Then there is the missing neutrino problem. From thermonuclear fusion experiments and bombs, we know what the production rate of associated neutrinos should be for the sun IF it were indeed powered by fusion, as theorized. However, the actual neutrino flux from the sun is only a tiny fraction of what should be measured if fusion were the energy source of the sun. At this point scientists really are back to square one in determining the power source of the sun and similar sized stars.
This was a problem before 10 or so years ago, though (a) the solution was guessed at 30 years ago, and (b) it's not a "tiny" fraction, it was about a third. Neutrinos change species. There is no more mystery
There is also radar evidence that the sun is not a big gas ball, but actually has a solid iron core, similar to the earth, surrounded by an atmosphere of seething plasma kept hot by an as yet unknown external electrical power grid, in the same way as a metal arc lamp here on earth. There is some evidence that the sun, along with other stars in the spiral arms of our galaxy, is part of a galactic scale electrical power distribution system powered from the center of our galaxy.
A solid iron core??? Where are you getting this stuff? The central density is around 15 times higher than iron! Chemical reactions cannot power the Sun at its current luminosity for billions of years. Can I recommend to you a nice introductory astronomy (science) book?
There was a brilliant Doonesbury on this irony a few years ago. A doctor discovers his patient has drug resistant TB, and asks him if he is a creationist (knowing the answer in advance, presumably from previous discussion). The patient says, "Why yes, I am. Why do you ask?" The Doctor replies:
It gets even funnier from there.
People who want to "believe" superstitious whatnot can certainly do so, but when they insist we teach this in schools, society should revoke their rights to use the fruits of science to sustain their standard of living, until they evolve their thinking. (That prohibition to include guns, which would remain strictly under the control of those who do not believe in armageddon or any other such garbage.)
They can have access to educational materials, but they really need to get back in touch with their superstitious roots, which include praying all winter for warmer weather, as structural engineering requires a scientific understanding of the world which is in conflict with their belief in a benevolent god who magically provides them with whatever they need.
Northern climates are effective at demonstrating that god (for lack of a better term) is ambivalent. Let's set aside a portion of a national forest where they can evolve their belief in science from first principles, like making fire and skinning bears with stone knives.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Religious types are always going to believe what they believe because thats what they do. Are you really so naive to think that if you rebrand something it's going to make an ounce of difference? The ironic part in my mind is every article I've ever read on the subject pretty much perpetuates the idea that there's this big debate going on in America, and I really don't believe there is. I've never really met a creationist in my life, and if I did, I'd prefer not to engage them in a debate because I know ultimately it's like arguing with a 5 year old over the existance of Santa Claus. I think if the pro-evolutionists simply dropped it, the whole issue would become irrelevant... more irrevelvant then it already is.
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn is a must read for anyone trying to understand how a theory (like evolution) is formed and evolves. It talks in depth about how new ideas challenge and eventually overthrow the established science, the difficulties involved, and how a paradigm eventually solidifies. His examples are mostly in physics and chemistry, but evolutionary biology had a very similar path to those described: a new theory is posited with powerful explainatory powers, although it certainly can't explain everything. Eventually, it is generally recognized as the most powerful and parsimonious explaination, although significant changes are made to its initial hypotheses. Something very similar happened with Einstein and physics, and Copernicus and astronomy. Of course, the problem is not that people believe stupid things about how science works, but that people in power believe stupid things about how science works. http://xkcd.com/154/
I don't think we need to take the dark-age proponents of Creationism all that serious. We're only doing them a favour by doing so, as well as wasting time that could be better spent on conducting scientific research and teaching young people about real science.
What we should do is point the complete idiocy of their anti-scientific stance. It isn't as if you can pick and choose in science; if you accept, say, that quantum mechanics is valid, or astronomy or any of the other branches of science, then you will have a very, very hard time not accepting the theory of evolution. So if you want to reject evolution, please get rid of your computer and anything else with semiconductors in; we wouldn't have had those things without scientific research and the insight that quantum mechanics gives us. And stay out of cars and away from bridges too.
Apart from that - there is nothing in science that says there is no God or gods, science simply deals with what can be measured and which is subject to logical reasoning. And there is nothing in the Bible that claims that "this collection of stories is God's infallible truth" - that is simply a viewpoint that has been added since the time of Christ. I think what scares Creationists is that they don't understand what science is about and they basically don't understand what faith is about; and when people are scared, they become reactionary, they close their eyes and ears to shut out every part of reality that seems scary, and they become control freaks who want to decide everything. Creationists are, in a way as far from what their faith states, as you can get. They are not seeking the truth and they don't trust God; who, when you get right down to it, allegedly created this world in such a way that evolution seems to be very convincingly real.
All in all, I don't think we need to distance ourselves from Darwin or his views on evolution. If you read his works (which are available online), you will see that he is very careful in all his statements, that his reasoning is scientifically very sound and that his writing style is still very, very pleasant to read. What we should do more, all of us, is simply to stand up for science - understand it better, communicate it better.
Although admittedly, it may be a flaw that we can learn to live with, is that it fails to answer the following: what happened, exactly, that caused non-replicating molecules to become replicating, and equally importantly, what caused large collections of such molecules in a single thing to progress from having a non-living state to being a living organism?
I find it somewhat ironic that we appear to understand and know more about the origins of the universe than we do about the existence of life on this planet.
The evidence for the origin of life on earth, whatever it may be, is a lot more fragile than the evidence for the origin of the universe. A couple billion years of geology and life destroyed most of the evidence. Some of it's still there, but the vast majority of it is gone forever.
I'd like to stress, though, that evolution doesn't have anything to do with the origin of life. The first life could have formed from chemicals in the early earth's oceans, been created by the Designer, left here by aliens, or drifted in on a comet. Doesn't matter. Evolution can't happen until life can replicate itself. It would certainly be nice to know how life came about, but it's not relevant to evolution.
I'm not sure that the standard view of sexual selection is that the feathers are a disadvantage that just happen to impress females. As you said, if the tail was a disadvantage that would seem absurd.
The peacock has what look like eyes on its tail. These have a tendency to confuse predators. This is a common defensive adaptation on a number of species.
Similarly, the way the tail fans out to makes the peacock appear much larger than it really is. This also confuses predators. This is, also, a common defensive adaptation.
The peacock's tail is an evolutionary advantage. The "sexual selection" probably evolved in females as a response to the survival advantages of having a large, elaborately patterned tail, NOT the other way around.
No sig now
Your list is rather slim. All species are transitional species, including humans.
Also, don't respond to trolls.
This whole summary is based on the supposition that people haven't even bothered to understand evolutionary theory, and view it through a lens of "belief".
There's no reason to waste time on trying to convince people when they won't take 5 minutes to understand the underlying fundamentals of your argument.
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
No joke, they really believe stars are powered by electricity. They will usually try to pull you in with talk of plasma and electromagnetism affecting stars and planets in unforeseen ways, and build up to the 'stars are big arc lamps!" bit once they get a nibble of interest.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I think we're all well aware that Darwin laid out most -- though not all -- of the groundwork for evolutionary science, but since then there's been 150 years of research done on the topic, so deciding that evolution is wrong because Darwin himself wasn't 100% correct is like deciding a building is ugly by standing in the basement.
But the anti-evolution fundamentalists can't quite wrap their head around that. They have a mindset where the first time someone said something, it's truth. Their dogma hasn't changed significantly in two thousand years; on the few occasions it has, it's quietly integrated into their knowledge. A prime example is how livid the church was with Galileo for daring to suggest, as others had, the heliocentric model, for dogma at the time declared the heavens to be eternal and unchanging. Now every fundamentalist can give you an impressive speech about how the precise orbits of the planets is proof of the magnificence of God. No one really remembers or cares that this wasn't always the case.
But more to the point, their obsession with Darwin is based on their obsession with authority figures and revelation. To them, truth is and always has been the Bible, and the people who wrote the Bible were, allegedly, handed this knowledge from on high. No one had to go find out what commandments and laws God wanted -- he apparently just told someone. In that same vein, the Church is the authority on interpreting the Bible or enforcing it, and so people associated with the Church are also authorities. A fundamentalist's entire worldview is predicated on these revealed truths from authorities.
They therefore assume that everyone else works on this same principle -- that authority figures hand out information which is either true or false, and if they can show that person, or anything he said, to be in error, then they've destroyed his authority. To them, the information is only as good as the authority of the person who offered it, because that person's authority is the final product and the information is really only secondary. If Paul was just some guy nobody would care what he said, but because he was supposedly in touch with the ultimate authority, his words are recorded and now we all know what he said.
They don't realise or don't care that science is done by incorporating the knowledge of dozens of disciplines and thousands of people who worked on the problem before, and that knocking one of them down doesn't affect the final product because the product is not the authority of the scientist.
So, by attacking Darwin they hope to make him look foolish or wrong, and if they can do that, then absolutely everything built upon his work is also foolish or wrong. That's the mindset of a fundamentalist -- the mindset of anyone who believes in revelation over investigation.
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
The misconception that Prof Safina rails against is due to the vulgar notion of Darwinism which is no more like what Darwin wrote about than does "begging the question" have anything to do with its common misusage.
Why do we still have the "lesser", "older" species?
I've not heard a real explanation to this point. I am not referring to the process of natural selection, simply the origin of species. Two completely different theories and ideas.
Why do we still have fish, primates, birds? We do we not have half human-ape looking hybrids? Why are there no hybrid species of other types?
Not a troll, a genuine question. I am a spiritual creationist, my core beliefs are "neo" "Christian" ['follower of the way', anyone? I despise the word 'Christian' which was never intended to be used as such], and I do take tidbits and input from all sources in this walk of life, including philosophies and input from many different religions world-wide.
Additionally and thankfully, I have a very open mind regarding scientific thought and theory. I do however, think that it's possible modern science's "scale" is off when it comes to judging how long the universe and Earth have existed.
-Simple small things like the scale of time it takes to create coal can be sped up, or slowed down. This has been simulated many times in lab conditions, and they even found fossilized dinosaur footprints within coal in a mine. If it takes coal "millions of years" to form, (all the time,) then said footprint should not remain.
-The speed of light is not a constant, it is affected by things such as space-gas and nebulas, so in effect we have no true idea how "far" things in space are from us if this is remotely true.
-The amount of time it takes to petrify an object is by far, not, a constant, as shown even in modern day broken dam floods, etc.
-The amount of dust on the moon was about an inch or two, not several feet of dust as astronomers predicted, thus creating the long lunar module stilts for.
-Sea life has been found in, decidedly, un-sea-like areas, such as the grand canyon, within all layers of soil, much more so than "river" or fresh water dwelling organisms.
-Carbon dating has been shown to be drastically affected by simple things, such as smoke from a fire.
In the end, re Darwin, it seems to be a no-brainer to me that natural selection itself exists, but the fact that all species are, for the lack of a better description, largely and plainly definitive between themselves, is compelling to me.
it won't work becasue...
they will say where is the transitional fossil between this and the precious fossil.
We've got them beat even there.
Foraminifera are a phylum of really tiny aquatic animals. They live on the oceans by the trillions, and they have mineral skeletons called tests. Millions of them die every day and their tests continuously rain down on the deep dark cold inert sea floor as ideal fossils. They are continuously layered in the accumulating sea floor sediment. In the 1970's we developed new technology for deep sea oil exploration, bringing up long sediment cores from the seabed. Sediment cores that were incidentally loaded with a limitless supply of these fossils. It's an evolutionary scientist's wet dream treasure trove. A perfectly continuous and complete record spanning thousands of species over more than a hundred million years. Not merely a complete sequence of transitional species, but vast samples of entire populations continuously along individual species transitions, tracing diverse modern species back to their common ancestor. Scientists are have been examining how long each individual speciation took to occur, and examining exactly how entire populations evolved during individual speciation events.
A particularly interesting thing is that they have been studying is how and why the rate of speciation increases after each mass extinction event. In short, after an extinction event there is less competition between species. This allows the survival of more borderline-fitness high-diversity outliers speeding the diversification of the species into other ecological niches that are now vacant and exploitable, and these variants can then specialize and optimize to this new ecological niche and speciate.
The only "problem" is that most foraminifera are barely visible without a magnifying glass. They are tiny aquatic animals that most people have never heard of. Not nearly as glamorous as mammal or dinosaur fossils. It's one of the most powerful proofs of evolution, and it all flies under the radar of public discussion.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Genesis: The Evolution of Biology is a great book on the history of biology, pre-Darwinians like Lamarck to today's (scientific) cracks showing in the Darwinian model.