This is a weedy species that grows in coastal (and some central) areas of California. According to research by Norman Ellstrand's group at UC Riverside, this species is evolving in a quantifiable manner. It is a hybrid between Raphanus sativus, the common radish, and Raphanus raphanistrum.What is the evidence that natural selection is acting one these variants? I doubt that there's any evidence at all.
Curiously, the same hybrid occurs elsewhere in similar climates such as that of South Africa, but something special about ecosytems in California allowed it to proliferate. It is now different enough from either of its parents that Ellstrand's group is considering describing this as a new species. This has occurred within the timespan that the two parents were brought together by humans in California."
There are many color variations of this evolving species. It is exactly through this variation that the process of natural selection works. If allowed to go its own way, some of these color morphs may persist, others may perish, all depending on the selective forces present where they occur. Eventually, each of these via time and selection could become a species of its own. California thus would be the center of diversity for a new group of Raphanus species.
Check out today's Botany Photo of the Day from the University of British Columbia Botanical Garden and Centre for Plant Research. The species is Euphorbia caput-medusae L. from South Africa.As Leda Cosmides and John Tooby indicate in their essay "The Psychological Foundations of Culture," scientific models and theories allow us to sense abstract objects and relationships just as our eyes and ears allow us to sense concrete ones. In Darwinian literary studies, as in evolutionary psychology, "[t]he tools of evolutionary functional analysis function as an organ of perception, bringing the blurry world of human psychological and behavioral phenotypes into sharp focus and allowing one to discern the formerly obscured level of our richly organized species-typical functional architecture."[2] In other words, since the human mind is embodied in evolving organic structures such as the brain, researchers should be able to explain aspects--not only of cognitive systems such as language ability, but of cultural systems such as art and literature--in terms of the environmental factors, or selection pressure, that give rise to them. A chief goal of Darwinian literary studies is to show how the reading and writing of literature contributes to the inclusive fitness of the human organism. In this sense the discipline relates closely to adaptationism, and it shares with the adaptationist social sciences the ultimate goal of understanding human nature.So it's closely related to adaptationism and evolutionary psychology, eh? I don't think I'm going to like literary Darwinism. Sounds like just another misinterpretation of evolution by a bunch of non-scientists.
A good example of applied Darwinian criticism is Joseph Carroll's reading of Pride and Prejudice, which shows how the fundamental biological problem of mate choice informs the plot of Austen's novel[3]. In this view, the novel narrates a social order in which males compete on the basis of socioeconomic attributes such as money and rank, whereas females compete according to 'personal' attributes such as youth and beauty. The story of Darcy and Elizabeth's courtship establishes a model for partial subversion of this social order, since the couple manage to abide by it even though the proximate causes of their mutual attraction have more to do with the conventionally undervalued attributes of dignity, honesty, kindness, and intelligence. A Darwinian critic might argue that the whole book functions as a tool for humans to perceive, order, and make sense of the conflicting impulses that characterize romantic relationships.I don't know whether I count as a "Darwinian critic" or not but it seems to me that Austen is pointing out that women can be either smart or stupid when it comes to choosing a mate and so can men. Jane Austin is describing the breakdown of an English social order that existed prior to the nineteenth century. That social order is very different than those in other societies at the same time (e.g. India, China, North American natives), which, in turn, is probably nothing like the society of our ancestors 50,000 years ago. I don't see what this has to do with human evolution—or whatever these English scholars mean by "Darwinism."
Dan Falk is a Toronto-based science writer and winner of 2002 Canadian Science Writers’ Association Science in Society Journalism Award. He writes for major Canadian newspapers and is a frequent contributer to the CBC television program Quirks and Quarks. He is the author of In Search of Time: Journeys Along a Curious Dimension, which I have not read—an oversight I plan to correct as soon as possible.
As physicist Steven Weinberg famously said, "The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless."Thank-you Dan Falk. It's refreshing to see that kind of writing in a major newspaper. I'm looking forward to the letters to the editor, especially from those who haven't yet swallowed the bitter pill.
Both Galileo and Darwin showed us that our place in the cosmos is less central – perhaps less special – than we had imagined. For some it has been a bitter pill to swallow. But there is also every reason to rejoice in their discoveries. We are indeed animals, but we are animals that can comprehend the structure of DNA and the unity of life.
And yes, we live in one remote corner of the galaxy, itself one of billions of galaxies, but from this outpost we have probed the fabric of the universe, from the smallest quark to the most distant quasars.
Galileo and Darwin broadened our horizons, perhaps to a greater degree than any other two thinkers in history. As a result of their vision, we live in a larger, richer and more wonderful universe.
[Photo Credit: The photograph of Dan Falk on the University of Toronto campus is from his article, TIME TRAVEL AND THE DOWNING STREET DILEMMA, on the pagebooks.ca website.]
Steve Darwin is Steve #1000. Find out who he is (no relation to Charles) and why he is #1000 by visiting the website of the National Center for Science Education [Steve Darwin is Steve #1000]. [Hat Tip: Friendly Atheist]
At any rate, after dinner I met Ken and we chatted about things. The first thing he said to me was that one of his friends advised him to break a beer bottle over my head, which was more than a little intimidating when imparted to me by a guy well over six feet tall looking down on my puny five-foot-eight self! But we discussed our differences, tried to iron out misunderstandings on both of our parts, and amiably shook hands. We will never agree on the science-versus-faith thing, but on most issues we are on the same side, and I admire him in many ways. I was glad that we met.I'd love to have been there.
Yet how the former led to the latter, how it was that complexity emerged and is sustained even in that near-miracle of a chemical factory we call the cell is still largely enigmatic. Self-organisation is certainly involved, but one of the puzzles of evolution is the sheer versatility of many molecules, being employed in a myriad of different capacities. Indeed it is now legitimate to talk of a logic to biology, not a term you will hear on the lips of many neo-Darwinians. Nevertheless, evolution is evidently following more fundamental rules. Scientific certainly, but ones that transcend Darwinism. What! Darwinism not a total explanation? Why should it be? It is after all only a mechanism, but if evolution is predictive, indeed possesses a logic, then evidently it is being governed by deeper principles. Come to think about it so are all sciences; why should Darwinism be any exception?The answer is at ... Darwin was right. Up to a point.
But there is more. How to explain mind? Darwin fumbled it. Could he trust his thoughts any more than those of a dog? Or worse, perhaps here was one point (along, as it happens, with the origin of life) that his apparently all-embracing theory ran into the buffers? In some ways the former possibility, the woof-woof hypothesis, is the more entertaining. After all, being a product of evolution gives no warrant at all that what we perceive as rationality, and indeed one that science and mathematics employ with almost dizzying success, has as its basis anything more than sheer whimsy. If, however, the universe is actually the product of a rational Mind and evolution is simply the search engine that in leading to sentience and consciousness allows us to discover the fundamental architecture of the universe – a point many mathematicians intuitively sense when they speak of the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics – then things not only start to make much better sense, but they are also much more interesting. Farewell bleak nihilism; the cold assurances that all is meaningless. Of course, Darwin told us how to get there and by what mechanism, but neither why it is in the first place, nor how on earth we actually understand it.
To reiterate: when physicists speak of not only a strange universe, but one even stranger than we can possibly imagine, they articulate a sense of unfinished business that most neo-Darwinians don't even want to think about. Of course our brains are a product of evolution, but does anybody seriously believe consciousness itself is material? Well, yes, some argue just as much, but their explanations seem to have made no headway. We are indeed dealing with unfinished business. God's funeral? I don't think so. Please join me beside the coffin marked Atheism. I fear, however, there will be very few mourners.
[Hat Tip: RichardDawkins.net]
A statue of Charles Darwin was sculpted by Sir Joseph Boehm in 1885. It cost £2200. The money was raised by soliciting individual contributions from individuals around the world and so much money flowed in that there was enough left over to fund research in evolution.
The Natural History Museum decided that they had better take steps to rehabilitate Darwin in preparation for the 2009 celebrations. So last Spring they moved Darwin back to the original position at the top of the stairs in the Central Hall.
One frequent motif recurs in creationist email: they may believe in god, but they don't believe in paragraphs.
It's been a great pleasure to read the Origin of Species in preparation for my talk tonight and for our book club meeting last Monday. I had forgotten how clever Darwin was and how he carefully weighs his arguments for evolution.
But what suddenly became clear is that this is a book haunted by the ghost of William Paley the grandfather of creationist thinking and exponent of seemingly irrefutable arguments for organic design. The Origin is Darwin's riposte. Its metaphorical power depends on suspense and a scattering of clues, but significantly Paley himself is mentioned only once. And cleverly not in the context of his ideas on organic design but in an oblique dig at the question of natural evil. First and foremost, The Origin is an exorcism of the doctrine of special creation, and conducted by one of the most skilled exorcists science has ever seen. The brief crescendo in the last chapter is preceded by repeated and sudden flashes of disdain, a quick insertion of the knife before the narrative calmly continues in its ostensibly more objective purpose of piling up the evidence. Darwin knew his enemy intimately, but was far too astute to engage in a head-on clash.Why are so many people not able to see this? I think it's because they aren't familiar with the typical English style of understatement and well-disguised sarcasm.
Darwin was right, and he knew it. His expressions of doubt are largely rhetorical and how seamless—at least from a distance—is the edifice upon which he constructs his theory. Yet, it is equally intriguing how he conceals his intellect: the carefully marshalled facts are allowed to speak for themselves and the implications introduced with restraint and circumspection—a sotto voce naturalist. Darwin never doubted his abilities.
I had only dipped into this wonderful book in my student days. But what a revelation for a somewhat jaded scientist to read it now! It is not only the brilliance, farsighted and original nature of the ideas, there is the sheer diversity of knowledge, the pervading presence of thought, of simple direct experiments, of debate, of argument, the consideration of other views and the style. In writing and reading scientific articles nowadays, we become imprisoned, constrained in what is considered appropriate and our vocabulary is reduced. Also our sentences are stifled by fashion and by journals that kill invention and independence with their strict word limits and their 'house style.' Just one example: punctuation. Darwin used everything, even the long dash and the exclamation mark. In my scientific writing I have been frequently told that these are not allowed—OK for great literature, but banned from scientific usage. I don't know why, but dulling down our scientific writing is not in our best interest. By contrast, in Darwin's time, Victorian fashion encouraged a flowery style as well as intellectual freedom; he took full advantage of both. He could write explorative and educative prose. He could spend many pages explaining narrow but important distinctions between different viewpoints and, time and again, one can see the outcome of careful reading and deep reflection. Our data-dominated publications, pared down to fit them into limited space, would be much more comprehensible if there were more argument, more explanation and more justification; indeed, if we reflected more, I think we could make big reductions in our published pages by making sure they carry and convey at least one message of note.
1. I suspect he hasn't read The Structure of Evolutionary Theory , either.
Charles Darwin was born on this day in 1809.He was born into Jane Austen's England. Indeed, the Darwins could have stepped straight out of the pages of Emma, the four girls sharply intelligent about the foibles of others, their father as perceptive as Mr. Knightly. The boys had several equally distinctive qualities. Charles Darwin and his older brother, Erasmus, were obliging and sympathetic young men full of the gentle humour, domestic attachments, and modest traits that made Austin's characters stand out in the drawing rooms of local notables, with a good range of idiosyncratic failings to match. These natural attributes were enhanced by a substantial family fortune. Like sensible Mr Weston with his warm heart and easy financial circumstances, the two were general favourites: "always acceptable," as Emma Woodhouse said of Weston. Behind the scenes presided Mrs. Darwin, a clever, well-educated woman, at one time a friend of the novelist Maria Edgeworth, who now led a retired life, the female counter part to Mr. Woodhouse, "never quite well & never quite ill," according to her sister Kitty.
The Darwins like Austen's fictional families, lived in a sleepy market town in the countryside, in their case in Shrewsbury, the county capital of Shropshire, standing on the River Severn halfway between the manufacturing Midlands and Wales. Further downstream in the Severn Gorge smouldered William Hazledine's ironworks, the driving force of the Industrial Revolution. North-east sat the smoking chimneys of the Potteries. But Shrewsbury itself was untouched by any signs of industrial change.
Some beating of dead horses may be ethical, when here and there they display unexpected twitches that look like life.It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).
Coyne is right to identify the most widespread misunderstanding about Darwinism as the idea that, in evolution, “everything happens by chance”. This common claim is flat wrong – obviously wrong, transparently wrong, even to the meanest intelligence (a phrase that has me actively restraining myself). If evolution worked by chance, it obviously couldn’t work at all.It's true that to say everything happens by chance is wrong. However, it is not true to say that, "If evolution worked by chance, it obviously couldn’t work at all."
Almost all factors are affected simultaneously by both chance (unpredictable) and nonrandom, or deterministic (predictable), factors.... So it is with evolution. As we will see in the next chapter, natural selection is a deterministic, nonrandom process. But at the same time, there are important random processes in evolution, including mutation and random fluctuations in the frequencies of alleles or haplotypes: the process of random genetic drift.Futuyma closes the chapter with a summary of the important points. The first two are ...
Genetic drift and natural selection are the two most important causes of allele substitution—that is of evolutionary change—in populations
Thus, according to the textbook, evolution by chance occurs in spite of the fact that Dawkins says, "If evolution worked by chance, it obviously couldn’t work at all."
- The frequencies of alleles that differ little or not at all in their effect on organisms' fitness (neutral alleles) fluctuate at random. This process, called random genetic drift, reduces genetic variation and leads eventually to the random fixation of one allele and the loss of the other., unless it is countered by other processes, such as gene flow or mutation.
- Different alleles are fixed by chance in different populations.
).In my opinion, the only valid mechanism of evolution is evolution by natural selection and that is definitely not a chance process. If natural selection worked by chance it obviously couldn't work at all.
