-
500 Million Years of Evolution in Under 4 Minutes
I had forgotten that the video for Fatboy Slim’s “Right Here, Right Now” was essentially an evolutionary biology adventure tale.
Is it illegal to post this video on Daft Punk Day?
(via PsiVid)
(via deconversionmovement)
-
What is Evolution?
via jtotheizzoe:
Excellent video from Stated Clearly explaining just what evolution is … using great illustrations from Rosemary Mosco’s Bird and Moon comics.
This is a great video to share with friends/enemies/confused relatives that might have trouble accepting evolution and how simple it can be to understand.
I’d like to add one thing to this video. Single amoebas, pairs of parents and a few children are used in these evolution illustrations to simplify the concept of evolution, but it’s important to remember that evolution is something that happens to populations, not individuals. The changes within a generation are random. It’s only after those changes have been passed on for several generations that a survival advantage or disadvantage (followed by either more or less individuals carrying the trait) occurs. That’s where evolution happens, it’s not in the change itself. And sometimes even harmful traits can become frequent in a population, like we see in diseases that are prevalent among isolated ethnic groups.
Bonus: I’d also recommend Understanding Evolution’s “Common Misconceptions” FAQ for those who want to dig deeper.
-
Fossils indicate common ancestor for two primate groups
Find suggests Old World monkeys and apes diverged 25 million years ago.
Palaeontologists working in Tanzania have discovered the oldest known fossils from two major primate groups — Old World monkeys, which include baboons and macaques, and apes, which include humans and chimpanzees. The study, published online today in Nature, reveals new information about primate evolution.
“…the fossil trove “fills in a roughly 10-million-year gap in primate evolution,” says John Fleagle, an anthropologist at Stony Brook University in New York.”
-
Natural Selection is one of the main concepts found within the theory of evolution. It was discovered by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace though Darwin championed the idea in his book “On the Origin of Species”.
Natural selection can be defined as the process by which random evolutionary changes are selected for by nature in a consistent, orderly, non-random way.
When coupled with descent with modification, Natural Selection can cause a population to evolve for fitness within a given environment over multiple generations.
Natural Selection is an observable fact. By carefully observing populations of living things with short life cycles you can actually watch it happen.
Want to learn more? Check out our notes for this video. Included are links to three examples of natural selection witnessed by researchers. There are many more as well. -
High ResolutionThe evolution…of creationism
-
High ResolutionHearing changes could be ancient in the human line
Comparison between hominins suggests modern middle-ear bones evolved early.
A study of two ancient hominins from South Africa suggests that changes in the shape and size of the middle ear occurred early in our evolution. Such alterations could have profoundly changed what our ancestors could hear — and perhaps how they could communicate.
-
Fossils, Taxonomy and Debate: Is fossil classification fundamentally flawed?
- Guest post by Winston Zack, Department of Geography (University of North Texas)
Linnaeus improved the organization of taxa into related groups, but this is still fundamentally a flawed system of organizing biology given that the foundations of evolutionary principles are a continuum of constant genetic changes and mutations. Therefore, there is no such thing as a ‘static’ taxon or species; rather these animals are always evolving and always show anatomical variations. Therefore, when it comes to classifying fossils, especially those of early hominids (e.g., early genus Homo), I find these debates to be unnecessarily complicated. Archaeology should consider that we have only just scratched the surface when understanding our early human past and not try to hurry and classify fossils or get bogged down about classifying an unusual hominin fossil as a ‘new species’. We still have much to learn about how early human fossils relate to each other. Our sample sizes of early hominin fossils are extremely small as well and come from millions of years of history and across thousands of miles of earth. Different populations, especially if ‘isolated’ for long-periods of time, should show increased biological/anatomical variations from contemporaneous species found elsewhere. A case in point is the Dmanisi fossils, which after 20+ years since they have been discovered, a consensus as to where they fall into the hominin family tree (i.e., their species) has not been formally classified and the debate continues. I personally feel the Dmanisi team is taking very good and cautionary measures before settling upon which ‘species’ is at Dmanisi; although in journals and other published works the Dmanisi team has labeled these hominin fossils to many different species over the years, including but not limited to: Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo ergaster, Homo georgicus; the first three species listed all lived at the same time while the last species, Homo georgicus, is a potentially new species classification.
So, is the Linnaean taxonomic system flawed?
Personally, such a characterization of biology distinct from the Linnaean system would call every individual a unique taxon because we all have slightly different physical characteristics which make us all unique. The Linnaean system will not go away and may very likely stay here forever. But for fossil classification, when we lack populations of individuals that were recovered from the same area from about the same time, it is difficult to understand how a few fossils may relate to the greater scheme of evolution. All archaeologists and paleoanthropologists, and anyone else trying to interpret the past from fossil evidence should use as much caution as possible prior to classifying fossils…and many of these professionals do this.
Author Biography:
Winston Zack is a geoarchaeologist and graduate student at University of North Texas. His work has thus far primarily been conducted on Plio-Pleistocene and Pleistocene sites such as Dmanisi, Republic of Georgia and several hominid fossil-bearing sites in Spain. He begins work in Germany on several Pleistocene sites this summer. Much of his research has focused on archaeological sediments and stratigraphy, artefact densities and what these analyses can tell us about hominid procurement, transport and provisioning behaviours. He is currently in the process of coauthoring an article for Quaternary Science Reviews, which will be published in the near future.
Image Sources:
- Larick, R, Ciochon RL, Zaim Y. 2004. “Homo erectus and the Emergence of the Sunda in the Tethys Realm: Contributions of Potassium-based chronology in the Sangiran dome, Central Java,” Athena Review 4(1) (bottom image)
- Don’s Maps (top image)
(via scientificillustration)
-
High ResolutionReview online evidence…
99.98% of biologists agree…
Departments, Museums, Secular and Religious Organizations, and Random Facts
-
High ResolutionFirst Land Animals Kept Fishlike Jaws for Millions of Years
Apr. 30, 2013 — Scientists studying how early land vertebrates evolved from fishes long thought that the animals developed legs for moving around on land well before their feeding systems and dietary habits changed enough to let them eat a land-based diet, but strong evidence was lacking. Now, for the first time fossil jaw measurements by Philip Anderson at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and others have tested and statistically confirmed this lag.
-
O.0
(via sharkchunks)
-
Big brains, no fur, sinuses … are these clues to our ancestors’ lives as ‘aquatic apes’?
-
Controversial theory that seeks to explain one of the great leaps of human evolution finds new support but still divides scientists
-
It is one of the most unusual evolutionary ideas ever proposed: humans are amphibious apes who lost their fur, started to walk upright and developed big brains because they took to living the good life by the water’s edge.
This is the aquatic ape theory and although treated with derision by some academics over the past 50 years, it is still backed by a small, but committed group of scientists. Next week they will hold a major London conference when several speakers, including David Attenborough, will voice support for the theory.
“Humans are very different from other apes,” said Peter Rhys Evans, an organiser of Human Evolution: Past, Present and Future. “We lack fur, walk upright, have big brains and subcutaneous fat and have a descended larynx, a feature common among aquatic animals but not apes.”
Standard evolutionary models suggest these different features appeared at separate times and for different reasons. The aquatic ape theory argues they all occurred because our ancestors decided to live in or near water for hundreds of thousands or possibly millions of years.
The theory was first proposed in 1960 by British biologist Sir Alister Hardy, who believed apes descended from the trees to live, not on the savannah as is usually supposed, but in flooded creeks, river banks and sea shores, some of Earth’s richest sources of food. To keep their heads above water, they evolved an upright stance, freeing their hands to make tools to crack open shellfish. Then they lost their body hair and instead developed a thick layer of subcutaneous fat to keep warm in the water. (via Big brains, no fur, sinuses … are these clues to our ancestors’ lives as ‘aquatic apes’? | Science | The Observer)
-
High ResolutionLook at any two consecutive forms and see if you can tell them apart.
-
Facial Reconstruction of Homo georgicus, Skull nº D2700 from Dmanisi Republic of Georgia (~1.8 Mya)
- Reconstruction by Philippe Froesch
This reconstruction is rather different than those seen in the previous post. The nose is much narrower and the nostrils are much less flared. The supraorbital torus is less prominent, the eyes are light and the skin much fairer too. It also seems less prognathic but it’s hard to tell from these angles. You don’t often see a reconstruction of any hominid dating to ~1.8 Mya that looks this modern human caucasian-like. However, Homo erectus was all over the shop and certainly variability existed. Here are some examples of other reconstructions, this one (Dmanisi), this one (Dmanisi), this one (Homo erectus) and this one (Homo erectus). See also this image for comparisons of different reconstructions of the Dmanisi specimens. I wonder about variability both in artistic but scientifically informed representation and on a geographic basis in fossil specimens. And I’m aware that I’m conflating taxa here because as today’s guest post noted, there is no consensus as to the taxon of the Dmanisi fossils.
(Source: Visualforensic)
(via deconversionmovement)
-
-
Why Americans Love Creationism
[…] The great power of the anti-evolutionary message embraced by so many Americans comes from the following, all of which are on display in the conversation:
Appealing to America’s democratic impulse: At a time when we constantly hear that lawmakers should heed the voice of the “90 percent of Americans who want more gun control,” on what basis do lawmakers ignore the “vast majority of Americans who reject evolution?” Does this constituency have no right to be heard? Must their children be forced to learn ideas in the public schools at odds with their family’s values and rejected by most of the voters?
Demanding fairness and tolerance: Isn’t America all about being fair? And what could be fairer than giving voice to other viewpoints with widespread support? At a time when most Americans are demanding gay marriage in the name of fairness, why are we being so unfair to the creationists, excluding their ideas about origins?
Promoting freedom for our students: Must education be coercive on the topic of origins? Why can’t teachers present “both sides” and let our “bright high school students” make up their own minds? Will this not encourage critical thinking in our science classes? What is this need to restrict science teaching to just one viewpoint when there are others in play?
Appealing to authority: A popular anti-evolutionary website contains the signatures of hundreds of credentialed academics who “Dissent from Darwin.” This is a lot of intellectual firepower. Surely such a large crowd of anti-evolutionary scholars can’t all be wrong.
Deflecting criticism: Much has been made of the failure of the creationists to publish in scientific journals. But their ideas are blocked from those journals by editorial and peer referees whose allegiance is to the scientific status quo. New paradigms, like Intelligent Design, are rejected out of hand.
Currying sympathy: Anti-evolutionists in secular universities or other scientific institutions are forced to hide their views from their colleagues. I was once in a gathering that including several such individuals and they insisted that nobody take any pictures, lest they be identified. If they “come out” they run the risk of losing their jobs, run off by intolerant peers who object to their ideas without considering them. Ben Stein exposed this abuse of Intelligent Design scholars in the documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.
This rhetorical strategy contains great synergistic power; polls show that Americans are not coming around to accept evolution, even as its scientific credibility has grown to point of certainty. The conservative Christians in the video above have heard and embraced all of these arguments. In their view, they have a strong case and every right to press it.
Dismantling these arguments takes more time than assembling them. And the process often sounds like little more than special pleading and self-serving prejudice. Science, of course, is not a democratic process — and it shouldn’t be — but explaining why is a bit tricky to an audience that values democracy so highly. High school students are not capable of adjudicating the validity of anti-evolutionary arguments — they have enough challenges simply learning the material and taking time to put fringe ideas in their heads is not reasonable. Restricting education to well-established knowledge is certainly not intolerance, but you can’t tell that to someone who rejects well-established knowledge.
The “Dissent from Darwin” list disintegrates when you look at it closely: The signers are largely non-biologists or even non-scientists. Many are retired academics, trained long ago before evolution became so established. Virtually none are experts in the sense of being evolutionary biologists active in the field. Ben Stein’s movie is riddled with falsehoods that have been exposed. (No creationists have even submitted papers to scientific journals, much less had them rejected. The few cases of people losing their jobs turn out to far more complicated than simply anti-creationist prejudice.) And on it goes.
Science education in America is in trouble.
Divine Irony
is a rich archive of religious delusions, scientific truths and political implications.
"Tell people there’s an invisible man in the sky who created the universe, and the vast majority believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure."
-George Carlin
“If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed”.
-Albert Einstein
