Evolution's Handy Job

Opposable thumbs anyone?

It's actually more than that. NPR is on it.

On the Origin of Species

Today marks the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Thank you, Darwin, for making sense of life, and for standing the test of time and scrutiny of science for 150 years.

Here's NPR on the occasion.

Evolution Vindicated

And in the Galapagos, no less, where a new species has emerged right under the observing eyes of the scientists who work there.

The Butler Did It!

An excerpt from Richard Dawkins' newest book, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, elegantly summarizing his adamant defense of evolution as a fact.

A short interview with the author.

P.S.: You'll get the post title if you read the excerpt.

Our Foremother Who Were on Earth

The image below shows the skeletal remains and a possible reconstruction of the creature to whom they belonged. It turns out that she is our common ancestor, about a million years older than Lucy. She has both ape- and human-like traits, though, given her pelvic structure, it is believed that she was able to stand and walk upright.

Her discovery provides a missing link in our family tree.

'Judgment Day'

A beautifully researched and fairly presented Nova documentary on PBS portrays the struggle between evolution and intelligent design (you'll see in the documentary that intelligent design = creationism) in a small Pennsylvania town after the school board required that intelligent design be taught as an alternative to evolution in the town's schools.

The trial that ensued and the arguments brought forth by either side are all included in this documentary, a must see for people on both sides of the debate. As I said, it is a fair portrayal of either side, with judgment or condemnation for neither.

On Evolution & Related News

The most popular—and I would dare add singular—argument of proponents of creationism (masked, of course, under the euphemism 'intelligent design') is that the complexity of life implies a designer/creator that is more complex than its creations. On the cellular level, proponents of this view would argue that certain cellular structures are so intricate that they are irreducible. In other words, taking away one of their components would obviate them. A recent comparison of proteins between mitochondria and simpler bacteria shows that component proteins found in complex structures in mitochondria are, indeed, present in those bacteria. The only difference is that those components are not combined into the complex structure of the mitochondria, but rather exist independently. However, they are still functional... they simply carry out different functions. They were only able to perform their mitochondrial function when they evolved (through mutation or otherwise) into a different, more complex structure.

QUESTION: How do gene mutations that cause morphological differences still result in viable offspring?

ANSWER: Most multicellular organisms contain duplicate copies of the gene. A mutation occurring in one of them causes the morphological change, while the intact second copy of the gene ensures viability.

Richard Dawkins has published a new book somewhat distanced from his recent anti-religious rhetoric. The book, entitled The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, highlights the irrefutable evidence for evolution and goes so far as to claim that evolution is 'as incontrovertible a fact as any in science.' I look forward to reading it.

There is also a new book by Frans de Waal, entitled The Age of Empathy: Nature's Lessons for a Kinder Society, which supports my belief that our morals, among which empathy, do not take their origin from a divine being, but are simply innate among humans. The author shows that they are also common in the animal kingdom, citing multiple examples of empathy in the animal kingdom. He also proposes a theory on how and why empathy evolved and how it favored the survival of these animals.

A scientist wondered about the consistent size within a human population and was baffled that the answer was not as simple as that for animal groups. Evolution may have something to do with it, but like any reasonable scientist, he is the first to admit he doesn't know exactly how.

Charles Darwin's great-great-grand-daughter is setting about to retrace the famous voyage of her great-great-grand-father more than 150 years ago, when his observations of living things led him to propose the theory of evolution and natural selection.

Evolutionary biologists have used new gene sequencing techniques to identify, map, and compare genes in humans and apes. They have found that, in humans, three genes evolved de novo, which first distinguished them from their common ancestor with the apes.

And, speaking of genes and mutations, another group of scientists have found that each of us is 'a mutant' by 100-200 genes that have mutated. Some of these mutations are good, some can lead to detrimental consequences such as cancer.

A new book aims to change the way we view medicine and to use evolutionary knowledge—nay, to teach it—in order to expand our medical capacities. Sure seems interesting....

Lastly, for a broader application of the word 'evolution,' and for the enjoyment of Mac aficionados, here is the evolution of the Mac OS X, found via Think Progress's Matthew Yglesias.

Reconciling Creationism & Evolution?

This is what Robert Wright, author of The Evolution of God, attempts to do in an editorial in The New York Times.

His proposals for a middle ground, albeit sensible, are too cloy and reconciliatory. I continue to believe that evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive and that middle ground between the two of them is no ground at all. These attempts to give credence and authority to an unscientific theory like creationism cause the greatest harm to our nation's educational system, the trenches and the front line of this war that is still being waged, eighty-four years after the Scopes Trial.

It's a Queer Queer Queer Queer Universe

As evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins shows in the video below.

Naked Aquatic Bipeds

I found the video below via The Daily Dish. It puts forth the hypothesis that, unlike previously thought, man might have evolved from aquatic animals rather than the ape family. It does seem plausible, but I am sure nothing will be confirmed for a long while.