Houston 2009 Darwin Blog - News

Teaching Evolution Is Not Vital?

Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:30:00 -0600

Dirk Van Tuerehout, PhD, responds to a recent comment about the lecture "Teaching Evolution Is Vital" given by Dr. David Hillis in April 2008. Comments on our blog entries are always welcome.

Mr. Zimmerman makes the point that there is a "great lack of scientific consensus among evolutionists regarding the entire field of evolutionary thought." He also refers us to the entry on evolution at the Conservapedia website. I would like to react first to the statement and then share some thoughts on the Conservapedia writeup on evolution.

The theory of evolution is subject to questioning on a daily basis. This is done by scientists working in fields as far apart as medicine and paleoanthropology. Because of this, I would argue that the statement made above oversimplifies the nature of the questions being asked by interpreting this as a lack of consensus. It is not.

Every new discovery made in the world of living organisms or in the realm of fossilized remains of now extinct life inevitably leads to questions as to how this new find fits within the theoretical framework of evolution. It is important to realize two things that happen when this questioning occurs: if a discovery leads us to conclude that we need to re-think evolution, then we ought to do so; also, while scientists do ask questions and do make changes to our understanding of how evolution works (think punctuated equilibrium vs. gradualism), there is no disagreement among scientists that evolution is actually and factually happening. In other words, the discussion pertains to the ways in which evolution operates, not whether or not it exists.

In my opinion, this is the (often unstated) crux of the debate between the two sides: proponents of Intelligent Design and Creationism imply the scientific world is in disarray, the proponents of evolution fail to make the point often enough that the "squabbling" is about modalities, not the actual existence of evolution itself.

Another criticism leveled against evolution is that, while microevolution might be acceptable, macroevolution (i.e. the evolution of separate species) is not. Most often this line of thinking is reflected in writings critical of evolution along the lines of "did we ever find the fish-dog fossil?" Since the answer is no, the implication is that in that case we cannot accept evolution.

I would argue to the contrary. The notion of fish dog creatures is an oversimplification. There are fossils showcasing how marine life forms evolved traits that (pre-)adapted them to life on land. There are also good explanations offered as to what evolutionary pressures might have made such adaptations beneficial for survival, ultimately leading to land based life forms. In this context, I strongly recommend that Mr. Zimmerman reads the recently published "Your Inner Fish" by Dr. Neil Shubin. The author writes in very easy to follow prose how he and his colleagues formulated a research question and then set out to collect the answers. They did find answers, in the form of very ancient fish fossils. What I particularly liked is the link Dr. Shubin makes between these 375 million year old fossils and us, and how we share a number of traits with these ancient life forms. I am very aware that this book was dismissed outright by those critical of evolution. As Dr. Shubin addresses these concerns in his book, I can only recommend that Mr. Zimmerman reads this for himself, and then makes up his own mind.

With regard to the entry on Conservapedia, one will find a very wide array of criticisms against evolution. Most of these have either been debunked or else are far from scientifically relevant. Let me give a few examples.

1. Reference to Ernst Haeckl
Under the header "evolutionary theory and cases of fraud, hoaxes and speculation" there is condemnation of the work of Ernst Haeckel. His now famous depiction of embryos and his contention that these embryos reflect the various stages evolution went through were, indeed, at one point considered to be part of our scientific understanding of evolution. The emphasis here should be on "at one point." It was true a century ago, it no longer is.

Scientists have gained much better insight and have come to the conclusion that Haeckel was wrong. The contention that we still find reference to Haeckel in modern textbooks is misleading. Yes we still find references to Haeckel's embryos, but only to illustrate the history of the field, not to illustrate contemporary acceptance of his thinking. An analogy to this would be to open a geography text book and attack the notion of a flat earth discussed in an introductory chapter, where the history of the field is discussed. This notion is equally dismissed today.

We are separated by a century from Haeckel and his research. We have made great progress in technology allowing us to probe and look for answers where Haeckel could not and did not. To imply continued acceptance of Haeckel's ideas by the contemporary scientific community reflects at best a lack of insight into the history of the field and at worst a willful disregard of this information to promote a non-scientific agenda.

2. Linking Darwin and evolution to Hitler.
As one scrolls down the Conservapedia text, one finds the header "Social effects of the theory of evolution." A photograph of Hitler and quotes associated with this header make it abundantly clear that the author(s) link Darwin to Hitler and therefore very strongly suggest one ought to reject both the individual and his writings. I deplore this kind of over the top reasoning. It is the equivalent of tossing a nuclear bomb into a conversation, aimed at ending it rather than promoting an exchange of ideas which is often the stated goal.

This kind of tactic has a name; it is known as Godwin's law. It states "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." In other words, once this comparison is made, the conversation is over. It should not be. Neither side ought to be afraid of engaging in a respectful exchange of ideas. It is only through this constant back and forth that we can better formulate ideas, and abandon bad ones.

I would like to end by re-stating that it is indeed important to teach evolution and to share with people that scientists question the notion of evolution on a daily basis. Evolution is not carved into stone, immutable so to speak. Quite the contrary, just like life it aims to explain, the concept of evolution is a vibrant one and it is better understood by all of us as research continues.

Scientists for a Responsible Curriculum in Texas Public Schools

Wed, 01 Oct 2008 16:38:00 -0600

If you are a scientist with or working towards advanced degrees in life, physical or mathematical science in Texas, sign the Scientist Statement at 21st Century Science Coalition.

The State Board of Education (SBOE) in Texas will decide on the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) curriculum standards for the sciences in spring, 2009.

If you are not a scientist, but understand that all students deserve a current, accurate and thorough science education, encourage any MD MS and PhD whom you know to sign the statement.

Charlie is our Darwin

Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:49:00 -0600

Check out The Friends of Charles Darwin. You'll be in great company.

Take the Darwinian Trivia Quiz OR find out you have more than a dozen friends in Houston, Texas.

New blog: Evo.Sphere

Mon, 28 Jul 2008 19:01:00 -0600

Check out the new blog at the Houston Chronicle. Evo.Sphere. One of the contributors is Dan Graur, PhD who serves on the Darwin2009 Advisory Board.

This is an extremely intricate subject.*

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:28:00 -0600

Reading Darwin's "On the Origin of the Species" is not bedtime reading, but it is readable and even enjoyable. The sentences are long, in fact the title of this blog is one of the handful of sentences under 10 words in length, but no longer than those of Charles Dicken's or George Eliot's or even some of Mark Twain's. Modern readers are used to short sound bites. Darwin and the other 19th century authors were writing long (in terms of time and space) before short sound bites.

The questions about reading "On the Origin of the Species" aren't whether one should read it (one should) or whether it is too difficult to read (it isn't), but which edition to read. Check out Olivia Judson's Blog for more reasons to read "On the Origin of the Species".

*See The Complete Work of Charles Darwin Online ChapterIV, Circumstances favoring Natural Selection, page 101-102.

July 1, 1858

Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:57:00 -0600

Although the bicentennial of Charles Darwin's birth and the sesquicentennial of the publication of On the Origin of Species take place in 2009, the celebration of Darwin's year begins July 1, 2008.

On that date, On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection, two papers by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace respectively were read at the Linnean Society. The papers were subsequently published in Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London. Zoology 3: 46-50

See Darwinmania! in The Wild Side column of Olivia Judson Wednesday, June 18, 2008 edition of the NY Times and the article, On the Origin of a Theory by Richard Conniff, Smithsonian, June 2008 issue for brief overviews of the development of the theory and why Darwin deserves the credit.

Darwins Garden: An Evolutionary Adventure

Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:53:00 -0600

an exhibit at the New York Botanical Garden is on display April 25 to June 15, 2008.

An article and a slide show about the exhibit were in the April 25 issue of the New York Times.

Emma Darwin's Book

Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:22:00 -0600

Read On the Origin of Muffin Pudding by Emma Darwin in the New Scientist.

As well as digitizing all of Charles Darwin's works, The Complete Work of Charles Darwin has included Emma Darwin's Recipe Book.

Teaching Evolution is Vital

Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:15:00 -0600

Dr. David Hillis, Alfred W. Roark Centennial Professor at the University of Texas-Austin and John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Fellow, will give the talk Teaching Evolution is Vital at Emerson Unitarian Universalist Church on Sunday, May 4, 2008, 3:00 pm as part of the Church's 2008 Kilgore Lecture program.

The Church is located at 1900 Bering Dr., 1/2 block north of Westheimer, 1 block west of Chimney Rock. For more information, call 713.782.8250.

God, Darwin, and Design: Lessons from the Dover Monkey Trial

Wed, 02 Apr 2008 11:13:00 -0600

Dr. Kenneth Miller, Professor of Biology, Brown University, will be giving a lecture at the University of Texas-Austin, Friday, April 4, 2008 at 7:00 pm.

There will be a Live WEBCASE.

Check out information at http://www.esi.utexas.edu/outreach/ols/lectures/Miller/.

Genetic Evidence for Evolution

Wed, 02 Apr 2008 11:12:00 -0600

On Saturday, April 5, 2008 at 2:00 pm, Dan Graur, PhD, John and Rebecca Moores Professor, Department of Biology and Biochemistry, University of Houston, will present a lecture titled "Genetic Evidence for Evolution" at The Health Museum, 1515 Hermann Drive.

Dr. Graur's lecture is part of a series of talks, Decoding Genetics, which complements the exhibit GENOME: The Secret of How Life Works.

Beagle still navigating

Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:44:00 -0600

Today's Beagle is not making the historic voyage the HMS Beagle, which it was named after, did. But it is still navigating the same waters in Tierra del Fuego.

Thanks to Dr. Robert Rakel for photos.

Darwin's 199th

Tue, 12 Feb 2008 10:26:00 -0600
A section of February 12, 2008 Guardian Newspaper (UK) isdevoted to Darwin's work and developments from it with losts of links. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/darwinbicentenary Image from http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/S/Speciation.html

199th Birthday

Mon, 04 Feb 2008 13:58:00 -0600
February 12, 2008 is the 199th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin.

Check out international activities at http://www.darwinday.org/englishL/home/2008.php and local activities at http://www.houstondarwinday.org/

Evolution is a scientific fact, and every organization ...

Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:02:00 -0600

whose research depends on it should explain why

Nature 451, 108 (10 January 2008) Editorial - SPREAD THE WORD
Three cheers for the US National Academy of Sciences for publishing an updated version of its booklet Science, Evolution, and Creationism (see http://www.nap.edu/sec). The document succinctly summarizes what is and isn't science, provides an overview of evidence for evolution by natural selection, and highlights how, time and again, leading religious figures have upheld evolution as consistent with their view of the world.

As the National Academy of Sciences and Padian have shown, it is possible to summarize the reasons why evolution is in effect as much a scientific fact as the existence of atoms or the orbiting of Earth round the Sun, even though there are plenty of refinements to be explored. Yet some actual and potential heads of state refuse to recognize this fact as such. And creationists have a tendency to play on the uncertainties displayed by some citizens. Evolution is of profound importance to modern biology and medicine. Accordingly, anyone who has the ability to explain the evidence behind this fact to their students, their friends and relatives should be given the ammunition to do so. Between now and the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth on 12 February 2009, every science academy and society with a stake in the credibility of evolution should summarize evidence for it on their website and take every opportunity to promote it.

Reprinted by permission from Macmillan Publishers Ltd: [Nature] (doi:10.1038/451108b), copyright (2008)

For the complete editorial, see http://www.nature.com/nature/index.html.