Questions about Evolution
Posted on May 3rd, 2008 by blue collar scientistThis morning, “cls” left a comment on the Expelled Reviews post, which I’d really like to see some discussion of. The comment brings up an issue that has repeatedly dogged me and almost certainly limited my effectiveness as a science educator, and the issue is simply this: I don’t always understand the questions being asked.
Usually, I understand questions asked by someone who is already engaged with the subject and wants to know more about it. Usually, I understand the questions posed by people who don’t know the answers but are engaged in a quest to satisfy their curiosity. But sometimes I run up against a series of questions that I don’t get, and those questions are usually, but not always asked by one of two kinds of people:
- Anti-science people, denialists, etc.
- The profoundly ignorant.
Because I am a scientist, and I know that there’s a lot that I don’t know, when I’m confronted by a question I don’t understand, I usually assume the fault is mine. But that’s not a safe bet when dealing with questions from these two populations. And cls’ comment includes several questions that I just don’t get.
for me, i want to know a few things of the process of evolution:
do the most mixed varieties of living things contain the most genetic
diversity?
I don’t get it. What is a “variety of living thing,” and once that is defined, what does “most mixed” mean? If a friend of mine had said “variety of living thing,” I would probably have understood them to mean a pink rose instead of a red one. But I still wouldn’t know what “most mixed” meant, and I kinda doubt cls is asking about botanical varieties here.
do the most specialized varieties of species have the least genetic diversity?
What does “varieties of species” mean? And how is that different from “variety of living things?” See, from my perspective as an astronomer, this could be (a) a well-established biological term that I don’t know, or (b) meaningless1.
I’m going to guess that the most specialized multi-cellular organisms on the planet are parasites, and that some populations of parasite have greater genetic diversity than some populations of non-parasitic animals. I’d guess that pandas, California condors, and other organisms having very low populations would be less genetically diverse than a healthy population of ticks that are so specialized they need specific hosts to complete their life cycles.
If yes, this means they are usually successful in a specific environment, and then would only survive in that environment?
I kinda get this, and my answer would be that organisms that exploit certain ecological niches would probably have problems if their niche went away, but it doesn’t mean they couldn’t adapt to new conditions. But here I fail to see the connection to genetics or evolutionary biology - this is Ecology 101, stuff that we knew before we knew much of anything about evolution.
does evolution weaken a species when it becomes specialized?
This kind of question just bugs me. To my way of thinking, evolution doesn’t “do” anything. Evolution is just a description of how things happen.
I think maybe the question here is something like “does increasing specialization weaken a species,” and the answer, I think, would be - yes, and no. Some specialized species are on the decline, others are ubiquitously common and obviously very well adapted for their environment. But it kinda depends on how you define your terms - do specialized species go extinct with greater frequency than non-specialized ones? If so, does this mean they are “weak?” Do they speciate with greater frequency? If so, does that mean they are not “weak?” What does weak mean, exactly? From an evolutionary perspective, I would think it would have to do with how long they can keep their genes alive. I’m just not sure the question is meaningful as asked.
does evolution, like inbreeding, pass on weakness?
What?
in specific environments? (sure those too weak die.)
What?
do the mutations in the pesticides and medicines mentioned above do a lot of killing of unwanted living things?
Mutations in pesticides? What? Pesticides aren’t even living things - how can they mutate?
I can almost discern that this question is along these lines: Since organisms can evolve resistance to pesticides/medicines, there must be mutations. Since there were mutations, pesticides/medicines must be mutagenic. Do the mutagenic properties of pesticides/medicines kill organisms?
If this is what that means, the problem is that a substance need not be mutagenic in order for an organism to evolve resistance to it. Mutations happen, period - whether there are mutagens about or not.2 Besides that, a quick scan of encyclopedia articles on pesticides and antibiotics will show that most have their effects through toxic (not mutagenic) properties.
These questions are mixed in with some other musings, which I also don’t get:
whales sometimes use these legs in mating, and
belugas come to shore…
Whales have legs? That’s news to me.3
And belugas do come to shore - to eat. They occasionally get stuck, and they are well adapted4 to surviving the ordeal until the tide comes back in and allows them to swim back out to sea. I’ve witnessed this process myself, and I’m not sure what the point is here.
there are some distinct differences in the
nature of birds and reptiles that may be unlinkable with survival
Unlinkable? What does that word mean in this context?
Even if it means that some birds/reptiles have phenotypic characteristics that are not good for their survival, the answer is “so what?” To survive, an organism need only be good enough to get by. There’s no requirement for hyper-optimization.
This kind of thing is extremely confusing to me. A lot of these questions, on first hearing, sound like complete nonsense. The questions appear to have no meaning, even if you read the dictionary definitions of the words used and apply the normal rules of grammar. They have no meaning in the mundane use of the language, and no apparent meaning as part of a technical vocabulary either.
I guess this comment has gotten me thinking about the issue of who can be reached. From long experience, I’ve learned that antiscience people can’t be talked to. If I’m going head-to-head with antiscience, I’m doing it for the onlookers, so that they have a chance of escaping the stupidity. But the people who actually believe things like the plasma universe5, the Jupiter effect, and other crazy ideas that shouldn’t survive for ten seconds in a reasonably educated and properly functioning mind - these people cannot be reached. At least not by me.
People who ask questions that I don’t get fall into a gray zone to me. Are they unreachable? Or am I just not able to understand the hip new lingo?
- Until defined by the person using it, of course. [↩]
- Besides which, not all evolution works on mutation - selection of favored variations also occurs. [↩]
- I know all about fossil whales with legs, but don’t know how cls would know how they were used sexually. [↩]
- Compared to other whales I’m familiar with. [↩]
- Not the same thing as plasma cosmology - not that the latter is necessarily any good either. [↩]
Tags: antiscience, evolution, questions
May 3rd, 2008 at 8:42 am
You mention two kinds of people that tend to pose questions that you don’t understand:
1. Anti-science people, denialists, etc.
2. The profoundly ignorant.
I would argue that in order to determine whether answering the questions posed would be fruitful or not, would be to first identify which of the two groups they belong to.
Anyone with a firmly held “belief,” specifically if that belief rests on dogmatic principles, will generally be time wasted when answering those questions. There will be a good chance that they are only asking those questions because they are attempting to lead the professional in a particular way so as to deliver their own punch lines.
Of course there is always the chance that one could answer their questions in such a way so as to make them clearly see and understand the other side of the fence to such an extant that they come away from the experience with a wider understanding of the world in which they live. Low probability would be my guess, however.
For the second group, those that are profoundly ignorant of the subject, it’s always worth the attempt provided there is enough time and space to cover the topics needed. Of course the time and space, one would hope, would be the public schools.
May 3rd, 2008 at 3:45 pm
may i propose three subcategories for “profoundly ignorant” here?
first, if profound ignorance is coupled with severe lack of curiosity, the curiosity needs to be piqued first, lest there’s no point.
second, if there is ignorance but unfettered curiosity, a bunch can be done with that it itself.
third, if there is ignorance but curiosity which is not trusted or the student is adverse to pursuing curiosity because they’ve been told or learned it’s bad, as in the first case, that needs to be overcome. if they are really afraid, this needs to be done gently.
May 3rd, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Are they unreachable? Or am I just not able to understand the hip new lingo?
For those whom it would be fruitful to reach, the key may be starting from square one and agreeing on some common terms and concepts. This is time-consuming, of course, if it must be done for each question and each questioner.
May 5th, 2008 at 6:03 am
As an example of the type of mentality one deals with, consider the case of a whackjob calling himself Jon S who comments over at Jason Rosenhouses’ blog at Scienceblogs. Mr. Jon S is a Young Earth Creationist, but that’s only the tip of the iceberg. In addition Mr. Jon S:
1. denies the big bang theory of cosmology, and asserts that Fr. Lemaitre, a Catholic priest, who first showed that Einsteins’ field equations of General Relativity predict it, was not only wrong scientifically but also theologically.
2. denies that there is any such thing as dark energy or dark matter.
3. insists that lions and tyrannosaurs were once vegetarians,
4. claims that homo erectus was a human, and that the Australopithecines were apes
5. claims that the United States is founded on Christian principals, despite the fact that most of the founding fathers were not believing Christians (they were non-Christian theists), and despite the fact that the words Christianity, god, Joshua of Nazareth, etc. appear nowhere in the Constitution,
6. points out that the word creator appears in the Declaration of Independence but provides no evidence that Thomas Jefferson, the author of that document was referring to the Judeo/Christian god (he could hardly have had that particular god in mind as he was neither a believing Christian or a Jew),
7 insists that we didn’t need methodological naturalism to get to the moon, cure disease, invent microcomputers, etc.,
8. denigrates some of the greatest scientists of the 20th century and claims to speak for god in asserting that the latter is not impressed with them.
Anybody who thinks that this clown is reachable by reason is sadly deluded.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Profound ignorance combined with profound inability to use the English language is a double-whammy. This phrase:
in specific environments? (sure those too weak die.)
Caused my English degree to spontaneously combust. It must be the Jupiter Effect.
In my own teachings, I’ve noticed that the profoundly ignorant are often interested in and open to subjects which are otherwise beyond their grasp, when explained to them in a down-to-Earth way. It’s the people who are profoundly ignorant by CHOICE who can’t be satisfied.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
There’s something about the quotations that makes me wonder if maybe English is not the poster’s first language (mutations in the pesticides and so forth). So, maybe a bit of slack is in order?
May 12th, 2008 at 11:48 am
am sorry to be profoundly ignorant or use english
as if it is so.
i hope at least an honest curiosity is observable.
thank you for clarifying the questions i try to ask.
i want to understand if process of evolution is sustainable.
at first look it appears yes. but what i am trying to understand is that if in selection (natural/artificial) organizms are made better or less able to survive future changes to their environment?
is there a limit to the adaptability of organisms? it appears to me the answer is yes. if the environment changed enough then all life would die, yes? i think life may not be able to adapt enough to sustain itself, and this can be tested and this may make me wonder if evolution is theory i can support as to create life and have it exist on our planet for this long. i
i am reading daily to understand what i can of this science, and i have found no good explanation of the origin of life on our planet. the evidence i have been able to read of dna code and mutations and variability has not convinced me yet, but i am trying to keep open mind… seems everyone is strong on the belief they have and very little conversation happens about questions to theories… in this way i think the expelled film was on to something, though they are on to thier thing too.
i read what you write, and try to understand it as well as i can.
i am sorry i made you attack me by my poor questions.
May 12th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Well, I don’t really understand what “sustainable” means here. If it means “evolution can occur over an indefinite period of time,” the answer is obviously yes, it it can.
I guess my answer would be in three parts:
- Some organisms are made better able to survive future changes to their environment.
- Other organisms are made less able to survive future changes to their environment.
- And some organisms change in ways that do not improve or degrade their ability to survive future changes to their environment.
Remember, evolution doesn’t have a goal, and it isn’t prone to achieving any particular outcomes. Evolution is merely the accumulation of small changes over time. The chnages can be good, bad, or neutral, depending on the perspective of the person evaluating them.
I would agree. I don’t think that any organism on Earth could adapt to survive in an environment that was six centimeters away from a detonating nuclear weapon. It seems obvious there are some limits.
Obviously.
Life may not be able to adapt enough to sustain itself if the environment changes in a sufficiently extreme manner, obviously. And yes, this can be tested. But:
Our planetary environment has not changed in such an extreme manner as to kill off all life. What we know of global environmental changes is that some of them have been extreme, some of them have killed off a lot of different species, but none of the changes of which we are aware have been extreme enough to kill off all the different kinds of life on the planet. That’s empirical; what does your support have to do with it? Facts are facts whether we like them or not.
You should be reading origins research, then, not evolution research. Origins research hypothesizes (with evidence) a pre-DNA state of life, and provides a number of ways that this could have arisen. If your reading has exposed you to discussions of DNA and mutations, that’s great, but it has nothing to do with the origins of life. Life utilizing DNA is already quite evolved.
No, there’s plenty of conversation. You just have to become a part of it. Read the peer-reviewed research, or popularized accounts by legitimate science writers like Carl Zimmer.
The Expelled people are amoral liars, who have no connection to science, and have serious problems telling the truth. If you are getting information from them, or their friends, then you’re deeply involved in antiscience superstition. It is your choice whether to join one of the great dialogues of Western Civilization, or consort with a bunch of thugs who haven’t advanced their thinking from the Middle Ages.
May 13th, 2008 at 5:55 am
will read more on origins.
found this site:
http://ldolphin.org/mystery/chapt9.html
also found a site that was offering $1million (50,000/year for 20)
for someone to offer a working, peer reviewed, plausible
explanation for a prebiotic mechanism that could make life.
so i think there is work needed for any solid foot hold.
the prize has been suspended for now. I am still looking, but
to this point the origin of life appears implausible naturalistically.
will return when i find something.
thank you for the conversation.