Darwin, Darwinism & Evolution / Natural Selection
- Thread starter Justin_Anstey
- Start date
ramonmercado
CyberPunk
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2003
- Messages
- 58,246
- Location
- Eblana
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
rynner2 said:
Will a new HMS Beagle set sail in 2013?
The HMS Beagle Project is seeking a port in the UK where a modern replica of the ship that carried Darwin on his famous voyage will be built
One of the most significant sea voyages in history began 180 years ago under something of a cloud. The ship had been due to sail on 26 December, but as one of its passengers wrote: "A beautiful day, & an excellent one for sailing, — the opportunity has been lost owing to the drunkedness and absence of nearly the whole crew. — the ship has been all day in state of anarchy."
The ship was HMS Beagle, her passenger the young, undistinguished but well-connected Charles Darwin. The purpose of the voyage, Beagle's second, was to survey the coastlines of South America and make a series of measurements to fix longitudes around the globe for chart making and navigation. They made it out of port on 27 December, but it was an inauspicious start to a famous journey.
Two remarkable books would arise from it, Darwin's Voyage of the Beagle and On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. But it was Origin that contained the dynamite of Darwin's theory of natural selection and the supporting evidence.
[...]
Without the invitation to sail on Beagle, Darwin would probably have become a country parson. Origin would not have been published. Natural selection would have been proposed by someone else, but not in so complete a fashion as Darwin's theory. The evolutionary foundations of modern biology would not have been laid until years, possibly decades later.
Another opportunity is being missed today. While HMS Victory, Cutty Sark and the Golden Hinde are honoured in dry-dock and museum exhibits, FitzRoy's remarkable little ship is ignored.
HMS Beagle's legacy is just as noteworthy. Transformed by FitzRoy from a perilous "Coffin Brig" warship to a vessel that twice circumnavigated the globe, she secured shipping lanes and safeguarded coastal approaches, served for 50 years and helped to found modern meteorology and change the world of science. Her remains lie neglected under the mud of the river Roach in Essex.
Inspired by the 2009 bicentenary of Darwin's birth, a group of scientists and sailors decided to create a replica ship that would serve as a 21st century icon to inspire a new generation to engage with science.
Since its founding, the HMS Beagle Project has organised workshops and events in Brazil, Chile, China and Australia, and has partnered with Nasa in ship-to-space outreach.
All of this has been accomplished without the ship, but it's time to build her and fully develop her science and educational potential. A UK-wide search is under way for a home port where the modern Beagle will be built, and a funding campaign has begun to raise the estimated £5m necessary – rather more than the £7,803 it cost to build the original.
Once launched, the new Beagle will bring the adventure of science to life, retracing FitzRoy and Darwin's voyage, serving as an ambassador for British science, history and industry, and taking scientists and sailors to sea. Both disciplines are about looking at horizons, wondering what lies beyond, and not stopping until you, your crewmates and lab-mates have found out.
As Darwin said: "The voyage of the Beagle has been by far the most important event in my life and has determined my whole career." In building a new Beagle – which could be launched by the end of 2013 – we hope he will not be the last person inspired to write such words.
Peter McGrath is a zoology graduate, author and commercial yachtmaster. He is a joint founder and trustee of the HMS Beagle Project. Email [email protected] or make an online donation
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/ ... eagle-2013
ramonmercado
CyberPunk
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2003
- Messages
- 58,246
- Location
- Eblana
ramonmercado
CyberPunk
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2003
- Messages
- 58,246
- Location
- Eblana
I reckon this belongs here rather than in an Evolution thread. Darwin should have left a legacy in his will for those who solved it.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
How Darwin can fight cancer
Using the maths of evolution to predict the spread of rogue cells could be a huge step in treating the disease, reports Roger Highfield.
9:15AM BST 03 Jul 2012
According to a new paper, we could be on the verge of a revolution in treating the most intractable forms of cancer – not via the discovery of a new drug or therapy, but by applying the theories of Charles Darwin.
The work is based on the most recent thinking about cancer: that it is a result of a breakdown of cooperation between cells in the body. This breakdown occurs when one of the body’s 200 cell types develops mutations – changes in their DNA – that put the cell’s own interests above the greater good of the body. As our immune system fights the renegade cells, new mutations occur, with the cancer evolving to outwit our defences. And because the cancer cells are distorted versions of our normal cells, they are hard to target and destroy without causing damaging side effects.
Now, however, experts believe that they can use the mathematics of evolution to predict the spread of the disease – and thereby treat it far more effectively. The idea, published in the journal Nature, is the brainchild of two major figures. One, Bert Vogelstein of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, is the most cited scientist in the world, and an expert in the mutations that cancer cells undergo. The other, Martin Nowak of Harvard University in Massachusetts, has a distinguished record in putting biology on a mathematical basis (as outlined in our co-written book, SuperCooperators).
I first came across Prof Nowak two decades ago, when he showed what happens inside a person infected by HIV. If the virus remained unchanged, the body would develop immunity, and that would be the end of the story. But it mutated, not just shrugging off the immune system’s attack but leaving an “evolutionary reservoir” in the system, which can evolve in different ways later on. It is the presence of this reservoir that explains the puzzlingly long delay between HIV infection and Aids developing – and the recent success of combination therapies, in which cocktails of drugs clobber the virus in quite different ways.
Nowak’s new work suggests we can achieve the same result with cancer therapy. Cancer is marked by its rapid growth – so traditional treatments have used drugs that are toxic to all dividing cells, causing side effects such as hair loss, deafness, bleeding gums, nausea and so on. Recent years have seen the emergence of a number of drugs that work on cancer cells with specific mutations, targeting the molecular pathways that have gone awry. These shrink many tumours during the first few months of treatment, but the cells often become resistant, and the disease returns.
In the Nature study of 28 advanced colon cancer patients treated with the monoclonal antibody panitumumab, Prof Vogelstein’s team found that drug-resistant tumour cell mutations appeared in the blood of patients five to seven months later. Working with Prof Nowak, Ben Allen and Ivana Bociz, the team calculated when and where these mutations originated – and crucially, they were able to determine that they were present before treatment rather than developing in response to it.
The reason is simple: of the billions of cancer cells that exist in a patient, only a tiny percentage – about one in a million – are resistant to the drugs used in targeted therapy. When treatment starts, the non-resistant cells are wiped out – but the few resistant cells quickly repopulate the cancer. The time it takes for cancers to recur is determined simply by how long it takes cancer cells with these mutant genes to multiply.
The experience of Aids, however, shows that all is not lost. “The good news is that there is a limited number of pathways that go awry in cancer, so it should be possible to develop a small number of agents that can be used in a large number of patients,” says Prof Vogelstein. Ultimately, Prof Nowak estimates that hundreds of drugs might be needed to “cure” every cancer – but as few as two or three, targeting different pathways, could be enough to control it in a given patient. “I think we will see a revolution in the treatment of cancer,” he says. “One hundred years ago, many people died of bacterial infections. Now, we have treatment for such infections – those people don’t have to die. I believe we are approaching a similar point with cancer.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/roge ... ancer.html
People who claim that "Evolution is just a theory" don't realise that, in modern terms, it is a mathematical algorithm that descibes how life works. It's as inevitable as 2 + 2 = 4! 8)
Using the maths of evolution to predict the spread of rogue cells could be a huge step in treating the disease, reports Roger Highfield.
9:15AM BST 03 Jul 2012
According to a new paper, we could be on the verge of a revolution in treating the most intractable forms of cancer – not via the discovery of a new drug or therapy, but by applying the theories of Charles Darwin.
The work is based on the most recent thinking about cancer: that it is a result of a breakdown of cooperation between cells in the body. This breakdown occurs when one of the body’s 200 cell types develops mutations – changes in their DNA – that put the cell’s own interests above the greater good of the body. As our immune system fights the renegade cells, new mutations occur, with the cancer evolving to outwit our defences. And because the cancer cells are distorted versions of our normal cells, they are hard to target and destroy without causing damaging side effects.
Now, however, experts believe that they can use the mathematics of evolution to predict the spread of the disease – and thereby treat it far more effectively. The idea, published in the journal Nature, is the brainchild of two major figures. One, Bert Vogelstein of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, is the most cited scientist in the world, and an expert in the mutations that cancer cells undergo. The other, Martin Nowak of Harvard University in Massachusetts, has a distinguished record in putting biology on a mathematical basis (as outlined in our co-written book, SuperCooperators).
I first came across Prof Nowak two decades ago, when he showed what happens inside a person infected by HIV. If the virus remained unchanged, the body would develop immunity, and that would be the end of the story. But it mutated, not just shrugging off the immune system’s attack but leaving an “evolutionary reservoir” in the system, which can evolve in different ways later on. It is the presence of this reservoir that explains the puzzlingly long delay between HIV infection and Aids developing – and the recent success of combination therapies, in which cocktails of drugs clobber the virus in quite different ways.
Nowak’s new work suggests we can achieve the same result with cancer therapy. Cancer is marked by its rapid growth – so traditional treatments have used drugs that are toxic to all dividing cells, causing side effects such as hair loss, deafness, bleeding gums, nausea and so on. Recent years have seen the emergence of a number of drugs that work on cancer cells with specific mutations, targeting the molecular pathways that have gone awry. These shrink many tumours during the first few months of treatment, but the cells often become resistant, and the disease returns.
In the Nature study of 28 advanced colon cancer patients treated with the monoclonal antibody panitumumab, Prof Vogelstein’s team found that drug-resistant tumour cell mutations appeared in the blood of patients five to seven months later. Working with Prof Nowak, Ben Allen and Ivana Bociz, the team calculated when and where these mutations originated – and crucially, they were able to determine that they were present before treatment rather than developing in response to it.
The reason is simple: of the billions of cancer cells that exist in a patient, only a tiny percentage – about one in a million – are resistant to the drugs used in targeted therapy. When treatment starts, the non-resistant cells are wiped out – but the few resistant cells quickly repopulate the cancer. The time it takes for cancers to recur is determined simply by how long it takes cancer cells with these mutant genes to multiply.
The experience of Aids, however, shows that all is not lost. “The good news is that there is a limited number of pathways that go awry in cancer, so it should be possible to develop a small number of agents that can be used in a large number of patients,” says Prof Vogelstein. Ultimately, Prof Nowak estimates that hundreds of drugs might be needed to “cure” every cancer – but as few as two or three, targeting different pathways, could be enough to control it in a given patient. “I think we will see a revolution in the treatment of cancer,” he says. “One hundred years ago, many people died of bacterial infections. Now, we have treatment for such infections – those people don’t have to die. I believe we are approaching a similar point with cancer.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/roge ... ancer.html
People who claim that "Evolution is just a theory" don't realise that, in modern terms, it is a mathematical algorithm that descibes how life works. It's as inevitable as 2 + 2 = 4! 8)
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
Charles Darwin letters reveal his emotional side
By Kate Hoyland, BBC World Service
In a collection of previously unpublished letters soon to be made available online, naturalist Charles Darwin reveals a highly emotional and personal side.
In letters to his closest friend, the botanist Joseph Hooker, he pours out his grief over the death of his daughter-in-law, Amy. He also speaks of his ideas on evolution for the first time - something he writes was like "confessing to a murder".
Of the many letters that Darwin wrote and received in his life, among the most important were his correspondence with his friend of 40 years, Joseph Hooker. As well as tracking the development of Darwin's scientific ideas, the letters give an intimate insight into a Victorian friendship.
Almost the entire collection - more than 1,400 letters - will soon be published by Cambridge University's Darwin Correspondence Project.
It is the personal nature of the correspondence that is particularly striking. In one poignant letter, written in 1876, Darwin writes of the death in childbirth of his son Francis' wife.
"Poor Amy had severe convulsions due to wrong action of the kidneys; after the convulsions she sunk into a stupor from which she never rallied," he writes.
"It is an inexpressible comfort that she never suffered and never knew she was leaving her beloved husband for ever. It has been a most bitter blow to us all."
A few years earlier, Hooker had written to him of the death of his own daughter, addressing him as "Dear old Darwin," and going on to say: "I have just buried my darling little girl and read your kind note." Darwin is at pains to remember his friend's feelings in their shared grief.
He writes: "I thank you for your most kind and feeling letter. When I wrote to you at Glasgow (which letter I have heard was sent too late) I did not forget your former grief, but I did not allude to it, as I well knew that it was wrong in me to revive your former feelings, but I could not resist writing to you."
The letter also reveals the closeness of Darwin's family ties - in particular his concern for his son.
He writes: "I never saw anyone suffer so much as poor Frank. He has gone to north Wales to bury the body in a little church-yard amongst the mountains… I am glad to hear that he is determined to exert himself and work in every way. How far he will be able to keep to this wise resolve I know not."
Darwin and Hooker met as young men, after both had travelled extensively as botanists - Darwin to the Galapagos Islands aboard the Beagle, Hooker to the Antarctic. They went on to pursue very different scientific careers, with Hooker becoming director of the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew, while Darwin developed his ground-breaking ideas on evolution by natural selection.
The two men saw each other occasionally, but their friendship was mainly conducted through letters. According to Paul White, editor and research associate at the Darwin Correspondence Project, the letters provide an intimate window onto Darwin's emotional life.
"It's a wonderful set of documents not only about Victorian science but about the social bonds that could be forged in correspondence, and the emotional bonds that could flow between two men," he says.
Darwin also used Hooker as a sounding board for his scientific ideas. Because of his position at Kew, Hooker was able to put him in touch with a wide network of scientific contacts. This was vital for Darwin, says Mr White: "It was particularly important because he had chosen to live rather a reclusive life. He didn't have an institutional position, so Darwin relied upon letters more than most people at the time for his window on the world."
It was with Hooker that Darwin first shared his radical ideas on evolution. According to Mr White, the fact he felt sufficiently confident to trust Hooker with this information that he had kept private for several years was an indication of how close they had become. Even so, his thoughts are not conveyed without trepidation.
"At last gleams of light have come, and I am almost convinced (quite contrary to opinion I started with) that species are not (it is like confessing a murder) immutable," he writes.
It is clear that Darwin was aware of the revolutionary nature of his ideas, and Hooker was to argue strongly in support of his friend in the religious debate that followed. Much of the debate was conducted through letters - with Darwin answering many of his critics personally.
Mr White suggests the letters help "to give a different picture of both Darwin and the scientific enterprise, in showing it as intensely collaborative, and that it is not divorced from private life".
In part, this was a result of the very different characters of the two men, says Mr White.
He says: "Hooker seems quite irascible, he comes across as being hot tempered and gossipy, and Darwin really loved that stuff - there was a liberating quality to their letters. He was more reserved - he had a formality and politeness. But possibly because of this he expressed things he wouldn't have otherwise."
It is this openness - as well as the light they shed on Darwin's work - that give the letters their fascination.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21939735
(Sidebars on page)
By Kate Hoyland, BBC World Service
In a collection of previously unpublished letters soon to be made available online, naturalist Charles Darwin reveals a highly emotional and personal side.
In letters to his closest friend, the botanist Joseph Hooker, he pours out his grief over the death of his daughter-in-law, Amy. He also speaks of his ideas on evolution for the first time - something he writes was like "confessing to a murder".
Of the many letters that Darwin wrote and received in his life, among the most important were his correspondence with his friend of 40 years, Joseph Hooker. As well as tracking the development of Darwin's scientific ideas, the letters give an intimate insight into a Victorian friendship.
Almost the entire collection - more than 1,400 letters - will soon be published by Cambridge University's Darwin Correspondence Project.
It is the personal nature of the correspondence that is particularly striking. In one poignant letter, written in 1876, Darwin writes of the death in childbirth of his son Francis' wife.
"Poor Amy had severe convulsions due to wrong action of the kidneys; after the convulsions she sunk into a stupor from which she never rallied," he writes.
"It is an inexpressible comfort that she never suffered and never knew she was leaving her beloved husband for ever. It has been a most bitter blow to us all."
A few years earlier, Hooker had written to him of the death of his own daughter, addressing him as "Dear old Darwin," and going on to say: "I have just buried my darling little girl and read your kind note." Darwin is at pains to remember his friend's feelings in their shared grief.
He writes: "I thank you for your most kind and feeling letter. When I wrote to you at Glasgow (which letter I have heard was sent too late) I did not forget your former grief, but I did not allude to it, as I well knew that it was wrong in me to revive your former feelings, but I could not resist writing to you."
The letter also reveals the closeness of Darwin's family ties - in particular his concern for his son.
He writes: "I never saw anyone suffer so much as poor Frank. He has gone to north Wales to bury the body in a little church-yard amongst the mountains… I am glad to hear that he is determined to exert himself and work in every way. How far he will be able to keep to this wise resolve I know not."
Darwin and Hooker met as young men, after both had travelled extensively as botanists - Darwin to the Galapagos Islands aboard the Beagle, Hooker to the Antarctic. They went on to pursue very different scientific careers, with Hooker becoming director of the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew, while Darwin developed his ground-breaking ideas on evolution by natural selection.
The two men saw each other occasionally, but their friendship was mainly conducted through letters. According to Paul White, editor and research associate at the Darwin Correspondence Project, the letters provide an intimate window onto Darwin's emotional life.
"It's a wonderful set of documents not only about Victorian science but about the social bonds that could be forged in correspondence, and the emotional bonds that could flow between two men," he says.
Darwin also used Hooker as a sounding board for his scientific ideas. Because of his position at Kew, Hooker was able to put him in touch with a wide network of scientific contacts. This was vital for Darwin, says Mr White: "It was particularly important because he had chosen to live rather a reclusive life. He didn't have an institutional position, so Darwin relied upon letters more than most people at the time for his window on the world."
It was with Hooker that Darwin first shared his radical ideas on evolution. According to Mr White, the fact he felt sufficiently confident to trust Hooker with this information that he had kept private for several years was an indication of how close they had become. Even so, his thoughts are not conveyed without trepidation.
"At last gleams of light have come, and I am almost convinced (quite contrary to opinion I started with) that species are not (it is like confessing a murder) immutable," he writes.
It is clear that Darwin was aware of the revolutionary nature of his ideas, and Hooker was to argue strongly in support of his friend in the religious debate that followed. Much of the debate was conducted through letters - with Darwin answering many of his critics personally.
Mr White suggests the letters help "to give a different picture of both Darwin and the scientific enterprise, in showing it as intensely collaborative, and that it is not divorced from private life".
In part, this was a result of the very different characters of the two men, says Mr White.
He says: "Hooker seems quite irascible, he comes across as being hot tempered and gossipy, and Darwin really loved that stuff - there was a liberating quality to their letters. He was more reserved - he had a formality and politeness. But possibly because of this he expressed things he wouldn't have otherwise."
It is this openness - as well as the light they shed on Darwin's work - that give the letters their fascination.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21939735
(Sidebars on page)
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
The evolutionary puzzle of homosexuality
By William Kremer, BBC World Service
In the last two decades, dozens of scientific papers have been published on the biological origins of homosexuality - another announcement was made last week. It's becoming scientific orthodoxy. But how does it fit with Darwin's theory of evolution?
Macklemore and Ryan Lewis's hit song Same Love, which has become an unofficial anthem of the pro-gay marriage campaign in the US, reflects how many gay people feel about their sexuality.
It mocks those who "think it's a decision, and you can be cured with some treatment and religion - man-made rewiring of a predisposition". A minority of gay people disagree, maintaining that sexuality is a social construct, and they have made a conscious, proud choice to take same-sex partners.
But scientific opinion is with Macklemore. Since the early 1990s, researchers have shown that homosexuality is more common in brothers and relatives on the same maternal line, and a genetic factor is taken to be the cause. Also relevant - although in no way proof - is research identifying physical differences in the brains of adult straight and gay people, and a dizzying array of homosexual behaviour in animals.
But since gay and lesbian people have fewer children than straight people, a problem arises.
"This is a paradox from an evolutionary perspective," says Paul Vasey from the University of Lethbridge in Canada. "How can a trait like male homosexuality, which has a genetic component, persist over evolutionary time if the individuals that carry the genes associated with that trait are not reproducing?"
Scientists don't know the answer to this Darwinian puzzle, but there are several theories. It's possible that different mechanisms may be at work in different people. Most of the theories relate to research on male homosexuality. The evolution of lesbianism is relatively understudied - it may work in a similar way or be completely different.
The genes that code for homosexuality do other things too
The allele - or group of genes - that sometimes codes for homosexual orientation may at other times have a strong reproductive benefit. This would compensate for gay people's lack of reproduction and ensure the continuation of the trait, as non-gay carriers of the gene pass it down.
There are two or more ways this might happen. One possibility is that the allele confers a psychological trait that makes straight men more attractive to women, or straight women more attractive to men. "We know that women tend to like more feminine behavioural features and facial features in their men, and that might be associated with things like good parenting skills or greater empathy," says Qazi Rahman, co-author of Born Gay; The Psychobiology of Sex Orientation. Therefore, the theory goes, a low "dose" of these alleles enhances the carrier's chances of reproductive success. Every now and then a family member receives a larger dose that affects his or her sexual orientation, but the allele still has an overall reproductive advantage.
Another way a "gay allele" might be able to compensate for a reproductive deficit is by having the converse effect in the opposite sex. For example, an allele which makes the bearer attracted to men has an obvious reproductive advantage to women. If it appears in a man's genetic code it will code for same-sex attraction, but so long as this happens rarely the allele still has a net evolutionary benefit.
There is some evidence for this second theory. Andrea Camperio-Ciani, at the University of Padova in Italy, found that maternal female relatives of gay men have more children than maternal female relatives of straight men. The implication is that there is an unknown mechanism in the X chromosome of men's genetic code which helps women in the family have more babies, but can lead to homosexuality in men. These results haven't been replicated in some ethnic groups - but that doesn't mean they are wrong with regards to the Italian population in Camperio-Ciani's study.
Gay people were 'helpers in the nest'
The fa'afafine of Samoa dislike being called "gay" or "homosexual"
Some researchers believe that to understand the evolution of gay people, we need to look at how they fit into the wider culture.
Paul Vasey's research in Samoa has focused on a theory called kin selection or the "helper in the nest" hypothesis. The idea is that gay people compensate for their lack of children by promoting the reproductive fitness of brothers or sisters, contributing money or performing other uncle-like activities such as babysitting or tutoring. Some of the gay person's genetic code is shared with nieces and nephews and so, the theory goes, the genes which code for sexual orientation still get passed down.
Sceptics have pointed out that since on average people share just 25% of their genetic code with these relatives, they would need to compensate for every child they don't have themselves with two nieces or nephews that wouldn't otherwise have existed. Vasey hasn't yet measured just how much having a homosexual orientation boosts siblings' reproduction rate, but he has established that in Samoa "gay" men spend more time on uncle-like activities than "straight" men.
"No-one was more surprised than me," says Vasey about his findings. His lab had previously shown that gay men in Japan were no more attentive or generous towards their nieces and nephews than straight, childless men and women. The same result has been found in the UK, US and Canada.
Vasey believes that his Samoan result was different because the men he studied there were different. He studied the fa'afafine, who identify as a third gender, dressing as women and having sex with men who regard themselves as "straight". They are a transgender group who do not like to be called "gay" or "homosexual".
Vasey speculates that part of the reason the fa'afafine are more attentive to their nephews and nieces is their acceptance in Samoan culture compared to gay men in the West and Japan ("You can't help your kin if they've rejected you"). But he also believes that there is something about the fa'afafine way of life that means they are more likely to be nurturing towards nieces and nephews, and speculates that he would find similar results in other "third gender" groups around the world.
If this is true, then the helper in the nest theory may partly explain how a genetic trait for same-sex attraction hasn't been selected away. That hypothesis has led Vasey to speculate that the gay men who identify as men and have masculine traits - that is to say, most gay men in the West - are descended from men who had a cross-gendered sexuality.
Gay people do have children
In the US, around 37% of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual people have a child, about 60% of which are biological. According to the Williams Institute, gay couples that have children have an average of two.
These figures may not be high enough to sustain genetic traits specific to this group, but the evolutionary biologist Jeremy Yoder points out in a blog post that for much of modern history gay people haven't been living openly gay lives. Compelled by society to enter marriages and have children, their reproduction rates may have been higher than they are now.
How many gay people have children also depends on how you define being "gay". Many of the "straight" men who have sex with fa'afafine in Samoa go on to get married and have children.
"The category of same-sex sexuality becomes very diffuse when you take a multicultural perspective," says Joan Roughgarden, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Hawaii. "If you go to India, you'll find that if someone says they are 'gay' or 'homosexual' then that immediately identifies them as Western. But that doesn't mean there's no homosexuality there."
Similarly in the West, there is evidence that many people go through a phase of homosexual activity. In the 1940s, US sex researcher Alfred Kinsey found that while just 4% of white men were exclusively gay after adolescence, 10% had a three-year period of gay activity and 37% had gay sex at some point in their lives.
A national survey of sexual attitudes in the UK last year came up with lower figures. Some 16% of women said they had had a sexual experience with another woman (8% had genital contact), and 7% of men said they had had a sexual experience with a man (with 5% having genital contact).
But most scientists researching gay evolution are interested in an ongoing, internal pattern of desire rather than whether people identify as gay or straight or how often people have gay sex. "Sexual identity and sexual behaviours are not good measures of sexual orientation," says Paul Vasey. "Sexual feelings are."
It's not all in the DNA
Qazi Rahman says that alleles coding for same sex attraction only explain some of the variety in human sexuality. Other, naturally varying biological factors come into play, with about one in seven gay men, he says, owing their sexuality to the "big brother effect".
This has nothing to do with George Orwell, but describes the observation that boys with older brothers are significantly more likely to become gay - with every older brother the chance of homosexuality increases by about a third. No-one knows why this is, but one theory is that with each male pregnancy, a woman's body forms an immune reaction to proteins that have a role in the development of the male brain. Since this only comes into play after several siblings have been born - most of whom are heterosexual and go on to have children - this pre-natal quirk hasn't been selected away by evolution.
Exposure to unusual levels of hormone before birth can also affect sexuality. For example, female foetuses exposed to higher levels of testosterone before birth show higher rates of lesbianism later on. Studies show that "butch" lesbian women and men have a smaller difference in length between their index and ring fingers - a marker of pre-natal exposure to testosterone. In "femme" lesbians the difference has been found to be less marked.
Brothers of a different kind - identical twins - also pose a tricky question. Research has found that if an identical twin is gay, there is about a 20% chance that the sibling will have the same sexual orientation. While that's a greater likelihood than random, it's lower than you might expect for two people with the same genetic code.
William Rice, from the University of California Santa Barbara, says that it may be possible to explain this by looking not at our genetic code but at the way it is processed. Rice and his colleagues refer to the emerging field of epigenetics, which studies the "epimarks" that decide which parts of our DNA get switched on or off. Epimarks get passed on to children, but only sometimes. Rice believes that female foetuses employ an epimark that makes them less sensitive to testosterone. Usually it's not inherited, but occasionally it is, leading to same-sex preference in boys.
Dr William Byne, editor-in-chief of the journal LGBT Health, believes sexuality may well be inborn, but thinks it could be more complicated than some scientists believe. He notes that the heritability of homosexuality is similar to that for divorce, but "social science researchers have not… searched for 'divorce genes'. Instead they have focused on heritable personality and temperamental traits that might influence the likelihood of divorce."
For Qazi Rahman, it's the media that oversimplifies genetic theories of sexuality, with their reports of the discovery of "the gay gene". He believes that sexuality involves tens or perhaps hundreds of alleles that will probably take decades to uncover. And even if heterosexual sex is more advantageous in evolutionary terms than gay sex, it's not only gay people whose sexuality is determined by their genes, he says, but straight people too.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26089486
Sidebars, etc, on page.
By William Kremer, BBC World Service
In the last two decades, dozens of scientific papers have been published on the biological origins of homosexuality - another announcement was made last week. It's becoming scientific orthodoxy. But how does it fit with Darwin's theory of evolution?
Macklemore and Ryan Lewis's hit song Same Love, which has become an unofficial anthem of the pro-gay marriage campaign in the US, reflects how many gay people feel about their sexuality.
It mocks those who "think it's a decision, and you can be cured with some treatment and religion - man-made rewiring of a predisposition". A minority of gay people disagree, maintaining that sexuality is a social construct, and they have made a conscious, proud choice to take same-sex partners.
But scientific opinion is with Macklemore. Since the early 1990s, researchers have shown that homosexuality is more common in brothers and relatives on the same maternal line, and a genetic factor is taken to be the cause. Also relevant - although in no way proof - is research identifying physical differences in the brains of adult straight and gay people, and a dizzying array of homosexual behaviour in animals.
But since gay and lesbian people have fewer children than straight people, a problem arises.
"This is a paradox from an evolutionary perspective," says Paul Vasey from the University of Lethbridge in Canada. "How can a trait like male homosexuality, which has a genetic component, persist over evolutionary time if the individuals that carry the genes associated with that trait are not reproducing?"
Scientists don't know the answer to this Darwinian puzzle, but there are several theories. It's possible that different mechanisms may be at work in different people. Most of the theories relate to research on male homosexuality. The evolution of lesbianism is relatively understudied - it may work in a similar way or be completely different.
The genes that code for homosexuality do other things too
The allele - or group of genes - that sometimes codes for homosexual orientation may at other times have a strong reproductive benefit. This would compensate for gay people's lack of reproduction and ensure the continuation of the trait, as non-gay carriers of the gene pass it down.
There are two or more ways this might happen. One possibility is that the allele confers a psychological trait that makes straight men more attractive to women, or straight women more attractive to men. "We know that women tend to like more feminine behavioural features and facial features in their men, and that might be associated with things like good parenting skills or greater empathy," says Qazi Rahman, co-author of Born Gay; The Psychobiology of Sex Orientation. Therefore, the theory goes, a low "dose" of these alleles enhances the carrier's chances of reproductive success. Every now and then a family member receives a larger dose that affects his or her sexual orientation, but the allele still has an overall reproductive advantage.
Another way a "gay allele" might be able to compensate for a reproductive deficit is by having the converse effect in the opposite sex. For example, an allele which makes the bearer attracted to men has an obvious reproductive advantage to women. If it appears in a man's genetic code it will code for same-sex attraction, but so long as this happens rarely the allele still has a net evolutionary benefit.
There is some evidence for this second theory. Andrea Camperio-Ciani, at the University of Padova in Italy, found that maternal female relatives of gay men have more children than maternal female relatives of straight men. The implication is that there is an unknown mechanism in the X chromosome of men's genetic code which helps women in the family have more babies, but can lead to homosexuality in men. These results haven't been replicated in some ethnic groups - but that doesn't mean they are wrong with regards to the Italian population in Camperio-Ciani's study.
Gay people were 'helpers in the nest'
The fa'afafine of Samoa dislike being called "gay" or "homosexual"
Some researchers believe that to understand the evolution of gay people, we need to look at how they fit into the wider culture.
Paul Vasey's research in Samoa has focused on a theory called kin selection or the "helper in the nest" hypothesis. The idea is that gay people compensate for their lack of children by promoting the reproductive fitness of brothers or sisters, contributing money or performing other uncle-like activities such as babysitting or tutoring. Some of the gay person's genetic code is shared with nieces and nephews and so, the theory goes, the genes which code for sexual orientation still get passed down.
Sceptics have pointed out that since on average people share just 25% of their genetic code with these relatives, they would need to compensate for every child they don't have themselves with two nieces or nephews that wouldn't otherwise have existed. Vasey hasn't yet measured just how much having a homosexual orientation boosts siblings' reproduction rate, but he has established that in Samoa "gay" men spend more time on uncle-like activities than "straight" men.
"No-one was more surprised than me," says Vasey about his findings. His lab had previously shown that gay men in Japan were no more attentive or generous towards their nieces and nephews than straight, childless men and women. The same result has been found in the UK, US and Canada.
Vasey believes that his Samoan result was different because the men he studied there were different. He studied the fa'afafine, who identify as a third gender, dressing as women and having sex with men who regard themselves as "straight". They are a transgender group who do not like to be called "gay" or "homosexual".
Vasey speculates that part of the reason the fa'afafine are more attentive to their nephews and nieces is their acceptance in Samoan culture compared to gay men in the West and Japan ("You can't help your kin if they've rejected you"). But he also believes that there is something about the fa'afafine way of life that means they are more likely to be nurturing towards nieces and nephews, and speculates that he would find similar results in other "third gender" groups around the world.
If this is true, then the helper in the nest theory may partly explain how a genetic trait for same-sex attraction hasn't been selected away. That hypothesis has led Vasey to speculate that the gay men who identify as men and have masculine traits - that is to say, most gay men in the West - are descended from men who had a cross-gendered sexuality.
Gay people do have children
In the US, around 37% of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual people have a child, about 60% of which are biological. According to the Williams Institute, gay couples that have children have an average of two.
These figures may not be high enough to sustain genetic traits specific to this group, but the evolutionary biologist Jeremy Yoder points out in a blog post that for much of modern history gay people haven't been living openly gay lives. Compelled by society to enter marriages and have children, their reproduction rates may have been higher than they are now.
How many gay people have children also depends on how you define being "gay". Many of the "straight" men who have sex with fa'afafine in Samoa go on to get married and have children.
"The category of same-sex sexuality becomes very diffuse when you take a multicultural perspective," says Joan Roughgarden, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Hawaii. "If you go to India, you'll find that if someone says they are 'gay' or 'homosexual' then that immediately identifies them as Western. But that doesn't mean there's no homosexuality there."
Similarly in the West, there is evidence that many people go through a phase of homosexual activity. In the 1940s, US sex researcher Alfred Kinsey found that while just 4% of white men were exclusively gay after adolescence, 10% had a three-year period of gay activity and 37% had gay sex at some point in their lives.
A national survey of sexual attitudes in the UK last year came up with lower figures. Some 16% of women said they had had a sexual experience with another woman (8% had genital contact), and 7% of men said they had had a sexual experience with a man (with 5% having genital contact).
But most scientists researching gay evolution are interested in an ongoing, internal pattern of desire rather than whether people identify as gay or straight or how often people have gay sex. "Sexual identity and sexual behaviours are not good measures of sexual orientation," says Paul Vasey. "Sexual feelings are."
It's not all in the DNA
Qazi Rahman says that alleles coding for same sex attraction only explain some of the variety in human sexuality. Other, naturally varying biological factors come into play, with about one in seven gay men, he says, owing their sexuality to the "big brother effect".
This has nothing to do with George Orwell, but describes the observation that boys with older brothers are significantly more likely to become gay - with every older brother the chance of homosexuality increases by about a third. No-one knows why this is, but one theory is that with each male pregnancy, a woman's body forms an immune reaction to proteins that have a role in the development of the male brain. Since this only comes into play after several siblings have been born - most of whom are heterosexual and go on to have children - this pre-natal quirk hasn't been selected away by evolution.
Exposure to unusual levels of hormone before birth can also affect sexuality. For example, female foetuses exposed to higher levels of testosterone before birth show higher rates of lesbianism later on. Studies show that "butch" lesbian women and men have a smaller difference in length between their index and ring fingers - a marker of pre-natal exposure to testosterone. In "femme" lesbians the difference has been found to be less marked.
Brothers of a different kind - identical twins - also pose a tricky question. Research has found that if an identical twin is gay, there is about a 20% chance that the sibling will have the same sexual orientation. While that's a greater likelihood than random, it's lower than you might expect for two people with the same genetic code.
William Rice, from the University of California Santa Barbara, says that it may be possible to explain this by looking not at our genetic code but at the way it is processed. Rice and his colleagues refer to the emerging field of epigenetics, which studies the "epimarks" that decide which parts of our DNA get switched on or off. Epimarks get passed on to children, but only sometimes. Rice believes that female foetuses employ an epimark that makes them less sensitive to testosterone. Usually it's not inherited, but occasionally it is, leading to same-sex preference in boys.
Dr William Byne, editor-in-chief of the journal LGBT Health, believes sexuality may well be inborn, but thinks it could be more complicated than some scientists believe. He notes that the heritability of homosexuality is similar to that for divorce, but "social science researchers have not… searched for 'divorce genes'. Instead they have focused on heritable personality and temperamental traits that might influence the likelihood of divorce."
For Qazi Rahman, it's the media that oversimplifies genetic theories of sexuality, with their reports of the discovery of "the gay gene". He believes that sexuality involves tens or perhaps hundreds of alleles that will probably take decades to uncover. And even if heterosexual sex is more advantageous in evolutionary terms than gay sex, it's not only gay people whose sexuality is determined by their genes, he says, but straight people too.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26089486
Sidebars, etc, on page.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
First picture of young Charles Darwin on HMS Beagle reveals shipmate squabbles
The first and only painting of Charles Darwin on the deck of the Beagle has been identified, experts claim
By Hannah Furness, Arts Correspondent
10:00PM GMT 23 Nov 2015
It was arguably the most important voyage in scientific history, in which Charles Darwin collected the specimens that would inspire his theory of evolution and thus change the world.
But the HMS Beagle’s expedition was not all smooth sailing, according a newly-discovered painting: the first and only picture of Darwin on board.
The picture, which experts confirm depicts Darwin himself, reveals how the crew of the Beagle squabbled over the fossils and botanic specimens beloved by the scientist, with one irate officer complaining the “cursed” items were clogging up the deck.
The watercolour, a cartoon painting by the ship’s official artist, is the first pictorial evidence of the sometimes fractious relationships on board, with Darwin’s daughter previously recalling Wickham had been known to threaten to throw specimens overboard.
The episode can now be seen in full colour, in a lively scene showing The Beagle in action and further evidence that it really happened.
The cartoon is believed to have been painted as a joke to entertain the Beagle shipmates, and was never published in the official records of the expedition.
It disappeared from public view straight away, possibly via the ship’s captain Robert FitzRoy, and has been held in private art collections as a 19th century art curiosity until this year.
Now, however, research has shown it is highly likely to be an original depiction of a young Darwin on the Beagle, the only one known to exist.
It will now be sold by Sotheby’s auction house for an estimate of £70,000, described as “one of the earliest depictions of Darwin, the only image of him on the Beagle, and an exceptionally rare image of him as work as a naturalist”.
Calling it a “sensational” discovery, auctioneers said they were confident it was correctly attributed after researching the artist, dates and details, with cross-referenced information all pointing to the naturalist at work.
Dr Gabriel Heaton, specialist in historic manuscripts at Sotheby’s, said: “This is a wonderful discovery.
“Previously unidentified, it depicts Darwin on the quarterdeck of the Beagle, the ship he went around the world in in the 1830s.
“He’s in the actual process of engaging in his investigations, in natural science. It’s a very special image.”
The watercolour, entitled “Quarter Deck of a Man of War on Diskivery [sic] of interesting Scenes on an Interesting Voyage”, is now known to be by Augustus Earle, the Beagle’s first official shipboard artist tasked with recording the botany, fossils and other specimens en route.
Employed by captain Robert FitzRoy, his other, more serious, pictures were used to illustrate official accounts of the voyage.
This one is now known to have been painted off the coast of Argentina on September 24, 1832, when the fossils depicted are known to have been brought onto the ship.
etc...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...on-HMS-Beagle-reveals-shipmate-squabbles.html
The first and only painting of Charles Darwin on the deck of the Beagle has been identified, experts claim
By Hannah Furness, Arts Correspondent
10:00PM GMT 23 Nov 2015
It was arguably the most important voyage in scientific history, in which Charles Darwin collected the specimens that would inspire his theory of evolution and thus change the world.
But the HMS Beagle’s expedition was not all smooth sailing, according a newly-discovered painting: the first and only picture of Darwin on board.
The picture, which experts confirm depicts Darwin himself, reveals how the crew of the Beagle squabbled over the fossils and botanic specimens beloved by the scientist, with one irate officer complaining the “cursed” items were clogging up the deck.
The watercolour, a cartoon painting by the ship’s official artist, is the first pictorial evidence of the sometimes fractious relationships on board, with Darwin’s daughter previously recalling Wickham had been known to threaten to throw specimens overboard.
The episode can now be seen in full colour, in a lively scene showing The Beagle in action and further evidence that it really happened.
The cartoon is believed to have been painted as a joke to entertain the Beagle shipmates, and was never published in the official records of the expedition.
It disappeared from public view straight away, possibly via the ship’s captain Robert FitzRoy, and has been held in private art collections as a 19th century art curiosity until this year.
Now, however, research has shown it is highly likely to be an original depiction of a young Darwin on the Beagle, the only one known to exist.
It will now be sold by Sotheby’s auction house for an estimate of £70,000, described as “one of the earliest depictions of Darwin, the only image of him on the Beagle, and an exceptionally rare image of him as work as a naturalist”.
Calling it a “sensational” discovery, auctioneers said they were confident it was correctly attributed after researching the artist, dates and details, with cross-referenced information all pointing to the naturalist at work.
Dr Gabriel Heaton, specialist in historic manuscripts at Sotheby’s, said: “This is a wonderful discovery.
“Previously unidentified, it depicts Darwin on the quarterdeck of the Beagle, the ship he went around the world in in the 1830s.
“He’s in the actual process of engaging in his investigations, in natural science. It’s a very special image.”
The watercolour, entitled “Quarter Deck of a Man of War on Diskivery [sic] of interesting Scenes on an Interesting Voyage”, is now known to be by Augustus Earle, the Beagle’s first official shipboard artist tasked with recording the botany, fossils and other specimens en route.
Employed by captain Robert FitzRoy, his other, more serious, pictures were used to illustrate official accounts of the voyage.
This one is now known to have been painted off the coast of Argentina on September 24, 1832, when the fossils depicted are known to have been brought onto the ship.
etc...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...on-HMS-Beagle-reveals-shipmate-squabbles.html
ramonmercado
CyberPunk
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2003
- Messages
- 58,246
- Location
- Eblana
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
How Darwin’s view from his bedroom window ushered in a scientific revolution
The father of evolution tested his theory as he sat watching plants and animals from his window
Robin McKie
Sunday 19 June 2016 00.05 BST
The room that Charles Darwin used to monitor his revolutionary biological experiments has been recreated more than 100 years after it was closed and its contents were dispersed. Visitors to Down House, the great scientist’s home in Kent, will now be able to sit in the great bedroom where Darwin once monitored the research that helped him to develop his theory of natural selection.
Curators from English Heritage have used decorators’ inventories, family photographs and paint analysis to recreate the likely wallpaper, carpets, chintz curtains and giant four-poster bed that would have adorned Down House’s great bedroom. There is also a sofa based on the one that Darwin used while listening to his wife, Emma, reading extracts from popular novels, as well as a bookcase that includes a volume of Darwin’s favourite book, Mark Twain’s The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County.
From here, at the back of Down House, Darwin could gaze through a giant three-bay window over its huge gardens and survey the experiments that he had created to test his theories.
“Most great houses have a garden that is merely an addition, though often a spectacular one,” said curator Sarah Moulden. “But at Down, the garden and house were linked inextricably. What was written about and thought about in the house was put into practice in the garden. And it was from the main bedroom that Darwin could best survey what went on outside. That is why it is so important to understanding Darwin.”
Darwin moved into Down House, in the village of Downe near Orpington, in 1842, after his round-the-world trip on HMS Beagle, and he began developing his theory of evolution, carrying out a host of garden experiments to test out his ideas. These included small test plots of dug-up soil that can still be seen from the bedroom. Darwin counted the shoots that struggled to take over the plot.
“He concluded that only about one out of eight plants which started to take over a new plot would make it to the end,” said Rowan Blaik, Down’s head gardener. “It was evidence of the harsh nature of the struggle for survival that lay at his theory’s heart.”
Another example of his bedroom-monitored work is provided by climbing plants. A dozen varieties – including Virginia creepers, Boston ivy and Dutchman’s pipe – cover the walls surrounding its vast bay windows. All were planted by Darwin. “He could sit in his bedroom – which he used frequently as a refuge while suffering from poor health or avoiding unwanted guests – and watch the climbing plants trying to spread in different directions.”
Darwin was also fascinated by the interaction of plants and animals and he carried out careful inventories of populations in the local fields which led him to conceive of the idea of a trophic cascade, in which fluctuations in species numbers have all sorts of unexpected effects,” said Blaik.
“He decided cats could have an impact on the flowers in local fields, for example,” said Blaik. “High cat numbers meant low mice numbers and, in turn, that meant high numbers of bumble bees – because mice destroy bee combs and nests. And, because bees pollinate clover, he argued that we should find more clover in fields where there are lots of cats.”
Darwin also dusted bees with flour so that his children could identify them and follow them through the fields. “From this work, he suggested bees were laying down some kind of chemical trails for other bees to follow,” added Blaik. “We know these today as pheromone trails.”
Darwin died in 1882, and Emma followed in 1896, after which the house was rented out before being turned, in 1907, into a girls’ school. In 1921, the Downe House School for Girls, whose former pupils include Kate and Pippa Middleton, moved to Cold Ash, in Berkshire, while Down House was turned into a museum run by the Natural History Museum before it was taken over, and renovated by English Heritage in 1996.
“The bedroom project now gives visitors an added dimension to understanding the man,” added Moulden.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jun/18/darwin-heritage-down-house-kent
The father of evolution tested his theory as he sat watching plants and animals from his window
Robin McKie
Sunday 19 June 2016 00.05 BST
The room that Charles Darwin used to monitor his revolutionary biological experiments has been recreated more than 100 years after it was closed and its contents were dispersed. Visitors to Down House, the great scientist’s home in Kent, will now be able to sit in the great bedroom where Darwin once monitored the research that helped him to develop his theory of natural selection.
Curators from English Heritage have used decorators’ inventories, family photographs and paint analysis to recreate the likely wallpaper, carpets, chintz curtains and giant four-poster bed that would have adorned Down House’s great bedroom. There is also a sofa based on the one that Darwin used while listening to his wife, Emma, reading extracts from popular novels, as well as a bookcase that includes a volume of Darwin’s favourite book, Mark Twain’s The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County.
From here, at the back of Down House, Darwin could gaze through a giant three-bay window over its huge gardens and survey the experiments that he had created to test his theories.
“Most great houses have a garden that is merely an addition, though often a spectacular one,” said curator Sarah Moulden. “But at Down, the garden and house were linked inextricably. What was written about and thought about in the house was put into practice in the garden. And it was from the main bedroom that Darwin could best survey what went on outside. That is why it is so important to understanding Darwin.”
Darwin moved into Down House, in the village of Downe near Orpington, in 1842, after his round-the-world trip on HMS Beagle, and he began developing his theory of evolution, carrying out a host of garden experiments to test out his ideas. These included small test plots of dug-up soil that can still be seen from the bedroom. Darwin counted the shoots that struggled to take over the plot.
“He concluded that only about one out of eight plants which started to take over a new plot would make it to the end,” said Rowan Blaik, Down’s head gardener. “It was evidence of the harsh nature of the struggle for survival that lay at his theory’s heart.”
Another example of his bedroom-monitored work is provided by climbing plants. A dozen varieties – including Virginia creepers, Boston ivy and Dutchman’s pipe – cover the walls surrounding its vast bay windows. All were planted by Darwin. “He could sit in his bedroom – which he used frequently as a refuge while suffering from poor health or avoiding unwanted guests – and watch the climbing plants trying to spread in different directions.”
Darwin was also fascinated by the interaction of plants and animals and he carried out careful inventories of populations in the local fields which led him to conceive of the idea of a trophic cascade, in which fluctuations in species numbers have all sorts of unexpected effects,” said Blaik.
“He decided cats could have an impact on the flowers in local fields, for example,” said Blaik. “High cat numbers meant low mice numbers and, in turn, that meant high numbers of bumble bees – because mice destroy bee combs and nests. And, because bees pollinate clover, he argued that we should find more clover in fields where there are lots of cats.”
Darwin also dusted bees with flour so that his children could identify them and follow them through the fields. “From this work, he suggested bees were laying down some kind of chemical trails for other bees to follow,” added Blaik. “We know these today as pheromone trails.”
Darwin died in 1882, and Emma followed in 1896, after which the house was rented out before being turned, in 1907, into a girls’ school. In 1921, the Downe House School for Girls, whose former pupils include Kate and Pippa Middleton, moved to Cold Ash, in Berkshire, while Down House was turned into a museum run by the Natural History Museum before it was taken over, and renovated by English Heritage in 1996.
“The bedroom project now gives visitors an added dimension to understanding the man,” added Moulden.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jun/18/darwin-heritage-down-house-kent
PeteByrdie
Privateer in the service of Princess Frideswide
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2014
- Messages
- 3,246
Not the father of evolution of course, but of a theory of natural selection. It's pedantic, I know, but it annoys me people think by attacking Darwin they can eradicate evolution, even though by the time of Darwin and Wallace a theory to explain the mechanism of evolution had become necessary.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
Excellent!
Coal
Account Retired
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2015
- Messages
- 9,852
Awesome.Excellent!
escargot
Disciple of Marduk
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2001
- Messages
- 43,378
- Location
- HM The Tower of London
Hello Darwin my old friend.
I've come to read from you again.
You comfort me when I grow weary
Of people saying 'it's just a theory.
Because a theory is a system of abstractions in our finite minds
of laws behind
the things we find
with science.
And on the internet I saw
a billion people, maybe more.
People clinging to old delusions, people jumping to conclusions
People holding superstitions that obviously are quite absurd
they'd never heard
a single word
of science.
I really think a doctor knows
how a disease like cancer grows.
How did we learn that we might treat it?
How do you think one day we might beat it?
'cos it won't be by taking sugar pills
or standing on one leg, for hours, while eating flowers
but through the powers
of science.
If you have answers and you're sure
they're better than what came before
make your hypothesis and test it.
Take the results that you've collected.
Then you write them in a paper
and submit it for a peer review
it's what we do to check it's
trueeee-ly science.
And the people stood and prayed.
They said: 'our faith can not be swayed'
They have their Views and they won't move them.
They have their Truths and they won't prove them.
They'll take the words of the prophets
over fossils that were really found, beneath the ground.
They don't like the sound
of science.
I've come to read from you again.
You comfort me when I grow weary
Of people saying 'it's just a theory.
Because a theory is a system of abstractions in our finite minds
of laws behind
the things we find
with science.
And on the internet I saw
a billion people, maybe more.
People clinging to old delusions, people jumping to conclusions
People holding superstitions that obviously are quite absurd
they'd never heard
a single word
of science.
I really think a doctor knows
how a disease like cancer grows.
How did we learn that we might treat it?
How do you think one day we might beat it?
'cos it won't be by taking sugar pills
or standing on one leg, for hours, while eating flowers
but through the powers
of science.
If you have answers and you're sure
they're better than what came before
make your hypothesis and test it.
Take the results that you've collected.
Then you write them in a paper
and submit it for a peer review
it's what we do to check it's
trueeee-ly science.
And the people stood and prayed.
They said: 'our faith can not be swayed'
They have their Views and they won't move them.
They have their Truths and they won't prove them.
They'll take the words of the prophets
over fossils that were really found, beneath the ground.
They don't like the sound
of science.
Comfortably Numb
Antediluvian
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2018
- Messages
- 9,008
- Location
- Phone
How the development of skulls and beaks made Darwin's finches one of the most diverse species
Source: phys.org/University of Bristol
Date: 4 February, 2020
Darwin's finches are among the most celebrated examples of adaptive radiation in the evolution of modern vertebrates and now a new study, led by scientists from the University of Bristol, has provided fresh insights into their rapid development and evolutionary success.
Study of the finches has been relevant since the journeys of the HMS Beagle in the 18th century which catalysed some of the first ideas about natural selection in the mind of a young Charles Darwin.
Despite many years of research which has led to a detailed understanding of the biology of these perching birds, including impressive decades-long studies in natural populations, there are still unanswered questions.
Specifically, the factors explaining why this particular group of birds evolved to be much more diverse in species and shapes than other birds evolving alongside them in Galapagos and Cocos islands have remained largely unknown.
A similar phenomenon is that of the honeycreepers endemic to the Hawaiian archipelago. These true finches (unlike Darwin's finches which are finch-like birds belonging to a different family) radiated to achieve an order of magnitude more in species and shapes than the rest of the birds inhabiting those islands.
An international team of researchers from the UK and Spain tackled the question of why the rapid evolution in these birds from a different perspective.
https://phys-org.cdn.ampproject.org...0-02-skulls-beaks-darwin-finches-diverse.html
Source: phys.org/University of Bristol
Date: 4 February, 2020
Darwin's finches are among the most celebrated examples of adaptive radiation in the evolution of modern vertebrates and now a new study, led by scientists from the University of Bristol, has provided fresh insights into their rapid development and evolutionary success.
Study of the finches has been relevant since the journeys of the HMS Beagle in the 18th century which catalysed some of the first ideas about natural selection in the mind of a young Charles Darwin.
Despite many years of research which has led to a detailed understanding of the biology of these perching birds, including impressive decades-long studies in natural populations, there are still unanswered questions.
Specifically, the factors explaining why this particular group of birds evolved to be much more diverse in species and shapes than other birds evolving alongside them in Galapagos and Cocos islands have remained largely unknown.
A similar phenomenon is that of the honeycreepers endemic to the Hawaiian archipelago. These true finches (unlike Darwin's finches which are finch-like birds belonging to a different family) radiated to achieve an order of magnitude more in species and shapes than the rest of the birds inhabiting those islands.
An international team of researchers from the UK and Spain tackled the question of why the rapid evolution in these birds from a different perspective.
https://phys-org.cdn.ampproject.org...0-02-skulls-beaks-darwin-finches-diverse.html
Comfortably Numb
Antediluvian
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2018
- Messages
- 9,008
- Location
- Phone
Was Darwin first? Kind of depends
Source: The Harvard Gazette
Date: 5 March, 2020
Charles Darwin’s original edition of “On the Origin of Species” didn’t include citations, a preface, or other acknowledgement that others’ thoughts may have laid the groundwork for his famed 1859 revolutionary book on his evolutionary ideas.
Then the letters started, as William “Ned” Friedman, Arnold Professor of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, described recently.
Within a month, a stream of correspondence began, pointing out that others had had thoughts on the topic well before 1859. They came from famed scientists and thinkers of the time such as Joseph Hooker, Charles Naudin, Baden Powell, Robert Chambers, and Herbert Spencer. He even got a letter a year before publication, from Alfred Russel Wallace, containing a manuscript that so mirrored Darwin’s ideas that it spurred his friends into action to establish the primacy of Darwin’s theories and jolted Darwin himself into a writing frenzy from which the landmark book emerged.
For the second edition of “On the Origin of Species,” Friedman said, Darwin added a preface recognizing the many authors — 37 from the U.S. and Europe — whose writings on evolution preceded his own, but even that didn’t prove enough. As Darwin’s fame grew, so did the number of those who claimed to have thought of evolution — or at least about it — years before.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/03/was-charles-darwin-first-kind-of-depends/
Source: The Harvard Gazette
Date: 5 March, 2020
Charles Darwin’s original edition of “On the Origin of Species” didn’t include citations, a preface, or other acknowledgement that others’ thoughts may have laid the groundwork for his famed 1859 revolutionary book on his evolutionary ideas.
Then the letters started, as William “Ned” Friedman, Arnold Professor of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, described recently.
Within a month, a stream of correspondence began, pointing out that others had had thoughts on the topic well before 1859. They came from famed scientists and thinkers of the time such as Joseph Hooker, Charles Naudin, Baden Powell, Robert Chambers, and Herbert Spencer. He even got a letter a year before publication, from Alfred Russel Wallace, containing a manuscript that so mirrored Darwin’s ideas that it spurred his friends into action to establish the primacy of Darwin’s theories and jolted Darwin himself into a writing frenzy from which the landmark book emerged.
For the second edition of “On the Origin of Species,” Friedman said, Darwin added a preface recognizing the many authors — 37 from the U.S. and Europe — whose writings on evolution preceded his own, but even that didn’t prove enough. As Darwin’s fame grew, so did the number of those who claimed to have thought of evolution — or at least about it — years before.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/03/was-charles-darwin-first-kind-of-depends/
Comfortably Numb
Antediluvian
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2018
- Messages
- 9,008
- Location
- Phone
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 7,226
Even his grandfather Erasmus Darwin got in on the idea, one of the key things though was the amount of evidence that Darwin had collected on his voyage on The Beagle.
ramonmercado
CyberPunk
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2003
- Messages
- 58,246
- Location
- Eblana
Darwin (Re) Discovery,
Two "stolen" notebooks written by Charles Darwin have been mysteriously returned to Cambridge University, 22 years after they were last seen.
The small leather-bound books are worth many millions of pounds and include the scientist's "tree of life" sketch. Their return comes 15 months after the BBC first highlighted they had gone missing and the library launched a worldwide appeal to find them.
"I feel joyous," the university's librarian Dr Jessica Gardner says.
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-60980288
Two "stolen" notebooks written by Charles Darwin have been mysteriously returned to Cambridge University, 22 years after they were last seen.
The small leather-bound books are worth many millions of pounds and include the scientist's "tree of life" sketch. Their return comes 15 months after the BBC first highlighted they had gone missing and the library launched a worldwide appeal to find them.
"I feel joyous," the university's librarian Dr Jessica Gardner says.
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-60980288
Ronnie Jersey
Justified & Ancient
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2021
- Messages
- 3,043
I find it very interesting that there are several different blood types -
For instance, mine is B positive, which is rare, and first appeared in the Himalayan Mountain region 15,000 years ago, according to scientists, making me definitely Eastern European.
Did Darwin have any comments on blood type evolution?
For instance, mine is B positive, which is rare, and first appeared in the Himalayan Mountain region 15,000 years ago, according to scientists, making me definitely Eastern European.
Did Darwin have any comments on blood type evolution?
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2004
- Messages
- 29,622
- Location
- Out of Bounds
No - at least not in the sense of modern blood typing in medicine.
The phenomenon that motivated research - the occasional dangerous clumping of blood mixed from two individuals - wouldn't be noted and investigated until the beginning of the 20th century. Darwin had been dead for almost 2 decades before the initial clue was formally noted.
kesavaross
Justified & Ancient
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2015
- Messages
- 1,947
- Location
- Brighton, UK
(Transplanted from the Atheism thread)
Then there is the theory of evolution which is full of holes and can never be proven. It's a one off event that can never be reproduced so it cannot be classed as a science or even a theory. A valid theory is, according to science, something that can be reproduced anywhere. Evolution, it can't even be experimented on. It cannot be verified either. Yet people with many letters after their names having spent years studying this and that do so as if they are the authority and because they state evolution is a fact, many accept it just because that person said so. That is not science, it is speculation.
Then there is the theory of evolution which is full of holes and can never be proven. It's a one off event that can never be reproduced so it cannot be classed as a science or even a theory. A valid theory is, according to science, something that can be reproduced anywhere. Evolution, it can't even be experimented on. It cannot be verified either. Yet people with many letters after their names having spent years studying this and that do so as if they are the authority and because they state evolution is a fact, many accept it just because that person said so. That is not science, it is speculation.
Last edited by a moderator:
AmStramGram
Devoted Cultist
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2022
- Messages
- 236
(Transplanted from the Atheism thread)
Kesavaross, I guess that you are not speaking of Darwin's theory of evolution here ? Because this theory comes from observation and can easily be tested (and quite successfully so). For instance, if you put a mix of diverse bacteria in a controlled environment, for instance an oxygen-less environment, only the bacteria who can survive without oxygen will survive. Therefore, after a while, the population of bacteria will have "evolved" and be composed of anaerobic bacteria.
That's roughly what Darwin observed in the Galapagos islands when he noticed that depending on the island, different variants of the same bird species had characteristics which fitted their environment. He advanced the hypothesis that this was the result of a "natural selection" of the fittest population.
Although it is indeed a "theory", on par with many others like Einstenian physics, thermodynamics and so on, it is really sound and hasn't been disproved to this day. In the 19th century, some thought that Darwinism contradicted the Adam & Eve myth, so they perceived it like a direct attack on their faith. However, that was the 19th century ... In most parts of the world, religious authorities ended up admitting its validity (for instance that's the case in the Catholic Church). Unfortunately, there remains some "Creationist" (mainly in American christianity and in the islamic world), who because of a litteral reading of their sacred texts (which in the American case, have been translated from Aramean to Greek to Latin and finally to English - which means they have probably lost part of their original meaning in the process), who consider Darwin's theory as "evil", and therefore spread unsubstantiated propaganda to defile it with baseless claims. To those who give in these claims, I only say : "read the theory, check its effectiveness and you'll realize it is sound".
Kesavaross, I guess that you are not speaking of Darwin's theory of evolution here ? Because this theory comes from observation and can easily be tested (and quite successfully so). For instance, if you put a mix of diverse bacteria in a controlled environment, for instance an oxygen-less environment, only the bacteria who can survive without oxygen will survive. Therefore, after a while, the population of bacteria will have "evolved" and be composed of anaerobic bacteria.
That's roughly what Darwin observed in the Galapagos islands when he noticed that depending on the island, different variants of the same bird species had characteristics which fitted their environment. He advanced the hypothesis that this was the result of a "natural selection" of the fittest population.
Although it is indeed a "theory", on par with many others like Einstenian physics, thermodynamics and so on, it is really sound and hasn't been disproved to this day. In the 19th century, some thought that Darwinism contradicted the Adam & Eve myth, so they perceived it like a direct attack on their faith. However, that was the 19th century ... In most parts of the world, religious authorities ended up admitting its validity (for instance that's the case in the Catholic Church). Unfortunately, there remains some "Creationist" (mainly in American christianity and in the islamic world), who because of a litteral reading of their sacred texts (which in the American case, have been translated from Aramean to Greek to Latin and finally to English - which means they have probably lost part of their original meaning in the process), who consider Darwin's theory as "evil", and therefore spread unsubstantiated propaganda to defile it with baseless claims. To those who give in these claims, I only say : "read the theory, check its effectiveness and you'll realize it is sound".
Last edited by a moderator:
kesavaross
Justified & Ancient
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2015
- Messages
- 1,947
- Location
- Brighton, UK
Evolution. The bacteria thing you mentioned, they must have already had that potency to start with otherwise they'd all be dead, if that's the right word. (Somehow 'dead bacteria' doesn't sound right.)
Last edited by a moderator:
Tunn11
Justified & Ancient
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2005
- Messages
- 2,247
- Location
- Under the highest tree top in Kent
I have a question about cave dwelling species. (As ever I'm not sure this is the right place - but many new species are unsurprisingly cave dwellers so it may be appropriate)
We are usually told that they have evolved from creatures that have taken to living in caves and are blind having lost their eyes having no use for them in an environment where there is no natural light.
This seems to me to be a perfect example of Lamarckian rather than Darwinian evolution.
Firstly: there must be no light in their environment from whatever source otherwise the argument for the evolution of the eye would apply, namely that any photosensitive cells would confer an advantage.
Secondly: the loss of sight should ideally confer an advantage over creatures with sight. So are eyes in such a situation a disadvantage, either in terms of energy requirements of the organism for a useless organ or that they can be damaged more easily by blundering about banging into things?
Thirdly: If they do represent a disadvantage then the eyeless state must have arisen from a chance mutation. How likely is that to have happened before the entire population brained itself on unseen cave walls?
There is in some cases an argument that other senses take over the function of eyes in complete darkness, lateral line in fish, etc. But there are other species that AFAIK don’t possess these senses that have still lost their eyes (As well as others that have retained them, but exit from the dark environment such as bats)
So, is anyone out there able to rescue me from the wilderness of Lamarckism and set me back on the path of Darwinism?
We are usually told that they have evolved from creatures that have taken to living in caves and are blind having lost their eyes having no use for them in an environment where there is no natural light.
This seems to me to be a perfect example of Lamarckian rather than Darwinian evolution.
Firstly: there must be no light in their environment from whatever source otherwise the argument for the evolution of the eye would apply, namely that any photosensitive cells would confer an advantage.
Secondly: the loss of sight should ideally confer an advantage over creatures with sight. So are eyes in such a situation a disadvantage, either in terms of energy requirements of the organism for a useless organ or that they can be damaged more easily by blundering about banging into things?
Thirdly: If they do represent a disadvantage then the eyeless state must have arisen from a chance mutation. How likely is that to have happened before the entire population brained itself on unseen cave walls?
There is in some cases an argument that other senses take over the function of eyes in complete darkness, lateral line in fish, etc. But there are other species that AFAIK don’t possess these senses that have still lost their eyes (As well as others that have retained them, but exit from the dark environment such as bats)
So, is anyone out there able to rescue me from the wilderness of Lamarckism and set me back on the path of Darwinism?
AmStramGram
Devoted Cultist
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2022
- Messages
- 236
Of course, the bacteria who survive are those who have the potential to survive.
All living beings are subject to DNA mutations, or original combinations of DNA characteristics (through the conjonction of parental DNA) along time, at the time of conception and during life. Non viable mutations lead to death (ex : cancer or disabilities). Viable one can be kept.
The pressure of the environment favours those who have the more useful mutations. They not only survive but strive and that's how populations "evolve" or disappear. The bacteria experiment I suggested is simply a way to observe the result of the environmental pressure. If you carry it out out for a long time, you will also observe how mutations affect bacteria populations over time. The combination of both processes is what we call "evolution".
To hasten the process, you may favour mutations through a bombardement of X rays, and witness "evolution in action". But that starts to get dangerous ! I wouldn't try this at home !
Last edited by a moderator: