Vestigial traits in humans

March 19, 2016 • 1:00 pm

Here’s a new video from Vox that demonstrates several vestigial traits in humans. Most of these are in WEIT, but this is a great short video to show students.  I don’t have a palmaris longis on either arm, but I can wiggle my ears. Still, I didn’t know that you can detect futile attempts to move your ears by looking for activity in the ear muscles, which is really cool.

Two years ago I put up a post on the palmar grasp reflex, with videos as well as photos of my friends’ babies demonstrating the trait (it’s in both hands and feet). Go over and see the fun.

I was never able to persuade anybody to try suspending their babies from a stick, even with lots of pillows underneath. Think of the science!

h/t: jsp

Ottawa: a visit to The Canadian Museum of Nature

February 29, 2016 • 11:15 am

While in Ottawa, I spent a couple of engrossing hours at The Canadian Museum of Nature. I don’t have a picture of the entire building (built around 1905), but here’s one from Wikipedia. The incongruous glass addition was put on between 2004 and 2010 to replace the original stone tower, whose weight was causing the building to settle into the local clay:

800px-Canadian_Museum_of_Nature_2

The building is festooned with Canadian-themed animals and decorations. Here’s a carved beaver, one of Canada’s two National Animals (the other is not a moose or a polar bear).

P1090603

A wolf carved on the staircase inside:

P1090604

And a moose-themed stained glass window:

P1090626

Our first stop was the ongoing insect exhibit, with both live and pinned insects. I of course favored the live ones, especially the series of giant beetles. I have no records of what these three are (they’re all huge), but I’m sure readers can identify them. They were all nomming too—and their food looked like banana.

P1090607

Another huge beetle with horns:

P1090610

And a big golden one. I have no scale for these, as they were in glass cases, but they were at least two inches long.

P1090609

The large creature below is a Malaysian jungle nymph (Heteropteryx dilatata). It’s famous for laying the largest eggs of any insect (up to half an inch long, or 1.3 cm), and Wikipedia adds this information:

Females reach a length of 25 centimetres (9.8 in), one of the world’s heaviest bugs, and the males a length of 10 centimetres (3.9 in). The females of this species are very aggressive and much larger, wider, and brighter-colored than the male. The female is lime green and has short, rounded wings, however their short length doesn’t allow them to fly. The males are much smaller and a mottled brown colour. Both sexes have small spikes on their upper bodies, more numerous in the female, who also has very large spines on her hind legs that can snap together as a scissor-like weapon.

This one is clearly a male.

P1090616

Here’s a female (from Wikipedia); note the spikes:

1024px-Malaysische_Gespensterschrecke

And both sexes; the sexual dimorphism is clear:

800px-Heteropteryx_dilatata_pair

Back to my photos: this one is of Mesohippus, one of the “transitional forms” in the evolution of horses. It lived 30-40 million years ago in what is now North America, and had three toes, having lost one from its ancestor. (Modern horses, of course, retain only the single toe, as the two side toes were lost.)

P1090621

Its relative size from the link above:

mesohippus-size

And a shot I took of the toes. You can see that they’re already reduced, and wind up as the “splint bones” on the side of the leg of modern horses.

P1090620

As I said, the toes became the split bones, a vestigial feature (prone to fracture and injury) attesting to modern horses’ descent from multi-toed ancestors:

89-093f1

On to whale evolution and the transitional forms. The Museum had a nice series showing whale evolution, and here’s one putative ancestor, Pakicetus, discovered and analyzed by Phil Gingerich and colleagues. It’s considered a “basal” cetacean because it has certain features of the ear found only in later and modern whales.

P1090628

Once thought to be semi-squatic, Pakicetus is now thought to have been largely terrestrial, perhaps spending a bit of time in the water. Here’s a reconstruction:

Pakicetus_BW

A bit later in whale evolution we get Ambulocetuswhich could clearly walk and swim. It’s thought to have been mostly aquatic, lurking like crocodiles in the shallows to strike animals on land. The rear limbs show modifications for movement in water:
P1090627

Here’s a reconstruction of Ambulocetus:

Ambulocetus_BW

The most recent fossil whale in the museum (beside the modern one shown below) is that of Dorudon, which was fully aquatic and lived about 40 million years ago. I didn’t take a photo of the entire fossil, but here are the rear legs, clearly vestigial (unconnected to the rest of the skeleton), but just as clearly the remnants of rear limbs:

P1090630

Here’s a skeleton from the Senckenberg Museum in Frankfurt am Main:

1024px-Dorudon_atrox_Senckenberg

And a reconstruction (from Wikipedia), showing the tiny rear limbs sticking out from the side. Modern whales have even smaller remnants of those limbs (see below):

Dorudon_BW

Here are all three stages of leg evolution in one shot, in chronological order starting from the bottom:

P1090629

Here’s a cool dinosaur fossil with head armor and spikes that point both backwards and forwards. I’m sure either Matthew (a dino aficionado) or a reader can identify it, as I’ve forgotten:

P1090623

Reconstruction of a feathered dinosaur, probably a theropod:

P1090624

And here’s a species that wasn’t a felid but shows convergent evolution with the “true” cats. I took a photo of the sign below so I could remember it:

P1090633

And here it is: Hoplophoneus, a member of the extinct family Nimravidae in the Carnivora. It was the size of a leopard and lived in North America about 35 million years ago. 

P1090634

A reconstruction of Hoplophoneus from Prehistoric Animals:

Hoplophoneus1

I was amused to find that the French word for “raccoon” (which of course is a New World mammal) is “washing rat”. It is not a rodent, but a procyonid.

P1090637

Finally, the Museum had an entire skeleton of a blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus), the heaviest animal known to have existed in all the history of life. It weighs about 180,000 kilograms (multiply by 2.2 to get pounds), or about 200 US tons. I photographed its vestigial limbs, which are unconnected to the rest of the skeleton:

P1090636

Next post: Canadian noms!

A very nice video on the evidence for evolution from cetaceans

January 8, 2016 • 10:00 am

At last! An evolution video that is informative and doesn’t have any big problems (at least none that I could find). This video, concentrating on cetacean evolution, might be useful for classes that give the evidence for evolution. There are some great photos and great evidence here. The video is made by Stated Clearly, which you can support on Patreon.

The 12 days of evolution. #8: Evolution and thermodynamics

December 28, 2015 • 11:00 am

Here’s the Eighth Day of Creation, or rather, the eighth episode in the PBS/It’s Okay to be Smart series on “The Twelve Days of Evolution.” In effect, the episodes each aim to debunk one creationist misconception (or lie). In this case it’s the old claim that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Let’s review that law, as limned by Wikipedia:

The second law of thermodynamics states that in every real process the sum of the entropies of all participating bodies is increased. In the idealized limiting case of a reversible process, this sum remains unchanged. The increase in entropy accounts for the irreversibility of natural processes, and the asymmetry between future and past.

This supposedly makes evolution impossible, as evolution is the production of order from disorder: a reduction in the entropy of life, and an increase in order, if you begin the process molecules floating in water. The solution, as the video shows (and all of us know) is that the reduced entropy produced by evolution is paid for by a greater increase in entropy in the cosmos as a whole. That’s because the Earth is not a closed system, and Sun’s increasing entropy is necessary to fuel Earth’s evolution 93 million miles away. Here’s the short video:

My sole beef with this episode is that I think the cookie example, in which baked cookies are supposed to be analogs of the products of evolution, is weak. In fact, I’d need a physicist to convince me that the transformation of cookie dough to edible cookies requires a loss of entropy, even though I understand that the stove’s heat is an increase in entropy. So it goes; perhaps readers can clarify.

The 12 days of evolution. #6: The imperfection of evolution

December 26, 2015 • 11:00 am

Today’s video, part of the PBS/It’s Okay to Be Smart collaboration, highlights the “dumbness” of evolution: the fact that it has no foresight, and therefore devises solutions—I’m speaking metaphorically here—that are less perfect than an engineer could come up with de novo. One of the most famous jerry-rigged and imperfect “adaptations” is the mammalian recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN), which is described well in the video, along with an animation that should be useful for teaching (I discuss this as evidence for evolution in WEIT, but there’s no substitute for a good animation).

Creationists have denigrated this evidence for evolution, suggesting that the recurrent laryngeal nerve has other functions that are essential (it apparently branches off some smaller nerves that go to other places), but even that’s not convincing since bad design, like vestigial traits (e.g., the penguin’s “wing”) can be coopted later by selection to serve new functions. Only evolution can explain this circuitous route. After all, it’s only the left laryngeal nerve that makes this detour down to the aorta and back. If you’re a creationist, you have to then explain why God designed the system so that only that left nerve needed to have those functions. But that’s ad-hoc-ery, for evolution explains why only the left nerve bends this way—based on the asymmetric evolutionary displacement of the artery that the nerve is constrained to loop around. Here’s the video:

One beef: this series continues to describe natural selection as involving differential survival of individuals, although here they do correct “survival of the fittest” to “survival of the good enough.” I wish that they’d note that natural selection is actually differential reproduction of genes, and survival needn’t be involved. Now it may be too arcane to distinguish between differential reproduction of genes and differential reproduction of individuals (the genes’ vehicles), but I wish they’d take one video to make this clear. Since I haven’t yet seen the final six parts, perhaps they will.

If you haven’t seen the video below from Britain’s Channel Four show “Inside Nature’s Giants,” watch it, for Richard Dawkins actually narrates the dissection of the RLN from a giraffe during an autopsy. This is the first dissection of a giraffe’s RLN since 1838—21 years before Darwin provided the explanatory framework:

Twelve days of evolution. #4: Can evolution really make an eye?

December 22, 2015 • 10:30 am

Here’s the fourth video in the “Twelve days of evolution” series produced by PBS and “It’s okay to be smart”. It’s about the evolution of the eye:

This is a pretty good explication of how to refute the creationist claim that eyes couldn’t have evolved by natural selection, and were therefore created de novo. That claim itself rests on the notion that a complex “camera eye” like ours, with each part supposedly requiring all the simultaneous presence of all the other parts to function, can’t possibly have come from a stepwise adaptive process. Creationists argue, in fact, that Darwin realized this himself, and they quote this bit from On the Origin of Species, chapter VI:

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

But they invariably leave out the following bit, in which Darwin showed his genius by imagining existing eyes of different species, all functioning adaptively, put in an order that could correspond to a stepwise/adaptive evolutionary sequence:

. . . Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.

The video’s claim that eyes have evolved independently 50-100 times is dubious. It depends on what you mean by “eyes,” for eyes from insects to humans have co-opted on the same controlling gene (Pax6), so at least that bit isn’t independent. If you mean “the structure of the eye”, then yes, those structures have evolved independently several times, but I don’t think it’s 50-100.

A vivid demonstration of how a camera eye could evolve in a stepwise fashion, starting with a simple light-sensitive spot, was given by a young Richard Dawkins in the Royal Institution’s 1991 Christmas Lectures, “Growing up in the Universe.” Here’s his demonstration, broadcast by the BBC:

This was later discussed in extenso (with nice drawings) in Climbing Mount Improbable (1996). You may, as I do, have a few quibbles about Richard’s using Sewall Wright’s adaptive landscape to imagine why the nautilus couldn’t evolve a lens in its eye.

If you’re interested in the paper referenced in the first video, it’s by Nilsson and Pelger, and was published in Proc. Roy. Soc. in 1994 (click the title below to get a free pdf). It’s based on a computer simulation, but the results are described accurately in the video. This is, in fact, one of the few papers in which scientists have tried to address the question, “How long does it take a very complex trait to evolve?” And as the video above notes, the answer is “Not as long as you think.”

Screen Shot 2015-12-22 at 6.48.55 AM

Twelve days of evolution. #3: Have we seen evolution in real time?

December 21, 2015 • 12:30 pm

This short video, about evolution in real time, is the best yet in the sequence of the “Twelve Days of Evolution” videos, produced by PBS and “It’s Okay to be Smart. ” I’ll be presenting, reviewing, and annotating these over the holidays:

The creationist canard dispelled here is the idea that if we can’t see evolution in real time, it doesn’t happen. (Never mind that the fossil record gives us tons of evidence for the process.) The example it gives is a nice one: the work of Marlene Zuk and her colleagues (she occasionally comments here) on the loss of sound-producing structures in crickets. You can read about it in detail at this site, but the upshot is that the invasion of a cricket-parasitizing fly in two Hawaiian Islands imposed strong selection on the resident crickets to lose their song, for the fly uses that song to detect its prey. Not only was evolution extremely fast in this case, but it involved only a single mutation on the X chromosome, one that ablated the stridulation combs of males. Soundless males survived, for the survival advantage more than outweighed their loss of ability to attract females through singing.

The example is not just evidence for evolution, but evolution via natural selection. Remember that there are other causes for evolution besides natural selection, most notably genetic drift.

But of course we’ve had examples of natural selection in real time for ages. John Endler’s book Natural Selection in the Wild gives several hundred, all from nature, and we’ve known about microbes evolving resistance to antibiotics for decades. Ditto for plants evolving resistance to herbicides, insects to insecticides, and plants to heavy metals brought to the surface by mining.

And most of you have heard of Peter and Rosemary Grant’s work on selection in the medium ground finch (Geospiza fortis), one of the best-documented examples of natural selection in vertebrates. A drought killed off small plants on the Galápagos island of Daphne Major, enabling only those individuals with larger beaks, who could crack the remaining big seeds, to survive. The population’s beak size increased by 10% in one generation, and the genetic and ecological basis of the trait change is well understood.

Section 5 of Douglas Theobald’s magnificent evidence-for-evolution website, 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, gives other examples, though I can’t seem to access it now.