On this day in 1945 ...

 
(reposted from August 6, 2007)

At 8:15 AM on August 6, 1945 an atomic bomb was detonated over Hiroshima, Japan. Approximately 78,000 civilians were killed on that day. Six months later the death toll had risen to about 140,000 people.

There are many arguments in favor of dropping the bomb just as there are many arguments against it. What's clear is that in the context of 2007 we are not in a good position to judge the actions of countries that had been at war for many years.

The most important lesson of Hiroshima is that war is hell and many innocent people die. It's all very well to enter into a war with the best of intentions—as the Japanese did on December 7, 1941—but it's foolish to pretend that when you start a war there won't be any suffering. When you do that you can really say that the victims of Hiroshima died in vain.

The killing and maiming of civilians is an inevitable outcome of war, no matter how hard you might try to restrict your targets to military objectives. Before going to war you need to take the consequences into account and decide whether the cost is worth it.

One of the many mistakes in Iraq was the naive assumption that it would be a clean war with few casualties and no long-term consequences for the Iraqi people. Yet today, the numbers of innocent lives lost in Iraq is comparable to the numbers lost in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And what is the benefit for Iraq that outweighs the cost in human lives? Is it "freedom" and "democracy"?

Hiroshima was not a glorious victory. It was ugly, heartbreaking, and avoidable. War is not an end in itself, it is the failure of peace. War is not an instrument of your foreign policy—it is an admission that you don't have a foreign policy.

[The top photograph shows the mushroom cloud over Hiroshima on the morning of August 6, 1945 (Photo from Encyclopedia Britanica: Hiroshima: mushroom cloud over Hiroshima, 1945. [Photograph]. Retrieved August 7, 2007, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online. The bottom image is taken from a Japanese postcard (Horoshima and Nagassaki 1945). It shows victims of the attack on Hiroshima.]

---

Nobel Laureates: Karl von Frisch, Konrad Lorenz, Nikolaas Tinbergen

 

The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1973.

"for their discoveries concerning organization and elicitation of individual and social behaviour patterns"

Karl von Frisch (1886 - 1982), Konrad Lorenz (1903 - 1989), and Nikolaas Tinbergen (1907 - 1988) received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their work on animal behavior. This is the most biological of all Nobel Prizes that have been awarded and, at the time, it suggested that the Nobel Committee was prepared to consider a wider view of "physiology." That turned out to be optimistic. Subsequent prizes have failed to recognize advancements in evolution and ecology, to name just two disciplines that have been ignored.

The presentation speech was delivered in Swedish by Professor Börje Cronholm of the Karolinska Medico-Chirurgical Institute.

THEME:
Nobel Laureates

Your Majesty, Your Royal Highnesses, Ladies and Gentlemen,

Animal behavior has fascinated man since time immemorial as can be witnessed by the important role of animals in myths, fairy-tales and fables. However, for too long man has tried to understand it from his own experiences, from his own way of thinking, feeling and acting. Descriptions along these lines may be quite poetic, but they do not lead to any increase in knowledge. Various pre-scientific ideas have been especially tenacious in this field. Thus, it is not long ago that the vitalists maintained that the instincts bore witness of a wisdom that was inherent in the organism and could not be further analyzed. It was not until behavior problems were studied by means of scientific methods, by systematic observation and by experimentation, that real progress was made. Within that research field this year's Nobel prize laureates have been pioneers. They have collected numerous data about animal behavior both in natural settings and in experimental situations. Being biological scholars they leave also studied the functions of behavior patterns, their role in the individual struggle for life and for the continuation of the species. Thus, behavior patterns have stood out as results of natural selection just as morphological characteristics and physiological functions.

It is of fundamental importance that some behavior patterns evidently are genetically programmed. The so-called fixed action patterns do not request any previous experience and they will be automatically elicited by definite key stimuli. They proceed in a mechanical, robot-like way, and when they have started they are no more influenced by external circumstances. In insects, fishes and birds, such important procedures as courtship, nesting and taking care of the brood, to a large extent consist in fixed action patterns. With development of the brain hemispheres, behavior has become increasingly modifiable and dependent on learning in mammals and especially in man, but fixed action patterns still play an important role.

For more than sixty years: Karl von Frisch has devoted himself to studies of the very complicated behavior of honeybees. Above all, he has elucidated what has rightly been called 'the language of bees'. When a bee has found flowers containing nectar, it performs a special dance when returning to the hive. The dance informs the bees in the hive of the existence of food, often also about the direction where the flowers will be found and about the distance to them. The foraging bee is able to indicate the direction of the food source in relation to the sun by means of analyzing polarized, ultraviolet light from the sky, light that is invisible to us. The honeybees do not learn, either to dance or to understand the message of the dance. Both the dancing and the appropriate reactions to it are genetically programmed behavior patterns.

Konrad Lorenz has studied among many other things the fixed action patterns of various birds. His experiments with inexperienced animals, e.g. young birds from an incubator, are of great importance in this context. In these young birds he observed behavior patterns that could not reasonably have been learnt but were to be interpreted as being genetically programmed. He also found that experiences of young animals during a critical period could be decisive for their future development. Newborn ducks and geese follow the first moving object that they catch sight of, and later on they will follow those particular objects only. Normally, they will follow their mother, but they may be seduced to follow almost any moving object or creature. This phenomenon has been called 'imprinting'.

While Konrad Lorenz has above all been a systematic observer of animal behavior, Nikolaas Tinbergen has to a large extent tested various hypotheses by means of comprehensive, careful, and quite often ingenious experiments. Among other things, he has used dummies to measure the strength of different key stimuli as regards their ability to elicit corresponding fixed action patterns. He made the important observation that 'supranormal' stimuli eliciting more intense behavior than those of natural conditions, may be produced by exaggerating certain characteristics.

The discoveries made by this year's Nobel prize laureates were based on studies of insects, fishes and birds and might thus seem to be of only minor importance for human physiology or medicine. However, their discoveries have been a prerequisite for the comprehensive research that is now pursued also on mammals. Studies are devoted to the existence of genetically programmed behavior patterns, their organization, maturation and their elicitation by key stimuli. There are also studies concerning the importance of specific experiences during critical periods for the normal development of the individual. Research into the behavior of monkeys have demonstrated that serious and to a large extent lasting behavior disturbances may be the result when a baby grows up in isolation without contact with its mother and siblings or with adequate substitutes. Another important research field concerns the effects of abnormal psychosocial situations on the individual. They may lead not only to abnormal behavior but also to serious somatic illness such as arterial hypertension and myocardial infarction. One important conclusion is that the psychosocial situation of an individual cannot be too adverse to its biological equipment without serious consequences. This holds true for all species, also for that which in shameless vanity has baptized itself 'Homo sapiens'.

Karl von Frisch, Konrad Lorenz, Nikolaas Tinbergen,

According to an old fable, cited by one of you, king Solomon is said to have been the owner of a ring that had the mystical power to give him the gift of understanding the language of animals. You have been the successors of king Solomon in the respect that you have been able to decode the information that animals pass to each other, and also to elucidate the meaning of their behavior to us. Your ability to find general rules underlying the confusing manifold of animal behavior makes us sometimes believe that king Solomon's ring has in fact been available also to you. But we know that you have been working in an empirical way, collecting data and interpreting it according to hard and fast scientific rules.

Aside from their value in themselves, your discoveries have had a farreaching influence on such medical disciplines as social medicine, psychiatry and psychosomatic medicine. For that reason it was very much in agreement with the spirit of Alfred Nobel's will when the medical faculty of the Karolinska Institute awarded you this year's Nobel Prize.

We are proud to have two of you, professor Konrad Lorenz and professor Nikolaas Tinbergen, with us today, and we are also grateful to professor Karl von Frisch that he has sent his son, professor Otto von Frisch, to represent him here.

On behalf of the Karolinska Institute I wish to convey to you the warmest congratulations and I now ask you to receive your prize from the hands of His Majesty the King.

---

Epigenetics in 1952-53

 
This week's Citation Classics are, indeed, classics [This Week's Citation Classics: Host Induced Variation]. They were the first papers to describe a new form of non-Mendelian inheritance that eventually became well-understood at the molecular level. Today, scientists working on animal development think they have independently discovered this concept. They call it epigenetics.

As John Dennehy says,

Today epigenetics is all the rage, but it has its roots in a pair of papers appeared nearly simultaneously in 1952-1953.

---

John Hawks and Comments

John Hawks is writing a series on blogging and tenure. In the last installment, How to blog, get tenure and prosper: A very useful engine, he discusses reasons for blogging. You should read the whole thing, but I'd like to focus on one small part.

John Hawks does not allow comments on his blog. It's the only science blog that I know of with a no-comment policy.¹ Here's why, according to Hawks,

For some people, the most rewarding part about a blog is the immediate feedback from comments. Others dislike the comment section, whether it’s the constant battle against spam, or the trolls, or the pressure to respond to comments.

Personally, I can let a question sit in my inbox for a long time (as some of you know!), but I wouldn’t tolerate it sitting unanswered on my site. That’s my most important reason for not having a comments section: I think about posts, and I think about replies, and comments don’t generally give much time for thinking. The sites I like the best take a hybrid approach: They include questions or comments from readers, but do not have a “comments section” for each post. That kind of full-moderation, indirect feedback still can provide the sense of interaction and community, but without the repetition, trolling, and off-topic digressions that often emerge in comments sections. That’s only my preference, though—you may feel differently.

Will your commenters hurt your tenure case? I don’t think it really matters whether you have comments or not, assuming that you keep out the spam and discourage bad behavior. Probably the most important thing, as I’ll describe in the next installment, is that you mind your university’s use guidelines. As long as you follow the rules, your readers and evaluators are almost certainly smart enough to understand that your commenters are not you.

A healthy, lively comment ecosystem will add to the value of your blog. Your regular commenters help to give your site an identity by giving it a sense of community. Pointing to the community element can help to sell your site to your committee. University mission statements often include ideas like “building learning communities,” or “providing to underserved communities” (more on this in part 4 of the series). A healthy comments section is evidence that you are indeed serving a community.

An anemic comment ecosystem, mostly a monoculture invaded by the occasional weed, will subtract value from your blog. Imagine that someone visited one of your classes. Would you want to show a class where the students just wouldn’t participate? Or where one student always stood up after the lecture and announced that your ideas were garbage? You don’t want to say you’re serving an active community, while your blog comments appear to give concrete evidence that you’re not.

As you approach your tenure review, you have to think carefully about how to sell your blog to a committee. Then take action: Shut down your comments for a while, or put them on full moderation, encourage your e-mailers to submit comments, or make a concerted effort to draw comments from students or people in your field. As you plan ahead, you can think of the best way to accentuate the positives, and a small force applied early may save a lot of explaining later.

Since you can't discuss these ideas on John's blog, I'm giving you the chance here. From my prespective, comments are the most fun part of blogging. I love the discussions that go on in the comments and I love to provoke debate by posting on controversial topics. It's what science is all about, as far as I'm concerned. I've learned a lot from commenters who disagree with what I write.

I don't ever want to censure anyone who comments on my blog—although there are one or two who test my patience. Personally, I don't think the downside of commenting is all that bad and it does very little to diminish the upside. On the other hand, there are blogs where the chaff is much more obvious than the wheat and I don't even bother reading the comments. I don't know how you would prevent that.

---

1. It's also one of the few blogs from a university professor with a disclaimer at the bottom of each posting. I wonder if this is a special rule at the University of Wisconsin?

Chance and Necessity

 
Thanks to Ryan Gregory [Blogs by Scientists], I've just added a new blog Chance and Necessity to my list of must-reads. As you might guess from the title, this blog is devoted to evolution. It's published by a "faculty member in the South"—presumably this means southern USA and not Australia or Chile.

Here are two teasers to tempt you to follow Ryan's suggestion and read Chance and Necessity. The first is Increasing neurogenesis in the adult mammalian brain ...

The conventional wisdom is that we are born with all the brain cells we’re ever going to have, and it’s all downhill from there—as we age, we lose brain cells, never to replace them. This, of course, explains why teenagers are so much smarter than their parents. Unfortunately for the conventional wisdom, it’s wrong.

The second is a posting on the debate over the significance of evo-devo; especially the claim that most morphological changes in animals are due to change in regulatory sequences and not in coding regions of protein [Incorporating evo-devo and the genetics of morphology].

Scientific controversies typically consist of vigorous exchanges of ideas with periodic injections of new data that may shape the debate. Personalities can certainly influence the path these controversies take, but the ultimate arbiter is data, not drama. In the field of evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) we can witness just such a lively situation, both in the literature and at meetings.

Read the comments to this posting. You'll find intelligent people discussing whether natural selection or random genetic drift accounts for morphological change. This is such a refreshing change from blogs where any challenge to adaptationist explanations is viewed as extreme heresy.

---

This Is Not a Spider

 
It's not a spider but I'm not going to tell you what it is. In order to find out, you'll have to go to Catalogue of Organisms and read up on these species. At the same time you'll discover why Christopher Taylor posts an article with the title: In Which I Reveal Just How Much of a Freak I Am.

Good luck Christopher, I don't think that's a freaky thing to do. I think it's cool.

---

FOX vs NPR

 
Canadian Cynic recently informed us of an American college professor who claims that his conservative students are smarter than his liberal students.

A bit of background. Peter Schweizer published an article in the National Post where he took issue with the widespread belief that liberals in America are smarter than conservatives. Apparently, George Bush has a higher IQ than other presidential candidates and got higher grades in school [The arrogance of uneducated liberals].

Popular culture has greatly contributed to the myth of ignorant conservatives and enlightened liberals. One study by a group of academics found that by examining 124 characters in 47 popular political films spanning five decades, liberals were routinely depicted as “more intelligent, friendly and good” than conservatives.

The arrogance of some liberals in this regard is astonishing. You don’t even have to be highly educated yourself to complain about how uneducated conservatives are. Michael Moore, college dropout, travels all over Europe talking about how “idiotic and uneducated” conservatives are. He also said: “Once you settle for a Ronald Reagan, then it’s easy to settle for a George Bush, and once you settle for a George Bush, then it’s real easy to settle for Bush II. You know, this should be evolution, instead it’s devolution. What’s next?”

Sounds about right to me.

One of the commenters (jdcarmine) on the National Post website chimes in with ...

Wonderful! I am a college professor and this is even more stunning when comparing liberals and conservatives. For example, last semester none of my liberal students had even the foggiest notion where Iran was relative to Israel and none could find the West Bank on a map. None knew where China and Russia were relative to the Middle East. But...All the conservative students knew these basic facts which made it easier for conservatives to discuss the significance of the Iraq war whereas the liberals could only spew platitudes about it.

Now here's the fun part. Canadian Cynic quotes a study done some years ago by WorldPublicOpinion.org [Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War] They asked about three misconceptions concerning the war in Iraq: (1) there were links between Iraq and al Qaeda; (2) weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq; (3) world public opinion supports the US invasion of Iraq.

They then compared the number of people who believed none of these misconceptions with their source of news. This is an indication of the politics of the people in the survey. People who watch FOX news are assumed to be more conservative that those who get their information from NPR. Here are the results ...
I think Canadian Cynic has a point. Sure, this doesn't prove that conservatives are stupid and liberals are smart, but it sure says something about gullibility and it's reasonable to assume that there might be a correlation between that and intelligence.¹

---

1. I get most of my American news from CNN. I guess that makes me about average in intelligence. My main concern is that watching Larry King and Lou Dobbs will make me dumber than I am already.

Science and Philosophy Book Club: Wonderful Life

 
The Science and Philosophy Book Club is discussing Stephen Jay Gould's Wonderful Life this Thursday at CFI [Stephen Jay Gould's "Wonderful Life"]. Come to the Center for Inquiry on Beverley St. at 7pm on Thursday August 7th. A $2 donation is required. Bring something to eat.

You can sign up on the website and let everyone know if you are coming.

Wonderful Life is one of my favorite books. Apparently the central messag is very difficult to understand since so many people get it wrong. I've seen very bitter attacks on the central theme from people like Daniel Dennett in Darwin's Dangerous Idea (1995). He says,

I mentioned in chapter 2 that the main conclusion of Gould's "Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History" (1989) is that if the tape of life were rewound and played again and again, chances are mightly slim that we would ever appear again. There are three things about this conclusion that have baffled reviewers. First, why does he think it is so important? ... Second, exactly what is his conclusion—in effect, who does he mean by "we"? And third, how does he think this conclusion (whichever one it is) follows from his fascinating discussion of the Burgess Shale, to which it seems almost entirely unrelated?

Dennet is often referred to as "Dawkins' lapdog", a sarcastic reference to the relationship between Charles Darwin and Thomas Huxley.¹ It should come as no surprise that Richard Dawkins didn't like Wonderful Life either, and for many of the same reasons that Dennet parroted in Darwin's Dangerous Idea. Here's what Dawkins said in a review published in 1990 and reprinted in A Devil's Chaplain.

How should Gould properly back up his claim that the Burgess fauna is super-diverse? He should—it would be the work of many years and might never be made convincing—take his ruler to the animals themselves, unprejudiced by modern preconceptions about "fundamental body plans" and classification. The true index of how unalike two animals are is how unalike they actually are. Gould prefers to ask whether they are members of known phyla. But known phyla are modern constructions. Relative resemblance to modern animals is not a sensible way of judging how far Cambrian animals resemble one another.

The five-eyed, nozzle-toting Opabinia cannot be assimilated to any textbook phylum. But, since textbooks are written with modern animals in mind, this does not mean that Opabinia was, in fact, as different from its contemporaries as the status "separate phylum" would suggest. Gould makes a token attempt to counter this criticism, but he is hamstrung by dyed-in-the-wool essentialism and Platonic ideal forms. He really seems unable to comprehend that animals are continuously variable functional machines. It is as though he sees the great phyla not diverging from early blood brothers but springing into existence fully differentiated.

Gould then, singularly fails to establish his super-diversity thesis. Even if he were right, what would this tell us about the 'nature of history'? Since, for Gould, the Cambrian was peopled with a greater cast of phyla than now exist, we must be wonderfully lucky survivors. It could have been our ancestors who went extinct; instead it was Conway Morris' 'weird wonders', Hallucigenia, Wiwaxia, and their friends. We came 'that close' to not being here.

Gould expects us to be surprised. Why? The view that he is attacking—that evolution marches inexorably towards a pinnacle such as man—has not been believed for years. But his quixotic strawmandering, his shamless windmill-tilting, seem almost designed to encourage misunderstanding (not for the first time: on a previous occasion he went so far as to write that the neo-Darwinian synthesis was 'effectively dead'). The following is typical of the publicity surrounding "Wonderful Life" (incidentally, I suspect that the lead sentence was added without the knowledge of the credited journalist): 'The human race did not result from the "survival of the fittest", according to the eminent American professor, Stephen Jay Gould. It was a happy accident that created Mankind.' Such twaddle, of course, is nowhere to be found in Gould, but whether or not he seeks that kind of publicity, he all too frequently attracts it. Readers regularly gain the impression that he is saying something far more radical and surprising than he actually is.

Survival of the fittest means individual survival, not survival of major lineages. Any orthodox Darwinian would be entirely happy with major extinctions being largely a matter of luck. Admittedly there is a minority of evolutionists who think that Darwinian selection chooses between higher-level groupings. They are the only Darwinians likely to be disconcerted by Gould's 'contingent extinction'. And who is the most prominent advocate of higher-level selection today? You've guessed it. Hoist again!

I'm amused that an ethologist is lecturing a paleontologist on how to interpret the fossil record.

---

1. First mentioned by Stephen Jay Gould in Darwinian Fundamentalism in the New York Review of Books, "If history, as often noted, replays grandeurs as farces, and if T.H. Huxley truly acted as 'Darwin's bulldog,' then it is hard to resist thinking of Dennett, in this book, as 'Dawkins's lapdog.'"

The View from Siberia

 
Total eclipse of the sun, in the Altai region of Siberia on Friday, August 1, 2008.

---

[Photo Credit: SciAm.com]

The Night Chicago Died

 
Last weekend we watched Donnie Brasco, a 1997 film with Al Pacino and Johnny Depp. The plot is based on the true story of an FBI agent, played by Johnny Depp, who infiltrates the New York mob and befriends a petty criminal, played by Al Pacino. The acting is great. It's hard to understand why Al Pacino wasn't nominated for a major acting award. Perhaps it's because we had been nominated many times in the past and won best actor in 1992. The last scene in the movie is a classic.

The movie reminded me of a song by the British group Paper Lace. They wrote a song about a fictional² night of warfare between Al Capone and the Chicago police. The song, The Night Chicago Died, reached #1 for a brief time in 1974.² I think it's one of the best songs of the 70's but very few people agree with me.

If you haven't heard it you should click on the video and listen at least once. I love songs that tell a story and in order to appreciate the story you need to listen to the words as well as the music. I've included the lyrics. Read the opening lines in order to get the context. The song is about the family of a Chicago cop.

Daddy was a cop
On the East Side of Chicago
Back in the USA
Back in the bad old days

In the heat of a summer night
In the land of the dollar bill
When the town of Chicago died
And they talk about it still

When a man named Al Capone
Tried to make that town his own
And he called his gang to war
Against the forces of the law

I heard my momma cry
I heard her pray the night Chicago died
Brother, what a night it really was
Brother, what a fight it really was
Glory be

I heard my momma cry
I heard her pray the night Chicago died
Brother, what a night the people saw
Brother, what a fight the people saw
Yes, indeed

And the sound of the battle rang
Through the streets of the old East Side
'Til the last of the hoodlum gang
Had surrendered up or died

There was shouting in the street
And the sound of running feet
And I asked someone who said
'Bout a hundred cops are dead

I heard my momma cry
I heard her pray the night Chicago died
Brother, what a night it really was
Brother, what a fight it really was
Glory be

I heard my momma cry
I heard her pray the night Chicago died
Brother, what a night the people saw
Brother, what a fight the people saw
Yes, indeed

Then there was no sound at all
But the clock up on the wall
Then the door burst open wide
And my daddy stepped inside
And he kissed my momma's face
Then brushed her tears away

I heard my momma cry
I heard her pray the night Chicago died
Brother, what a night it really was
Brother, what a fight it really was
Glory be

I heard my momma cry
I heard her pray the night Chicago died
Brother, what a night the people saw
Brother, what a fight the people saw
Yes, indeed

The night Chicago died
The night Chicago died
Brother, what a night it really was
Brother, what a fight it really was
Glory be

The night Chicago died
The night Chicago died

---

1. There never was such a night in Chicago. Most of the killing took place when rival gangs fought it out, not between police and gang members. The British songwriters had never been to Chicago and knew very little of the history. It's one of those stories that you would like to be true but sometimes real history sucks.

2. It is often thought to be a backhanded reference to the Chicago riots of 1968 but there's no evidence to support that theory and by 1974 the memory had faded.

Soccer Team Wins by Scoring on Itself

 
Friday's Urban Legend: TRUE

This sounds so much like an urban legend that it's astonishing to learn it really happened. The story is covered on snopes.com [Football Follies].

It was a match between Barbados and Grenada in 1994. In order to advance to the finals, Barbados had to win by at least two goals. Near the end of the game Barbados was ahead 2-0 when an error resulted in an own goal by Barbados. With the score now 2-1 the Barbados team was threatened with elimination.

Here comes the funny part. The tournament rules state that in the event of a tie the game will be decided by sudden death overtime and, for the purposes of calculating points, the winner will be rewarded as though they had won by a score of 2-0. In the 87th minute, the Barbados team deliberately scored on themselves in order to tie the game and send it into overtime.

The Granada team realized what was going on and tried to score on themselves to avoid overtime and advance to the finals. (Winning 3-2 would not allow the Barbados team to advance.) Thus you have this bizarre scene where a team is trying to score in its own net while the opposition is defending their opponent's goal.

Here's a video of some of the action. Listen to the commentators. It sounds like a scene written by Monty Python.

---

Species Diversity

 
Some of you might recall my series of postings last year on the top Science questions. One of them was What Causes Species Diversity?. This is an important unanswered question in evolutionary biology even if it's conflated with speciation. We don't really have a good handle on what causes speciation.

That doesn't mean that we are completely ignorant. There are several candidates that, singly or in combination, account for much of what we understand about speciation and diversity. I'd like to quote Richard Dawkins from Unweaving the Rainbow since, as an admitted adaptationist, his view carries much more weight than that of a pluralist. (The reason will become apparent.) Here's how Dawkins describes the problem ...

The standard neo-Darwinian view of the evolution of diversity is that a species splits into two when two populations become sufficiently unalike that they can no longer interbreed. Often the populations begin diverging when they chance to be geographically separated. The separation means that they no longer mix their genes sexually and this permits them to evolve in different directions. The divergent evolution might be driven by natural selection (which is likely to push in different direction because of different conditions in the two geographical areas). Or it might consist of random evolutionary drift (since the two populations are not genetically held together by sexual mixing, there is nothing to stop them drifting apart). In either case, when they have evolved sufficiently far apart that they no longer interbreed even if they were geographically united again, they are defined as belonging to separate species.

Either, or both, of the two main mechanisms of evolution—natural selection and random genetic drift—can lead to speciation and diversity.

One could also argue that diversity depends ultimately on mutation. In this case, the main role of natural selection and random genetic drift is to reduce diversity by eliminating unfit and neutral alleles.

This has always been similar to my understanding of speciation and diversity. I was surprised, therefore to learn that one of my colleagues at the University of Toronto, Spencer Barrett, doesn't think random genetic drift plays a role in speciation [see Darwinism at the ROM]. Barrett is one of the featured presenters in a video at the Darwin exhibit at the Royal Ontario Museum.

In a display on the evolution/creation controversy, I copied down the following statement ...

Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is the only scientific explanation for the spectacular diversity of life on Earth.

So, here's the question of the day. Do you agree with that statement? Do you agree that natural selection is the only scientific explanation of diversity? Spencer Barrett seems to agree. Richard Dawkins would not agree. What do you think?¹

---

1. If you disagree with the statement then please try and explain why it is featured so prominently in the Darwin exhibit. Is this an example of framing, or ignorance?

Darwin: The Evolution Revolution

 


My how time flies. It was almost four months ago that the The Evolution Revolution opened at the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM) here in Toronto. The ROM is only ten minutes from my office so I wasn't in any particular rush to see the exhibit. After all, it wasn't going to close until August 4th.

Now August 4th is almost here and I still hadn't made the effort—until yesterday, that is. Ms. Sandwalk and I went and got a delightful dose of Charles Darwin.

For me, the most exciting exhibit was Darwin's red notebooks, especially the page with the tree and "I think" at the top of the page. It was awesome just realizing that Charles Darwin himself wrote those words 170 years ago. Ms. Sandwalk was not nearly as impressed (those messy things?). She liked the Wedgewood china representing the better side of the Darwin family.

There were lots of examples of Darwin's original collection. Mostly plants and birds and some fossils. Seeing an old photograph of the Sandwalk was another highlight.

I've heard two main criticisms of the exhibit. The first is that there's too much to read. I agree that there's a lot to read but it's mostly well written and informative. The majority of people at the exhibit were being appropriately selective in their reading. It wasn't a serious problem. The second criticism is the American slant in some of the exhibits; notably those that address the evolution/creation controversy. It was noticeable but most of the people there just took it as quaint to learn that some states want to put stickers in textbooks.

The biggest pain for me was having to watch and listen to theistic evolutionists explain—in three separate video presentations—why there's no conflict between evolution and religion. Ken Miller did an okay job but Francis Collins looks and talks like a used car salesman, in my humble opinion.

There was one other problem but I'm saving that for another posting.

---

I'm Your Man

 
Here's a reason why you should be my friend and invite me to all those parties that I never seem to hear about until they're over. In case of trouble, I make an excellent human shield!

65%

---

[Hat Tip: GrrlScientist, My Body Makes a Really Crappy Human Shield]

I'm so glad I took Latin

 
It means I can understand Christopher Taylor at Catalogue of Organisms when he writes about The Gender of a Table.

Eat your hearts out, all you speakers of living languages!

---

[Photo Credit: AP Photo]