Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
As I’ve mentioned before, there will be a rare annular eclipse this Sunday, May 20. A small group of WEIT readers is convening at the Grand Canyon, near the centerline of the eclipse, and the view at sunset should be awe-inspiring. If you’d like to go, email Ben Goren at the link given here.
Attendees include Justin Zimmer and his family, artist Kelly Houle (creator of the Illuminated Origin of Species) and her partner, reader daveau, and of course Ben Goren. I’ve informed them all that I expect some great photographs (and artwork from Kelly) to post on this site. They promise to come through.
As a bonus, daveau enclosed with his email a photo of his famous cat Meryln, along with this note:
Here is a picture of Merlyn at sunset on Monday. He’s 20 months now, and he sometimes looks like a cat, and sometimes still like a kitten. As you probably know, British shorthairs aren’t really mature until three years. Handsome boy, though.
Here he discusses his favorite movie adaptations of novels, and he’s right on the money with his front-runner.
I have always thought that Joyce’s novella “The Dead” contains the most beautiful prose ever penned in English. Notice how McEwan almost tears up when he discusses the ending, which is ineffably moving. I still can’t read the following without tearing up even more than McEwan:
The air of the room chilled his shoulders. He stretched himself cautiously along under the sheets and lay down beside his wife. One by one, they were all becoming shades. Better pass boldly into that other world, in the full glory of some passion, than fade and wither dismally with age. He thought of how she who lay beside him had locked in her heart for so many years that image of her lover’s eyes when he had told her that he did not wish to live.
Generous tears filled Gabriel’s eyes. He had never felt like that himself towards any woman, but he knew that such a feeling must be love. The tears gathered more thickly in his eyes and in the partial darkness he imagined he saw the form of a young man standing under a dripping tree. Other forms were near. His soul had approached that region where dwell the vast hosts of the dead. He was conscious of, but could not apprehend, their wayward and flickering existence. His own identity was fading out into a grey impalpable world: the solid world itself, which these dead had one time reared and lived in, was dissolving and dwindling.
A few light taps upon the pane made him turn to the window. It had begun to snow again. He watched sleepily the flakes, silver and dark, falling obliquely against the lamplight. The time had come for him to set out on his journey westward. Yes, the newspapers were right: snow was general all over Ireland. It was falling on every part of the dark central plain, on the treeless hills, falling softly upon the Bog of Allen and, farther westward, softly falling into the dark mutinous Shannon waves. It was falling, too, upon every part of the lonely churchyard on the hill where Michael Furey lay buried. It lay thickly drifted on the crooked crosses and headstones, on the spears of the little gate, on the barren thorns. His soul swooned slowly as he heard the snow falling faintly through the universe and faintly falling, like the descent of their last end, upon all the living and the dead.
See the Huston movie if you can, but by all means read the story, which is free at the link above.
If you know of any better prose than that, tell me!
Last year Russell Garwood, a paleontologist at the University of Manchester (ergo Matthew Cobb’s colleague), published a paper in Nature Communications along with several collaborators (reference below). The results were striking: fossil harvestmen (arachnids sometimes known as “daddy long-legs”) from 305 million years ago are strikingly similar to modern species—so similar, in fact, that they can be identified as members of existing lineages (suborders). In other words, this group shows a striking morphological stasis: a lack of evolution of at least the fossilizable parts of the body. I hasten to add that some body parts, like the genitals, were not preserved, and that of course there could have been substantial evolution of biochemical systems, physiology, and internal anatomy that can’t be seen in fossils. Nevertheless, we have few groups that show such profound stasis. And 305 millon years ago is a longtime ago: that’s around the period when the lineage that produced modern reptiles branched off from its amphibian ancestors.
Why some groups like this are morphologically conservative isn’t known, though there are speculations (i.e., their environment didn’t change much over millions of years). Or they could simply be one tail end in a Gaussian distribution of evolutionary change. Such “living fossils” are the subject of Richard Fortey’s new popular book, Horseshoe Crabs and Velvet Worms: The Story of the Animals and Plants That Time Has Left Behind.
At any rate, the paper is only partly the subject of this post, but let’s look at the fossils first. Here’s how well preserved the specimens were (they were found in France). Click to enlarge. These are computer reconstructions from high-resolution X-ray microtomography, a method that can produce a three-dimensional reconstruction without destroying a specimen:
Figure 1 | Virtual fossils of Carboniferous Opiliones. Computer reconstructions of two new species of harvestman from the Stephanian Montceaules- Mines Lagerstätte France. Scale bar, a–c, 5 mm; d,e, 5 mm; f, 5 mm; g. 0.5 mm.
Here’s a reconstruction of two fossil species:
Idealized reconstructions. The probable appearance in life of A. scolos gen. et sp. nov. (above) and M. cronus gen. et sp. nov. (below). Scale bar, 5 mm.
And here’s a comparison of the dorsal (back) side of a fossil with its modern relative, showing how similar the external anatomy has remained over three hundred million years:
d. A. scolos, e. the living species Acuclavella cosmetoides, Ischyropsalididae.
As we’ll see below, Garwood is rightfully peeved that creationists are using his paper as evidence against evolution, saying, “See, things didn’t evolve, even though Darwinism predicts they will!” (The Turkish creationist Harun Yahya specializes in this trope.)
But “living fossils” don’t violate any of the tenets of neo-Darwinian evolution. That theory doesn’t tell us that species must evolve, only that they will in general undergo morphological, biochemical and physiological evolution when conditions change. And there is always a certain amount of molecular evolution going on due to genetic drift (I’d bet a “stasis creationist” thousands of dollars that if we could sequence the DNA of those fossil spiders, it would be substantially different in non-coding positions from that of its modern relatives). Neo-Darwinism doesn’t predict how a species will evolve in the future, or whether it will evolve at all. So living fossils don’t count as evidence for creationism. And, of course, against creationism stand the vastly larger greater of lineages that did evolve, producing among other forms the transitional species that creationists must to sputter and sweat to explain. Indeed, I’m surprised that Garwood is surprised, since American evolutionists are used to this kind of distortion.
Garwood’s just expressed his frustration about the creationist misuse of his work in a column in Nature: “Reach out to defend evolution,” in which he urges scientists communicate with the public to prevent misunderstandings of evolution. Here’s a snippet:
We don’t know why harvestmen are such a good example of morphological stasis; but the fact that they are in no way undermines evolution. Rather, it indicates that further work is needed and encourages such work. Yet knowing that unknowns will be presented as evidence of a designer does make writing up the results a potential minefield.
We should not let creationist pressure alter the way we do science — the day that researchers become reticent about highlighting inconsistencies and uncertainty would be a dark one. But equally, we are not helpless when it comes to countering creationist disinformation based on our results. I believe that science would benefit greatly if we did more outreach when we publish and publicize our research.
Direct debates with creationists are risky. Organized discussions only support the ‘evolution is in crisis’ lobby. However, a proliferation of online tools means that we can make accurate information freely available to those interested enough to look for it. Arizona State University’s Ask a Biologist web page has fielded more than 25,000 questions from students and teachers since it launched in 1997.
If research is to appear that will attract an obvious creationist interpretation, an accompanying blog post could explain the work and highlight flaws in any anti-evolution attacks. Sites such as the Natural Environment Research Council’s Planet Earth Online and the Palaeontological Association-sponsored palaeontologyonline.com provide researchers with vehicles for one-off posts. Publishers can do more, and could offer online summaries in non-technical language, written by the researchers. The open-access journal Palaeontologia Electronica already does this.
So, Russell, here is the “blog”* post you wanted. But don’t be so quick to assume that pieces like this will change any minds, for the opponents of evolution won’t, by and large, be convinced by them. They are blinded not by ignorance but by religion. Perhaps you wouldn’t be so surprised if you had grown up in the hyper-religious United States.
This would seem to be a no-brainer, and I’m assuming the facts are as stated. It is a letter from a doctor who has created a petition on change.org.
I can’t even imagine if my beloved cats suffered the same fate as Alley, Fiddle and Kiki.
Alley, Fiddle and Kiki are three cats used in pediatric intubation trainings at the University of Virginia medical school. The details are horrific: they’re immobilized and helpless as plastic tubes are repeatedly forced down their throats — sometimes as many as 20 times each session. And Alley, Fiddle and Kiki have been enduring this torture for the last seven years.
As a pediatrician with over 25 years of experience, I know just how important proper intubation can be for premature babies. But it’s far more realistic to practice on a human simulator than a cat — which is why almost every other medical school has stopped using animals in trainings. I can’t believe UVA would keep abusing these defenseless creatures rather than following universities like Yale and Johns Hopkins.
The university claims the cats are treated well — but I can’t imagine anyone agreeing to let his or her cat or dog at home suffer this sort of procedure month after month, year after year. I don’t see the difference between Alley, Fiddle, and Kiki at UVA, and my cats Beeto, Binky, Pounce, and Spooky at home.
I know from experience just how vital intubation can be — it saves lives. I’m simply asking the university to stop using this outdated and unnecessarily cruel method of teaching.
At least 94% of pediatric residency programs have stopped using cats because more ethical, effective methods are available. I’m convinced that if UVA hears from thousands of people across the community, it will realize it should do the same.
If there are equally effective ways to train doctors that don’t involve torturing animals, we are obliged to end that torture. You can find the petition at the link above, or here. I’ve signed it. There are 75,000 signatures, and about the same number to go.
UPDATE: Over at erv, Abbie Smith just posted the harrowing tale of a biologist and three trustees of a Seventh-Day Adventist School (La Sierra University) who were fired for being sympathetic to evolution.
______________
Over at Secular Perspectives, a website sponsored by the Washington Area Secular Humanists, our own reader Hos has written a piece called “Secular perspectives: How religion corrupts minds and undercuts science.” There, Hos introduces us to Ben Carson, an eminent neurosurgeon and director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital. You can’t get much more eminent as a doctor: Carson was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, America’s highest award for civilians. He’s performed many difficult operations—including the first successful separation of twins conjoined at the back of the head, and has 61 honorary degrees. He’s a man to be be reckoned with.
But of course there’s a “but.” Carson is also a devout Seventh Day Adventist who doesn’t accept evolution. See, for example, this interview with him in Adventist Review, where he issues howlers like this (“JG” is interviewer Jonathan Gallager)
JG: So why do so many people prefer to believe in the random formation of the universe–and of life itself? Or to put it another way, Why is the matter of evolution so important?
BC: It comes down to a matter of ownership. Who owns the universe, who owns the earth, who owns your life? Those who believe in evolution, and in a naturalistic explanation of the universe, ultimately see themselves as end-owners–as the creator and ultimate source of authority. In this way they answer to nothing and nobody, for there is nothing higher than themselves.
How does this happen? What are the consequences of accepting evolutionary views of human origins? How does this affect society and the way we see ourselves?
By believing we are the product of random acts, we eliminate morality and the basis of ethical behavior. For if there is no such thing as moral authority, you can do anything you want. You make everything relative, and there’s no reason for any of our higher values.
If we are all the product of chance, the random assortment of atoms, living in a deterministic universe that is simply the consequence of physical interactions, doesn’t it all seem so futile?
Yes, in my education I had to learn evolutionary theories, and as a God-fearing Christian I wondered how to make God and evolution mesh. The truth is that you can’t make them mesh–you have to choose one or the other. . .
But just supposing you did have that first cell?
Even if you accept evolutionary theory–developing a more sophisticated organism in this theoretically “logical” fashion, then there should be a continuum of organisms. And why did evolution divert in so many directions–birds, fish, elephants, apes, humans–if there is some force evolving to the maximum? Why isn’t everything a human–a superior human? Darwin specifically stated that his theory hung on the discovery of intermediate forms, and was sure that we would find them. More than a hundred years later we still haven’t found them. Even the earliest fossils don’t show such intermediates.
Take the simple case of ape to human. It should be easy to find abundant fossil remains since, according to evolutionary theory, this is the most recent transition. If we can find so many fossils of dinosaurs, which are further back in the evolutionary scheme, we should have plenty of evidence of intermediates between apes and humans. But we don’t have them. We have very few supposed intermediates–like “Lucy,” based on fanciful reconstruction with a lot of filling in. Today we have people with significant congenital abnormalities whose skeletal remains would seem like a missing link. So “Lucy” does not make the case, and there should be multiple “Lucys” if the transition from ape to human were true.
Also, there’s the whole subject of irreducibly complex organisms–the idea that everything has to be there all at once for it to work. How could all the complex items evolve simultaneously–as in the eye, for example? . . .
A few closing thoughts?
Ultimately, if you accept the evolutionary theory, you dismiss ethics, you don’t have to abide by a set of moral codes, you determine your own conscience based on your own desires. You have no reason for things such as selfless love, when a father dives in to save his son from drowning. You can trash the Bible as irrelevant, just silly fables, since you believe that it does not conform to scientific thought. You can be like Lucifer, who said, “I will make myself like the Most High.”
Can you prove evolution? No. Can you prove creation? No. Can you use the intellect God has given you to decide whether something is logical or illogical? Yes, absolutely. It all comes down to “faith”–and I don’t have enough to believe in evolution. I’m too logical!
This is all extraordinarily stupid stuff—the acceptance of intelligent design, the denial of transitional fossils, the characterization of evolution as an “accident”, and so on (I’ve left out a lot). It’s beyond my ken how a surgeon who can figure out, using scientific principles, how to separate twins joined at the head, can nevertheless reject the mountains of evidence that evolution is true. Hos has the explanation:
How is it that one of the most brilliant brain surgeons in the world can be so incredibly ignorant (bordering on idiotic) about a scientific theory that has been the backbone of biology and geology for 150 years? The answer is one word: Religion. As long as religion infects minds, you can expect ignorance peddling from the shining stars of even the top institutes of higher education in the world.
Truefact. To paraphrase Steven Weinberg (with some slight exaggeration), “With or without religion smart people can believe true things and dumb people can believe fairy stories. But for smart people to believe fairy stories—that takes religion.”
Carson is scheduled to give the commencement address at Emory University in Atlanta, a school I once visited. A petition of the University’s students and faculty has been circulating to protest this choice, and, to their credit, many faculty have signed. You can see the petition (but not sign it) here. The cover letter is quite eloquent.
It won’t work, of course. One can hope only that Carson doesn’t disgorge his antiscientific views at the students of Emory.
UPDATE: several readers provided photos of the male and female; the best is from Sigmund, who pointed me to the flanking dimorphic elks in the geology building of his own university, Trinity College Dublin. Look at that antler dimorphism! On a related note, the renowned Irish paleontologist Sir Arthur (Artie) O’Dactyl has just described an enormously large living mollusc which, in honor of this cervid, he’s named the “Irish whelk.”
And chrismadden.co.uk offers yet another theory for why the Irish Elk went extinct:
_________________________________
I have been searching for a photo of a skeleton of a female Irish Elk, but every photo I can find depicts the remains of males, who of course had the largest antlers of any deer that ever lived (90 pounds of antlers on a five-pound skull, and the males had to regrow their antlers each year!). The species is, of course, extinct. I’d like to see the sexual dimorphism, though, especially because a sophisticated theologian, Ian Barbour, has used the Elk as an example of a purely detrimental evolutionary change that contravenes neo-Darwinian theory. Barbour is apparently unaware of sexual selection and sexual dimorphism. It’s ironic that although sophisticated theologians are always going after biologists for not knowing theology very well, these same theologians repeatedly get their biology wrong.
I know that the species (Megaloceros giganteus) was sexually dimorphic, but have been unable to find photographic documentation. Readers who have access to photos of female skeletons: send me one. Thanks. Here’s a male:
[Update: “Horns” has been corrected to antlers. Antlers grow each year as bony outgrowths covered by a thin skin (called velvet), which eventually is rubbed off by the deer to form the mature antler. Horns are not shed annually, have a bony core, and usually have a keratinous covering (e.g. cattle, sheep, antelope), but may have a skin covering (e.g. giraffes). Thanks to all who noticed!]
universe–and of life itself? Or to put it another way, Why is the matter of evolution so important?
Take the simple case of ape to human. It should be easy to find abundant fossil remains since, according to evolutionary theory, this is the most recent transition. If we can find so many fossils of dinosaurs, which are further back in the evolutionary scheme, we should have plenty of evidence of intermediates between apes and humans. But we don’t have them. We have very few supposed intermediates–like “Lucy,” based on fanciful reconstruction with a lot of filling in. Today we have people with significant congenital abnormalities whose skeletal remains would seem like a missing link. So “Lucy” does not make the case, and there should be multiple “Lucys” if the transition from ape to human were true. 
