DOCSLIB.ORG

27/4 Spring Bookssc

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
27/4 Spring Bookssc spring books of parrots and humans. On the credit side, Pepperberg gives an excellent justification for her training procedures, the descriptions of the results are detailed and lucid, and, best of DAVID NEWTON DAVID all, the interpretations are calm and consid- ered. Pepperberg is well aware of Occam’s razor and is careful not to indulge in ridicu- lous overinterpretations. One might none- theless wonder what exactly was the point of this labour of love. To misquote Ludwig Wittgenstein, what would a parrot tell us if it could talk? Not a lot, seems to be the answer. Is a research programme to teach human speech to parrots likely to lead to deeper insights than one devoted to teaching us the calls and songs of the parrot? Pepperberg’s justification is that her data might help to improve the lives of captive parrots, “prevent habitat destruction and capture of birds in the wild, or enable researchers to develop better animal models for various human dysfunctions”. I hope she’s right. I John C. Marshall is in the Neuropsychology Unit, University Department of Clinical Neurology, Radcliffe Infirmary, Woodstock Road, Oxford OX2 6HE, UK. evolutionary biology since 1882, and Dar- genetic processes, primarily unequal crossing win, for his part, supplies appreciative yet over and gene conversion. Molecular drive is, inquisitive responses. in Dover’s words, an “umbrella term” cover- Things start rather formally — it’s “My ing these and other “non-Mendelian mecha- Dear Dover … Ever your most truly, Charles nisms of inheritance”. Communications Darwin” to begin with — but become Does molecular drive really rank beside increasingly chummy as the correspondence selection and drift as one of the primary from the dead develops — it’s “Dear Gabby…. Your most determinants of evolutionary change? Dear Mr Darwin: Letters on the sincere friend, Chas. Darwin” by the end. The Hardly. Darwin distinguished between two Evolution of Life and Human gimmick is almost painfully cute, but Dover fundamental aspects of the evolutionary Nature handles it deftly: he is not unduly deferential, process: the genesis of variation, and the sub- by Gabriel Dover and his Darwin not overly impressed by what sequent fate of that variation. In creating new Weidenfeld & Nicolson: 2000. 268 pp. £20 Dover has to say. The result is a quirky but configurations of existing genetic variation, A. J. Berry readable account of the Dover perspective on molecular drive definitely contributes to modern evolutionary biology. step one. But does it contribute to step two? In 1876 Charles Darwin contributed £10 — a Darwin’s education, however, is in idio- In principle, a variant can indeed spread substantial amount at that time — to the syncratic hands. At the outset, Darwin must through a gene family by molecular drive, costs of the criminal prosecution of Henry predictably swallow doses of Mendel and especially when there are asymmetries in the Slade, a renowned spiritualist medium. Hardy-Weinberg, but the textbooks are then drive process. For example, gene conversion Slade, his accusers charged, was a fraud, and quickly forsaken when, on the second page of is sometimes ‘biased’ such that an a allele is his séances were merely elaborate exercises in Dover’s second letter, we run into his pet the- more likely to be converted to an A than an A legerdemain. Remarkably, the case pitted the ory, ‘molecular drive’. This, Darwin learns, is, to an a; such a situation may result in a molec- two discoverers of natural selection against along with natural selection and genetic drift, ularly driven increase of the Aallele. each other: Alfred Russel Wallace, author of one of “the three forces of evolution”. Much of But crucially, the ultimate fate of any vari- an approving book on spiritualism, was the the book is dedicated to explicating molecu- ant, whether subject to molecular drive or defence’s star witness. Despite Wallace’s char- lar drive and to justifying its exalted place in not, is determined by its impact on fitness: acterization of the defendant as an “earnest Dover’s pantheon of evolutionary forces. natural selection will intervene if it either inquirer after truth in the department of Nat- Dover introduced the term in the early enhances or diminishes its bearer’s chance of ural Science”, Slade was convicted. Darwin 1980s after DNA-sequencing studies of reproduction. If the variant has no such was delighted; he had no time for the “clever multi-gene families — groups of related impact — it is selectively neutral — then rogues” who preyed upon grieving relatives genes that often sit side by side along chromo- genetic drift is usually the major player, anxious to contact a loved one. somes — had revealed a striking and unex- although molecular drive may sometimes Darwin, who died in 1882, may now have pected evolutionary pattern now known as also play a role. Molecular drive’s contribu- cause to reconsider his attitude towards ‘concerted evolution’. Within a species, all tion to the second phase of the evolutionary posthumous communication as he himself members of a gene family may be identical, or process is thus subordinate to the ‘traditional’ has recently taken to holding forth from at least very similar, whereas between even forces determining the fate of genetic varia- beneath the flagstones of Westminster Abbey. closely related species we see plenty of tion in natural populations. Molecular drive The medium in this case is geneticist Gabriel sequence divergence between homologous is an interesting evolutionary phenomenon, Dover, whose book, Dear Mr Darwin, com- gene families. The homogenization of gene- but it is false advertising to bill it as a third prises a series of letters between Dover and family members within species is caused by major force of evolution. Darwin. Dover brings Darwin up to date on a number of simple and well-understood Dover’s Darwin, whose critical facilities 930 NATURE | VOL 404 | 27 APRIL 2000 | www.nature.com © 2000 Macmillan Magazines Ltd spring books may have been dulled by a century or so we share with chimpanzees. So, suggests product is a slim volume that nevertheless underground, is more readily convinced of Michael Tomasello, we are faced with a packs in a richly articulated and challenging molecular drive’s significance than I am. puzzle: how could human minds vault this model of mind, backed by a wealth of pithily Having scripted Darwin’s endorsement of high so quickly? The question becomes more summarized comparative and develop- his theory, Dover then settles down to enjoy acute if one acknowledges little sign of any mental studies. his new role as Darwin’s speech-writer. accomplishment beyond basic ape mentality At least two-thirds of the book is devoted Responding to a lengthy Dover diatribe until two million years ago or even less. to tracing the origins and development of against Richard Dawkins, whose “selfish Tomasello’s solution — given how far he components of cultural learning in children, genery is genetically misconceived, opera- wants to push the idea — is a radical one. with a particular emphasis on language. This tionally incoherent and seductively danger- Depending on the reader, I suspect it will is a masterly survey, covering pre-linguistic ous”, Darwin reports that he will conscien- elicit excitement, irritation or incredulity. scaffolding for language, the acquisition of tiously hunt up Dawkins’s books in a library: These different reactions may be more or less symbol and syntax use, discourse and the “I hope they are not filed under ‘Science’!”. appropriate according to the evolutionary implications of internalization for other Dear Mr Darwin, however, is not confined timescale Tomasello truly aspires to address. aspects of cognition. to molecular drive and having Darwin say The key proposition is that there was just Certain features of Tomasello’s thesis are nasty things about Richard Dawkins. Dover one critical step in biological evolution which less compelling. He considers the possibility writes at length on recent advances in transformed our ancestors’ capacity to sus- that the vital change may have happened two developmental genetics, and adds his voice to tain culture. A new ‘ratchet’ effect arose, in or even six million years ago. But his argu- those objecting to evolutionary psychology’s which cultural advances were built upon pro- ment appears to neglect enormous changes insistence on attributing every quirk of gressively in a way not seen in the social tradi- in the brain, which has tripled in size since six human behaviour to the action of natural tions of other animals. Human cognition million years ago and roughly doubled in the selection. Given that evolutionary psycholo- would thenceforth become increasingly past two million. It seems more likely that gy is an implicitly genetic theory (a trait must complex and differentiated, eventually whatever elaboration of social and cultural have a genetic basis to be subject to natural achieving modern levels of sophistication practices occurred in this period, it was selection), it is interesting to note that many without need of further biological change. underwritten by equally massive and rapidly of its most persistent critics are geneticists. To see how radical a proposition this is, driven neural changes. Dear Mr Darwin is an engaging tour of consider the case of language. Tomasello is A predominant role for cultural change Dover’s passions, even if some are announced arguing that the structures of our highly elab- becomes more likely in the context of the past with more fanfare than they merit. Let us orated language capacities today have noth- quarter of a million years of Homo sapiens’ hope, however, that Dover’s com- ing to do with the evolution of a dedicated existence. If the greater part of existing lan- munications with Darwin do not and, in some views, highly structured lan- guage structure arose over this period, the create a literary fad based on the guage instinct (he gives short shrift to the idea idea that this happened through cultural harassment of dead scientists.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Gabriel Dover)
    Dear Mr Darwin (Gabriel Dover) Home | Intro | About | Feedback | Prev | Next | Search Steele: Lamarck's Was Signature Darwin Wrong? Molecular Drive: the Third Force in evolution Geneticist Gabriel Dover claims that there is a third force in evolution: 'Molecular Drive' beside natural selection and neutral drift. Molecular drive is operationally distinct from natural selection and neutral drift. According to Dover it explains biological phenomena, such as the 700 copies of a ribosomal RNA gene and the origin of the 173 legs of the centipede, which natural selection and neutral drift alone cannot explain. by Gert Korthof version 1.3 24 Mar 2001 Were Darwin and Mendel both wrong? Molecular Drive is, according to Dover, an important factor in evolution, because it shapes the genomes and forms of organisms. Therefore Neo-Darwinism is incomplete without Molecular Drive. It is no wonder that the spread of novel genes was ascribed to natural selection, because it was the only known process that could promote the spread of novel genes. Dover doesn't reject the existence of natural selection but points out cases where natural selection clearly fails as a mechanism. Molecular drive is a non-Darwinian mechanism because it is independent of selection. We certainly need forces in evolution, since natural selection itself is not a force. It is the passive outcome of other processes. It is not an active process, notwithstanding its name. Natural selection as an explanation is too powerful for its own good. Molecular drive is non-Mendelian because some DNA segments are multiplied disproportional. In Mendelian genetics genes are present in just two copies (one on the maternal and one on the paternal chromosome).
    [Show full text]
  • Completed Thesis
    THE UNIVERSITY OF WINCHESTER Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences Human Uniqueness: Twenty-First Century Perspectives from Theology, Science and Archaeology Josephine Kiddle Bsc (Biology) MA (Religion) Thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy February 2013 This Thesis has been completed as a requirement for a postgraduate research degree of the University of Winchester. The word count is: 89350 THE UNIVERSITY OF WINCHESTER ABSTRACT FOR THESIS Human Uniqueness: Twenty-First Century Perspectives from Theology, Science and Archaeology A project aiming to establish, through the three disciplines, the value of human uniqueness as an integrating factor for science with theology Josephine Kiddle Bsc (Biology) MA (Religion) Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences Doctor of Philosophy February 2013 The theme that underlies the thesis is the challenge presented by science, as it developed from the time of the Enlightenment through the centuries until the present day, to Christian theology. The consequent conflict of ideas is traced in respect of biological science and the traditions of Protestant Christian doctrine, together with the advances of the developing discipline of prehistoric archaeology since the early nineteenth century. The common ground from which disagreement stemmed was the existence of human beings and the uniqueness of the human species as a group amongst all other creatures. With the conflict arising from this challenge, centring on the origin and history of human uniqueness, a rift became established between the disciplines which widened as they progressed through to the twentieth century. It is this separation that the thesis takes up and endeavours to analyse in the light of the influence of advancing science on the blending of philosophical scientific ideas with the elements of Christian faith of former centuries.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Book Review the God Delusion Richard Dawkins New
    Book review The God delusion Richard Dawkins New York, Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006 Renato Zamora Flores* * PhD. Professor, Department of Genetics, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil. “The achievements of theologians don’t do anything, don’t affect anything, don’t mean anything. What makes anyone think that “theology” is a subject at all?” (Richard Dawkins)1 On September 15, 2001, only 4 days after the terrorist attack to the World Trade Center in New York, Richard Dawkins – evolutionary biologist, 65 years, professor of public understanding of science at the University of Oxford – published an incisive article on the renowned English newspaper The Guardian, with the impressive title “Religion’s misguided missiles,” where he stated: “Those people were not mindless and they were certainly not cowards. On the contrary, they had sufficiently effective minds braced with an insane courage, and it would pay us mightily to understand where that courage came from. It came from religion. Religion is also, of course, the underlying source of the divisiveness in the Middle East... To fill a world with religion, or religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used”.2 1 Without losing the courage and creativity that have characterized Dawkins since his first book, The selfish gene,3 launched 30 years ago, the British scientist now launches a dense and solid critical work on the logical and scientific bases of religious thinking: The God delusion. The title is a bit more sarcastic than it looks.
    [Show full text]
  • The Strange Survival and Apparent Resurgence of Sociobiology
    This is a repository copy of The strange survival and apparent resurgence of sociobiology. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/118157/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Dennis, A. orcid.org/0000-0003-4625-1123 (2018) The strange survival and apparent resurgence of sociobiology. History of the Human Sciences, 31 (1). pp. 19-35. ISSN 0952- 6951 https://doi.org/10.1177/0952695117735966 Dennis A. The strange survival and apparent resurgence of sociobiology. History of the Human Sciences. 2018;31(1):19-35. Copyright © 2017 The Author(s). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0952695117735966. Article available under the terms of the CC- BY-NC-ND licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Reuse This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND) licence. This licence only allows you to download this work and share it with others as long as you credit the authors, but you can’t change the article in any way or use it commercially. More information and the full terms of the licence here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ The strange survival and apparent resurgence of sociobiology Abstract A recent dispute between Richard Dawkins and Edward O. Wilson concerning fundamental concepts in sociobiology is examined.
    [Show full text]
  • 1. a Dangerous Idea
    About This Guide This guide is intended to assist in the use of the DVD Daniel Dennett, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea. The following pages provide an organizational schema for the DVD along with general notes for each section, key quotes from the DVD,and suggested discussion questions relevant to the section. The program is divided into seven parts, each clearly distinguished by a section title during the program. Contents Seven-Part DVD A Dangerous Idea. 3 Darwin’s Inversion . 4 Cranes: Getting Here from There . 8 Fruits of the Tree of Life . 11 Humans without Skyhooks . 13 Gradualism . 17 Memetic Revolution . 20 Articles by Daniel Dennett Could There Be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?. 25 From Typo to Thinko: When Evolution Graduated to Semantic Norms. 33 In Darwin’s Wake, Where Am I?. 41 2 Darwin's Dangerous Idea 1. A Dangerous Idea Dennett considers Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection the best single idea that anyone ever had.But it has also turned out to be a dangerous one. Science has accepted the theory as the most accurate explanation of the intricate design of living beings,but when it was first proposed,and again in recent times,the theory has met with a backlash from many people.What makes evolution so threatening,when theories in physics and chemistry seem so harmless? One problem with the introduction of Darwin’s great idea is that almost no one was prepared for such a revolutionary view of creation. Dennett gives an analogy between this inversion and Sweden’s change in driving direction: I’m going to imagine, would it be dangerous if tomorrow the people in Great Britain started driving on the right? It would be a really dangerous place to be because they’ve been driving on the left all these years….
    [Show full text]
  • Richard Dawkins
    RICHARD DAWKINS HOW A SCIENTIST CHANGED THE WAY WE THINK Reflections by scientists, writers, and philosophers Edited by ALAN GRAFEN AND MARK RIDLEY 1 3 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford ox2 6dp Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With offices in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York © Oxford University Press 2006 with the exception of To Rise Above © Marek Kohn 2006 and Every Indication of Inadvertent Solicitude © Philip Pullman 2006 The moral rights of the authors have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) First published 2006 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should
    [Show full text]
  • What, If Anything, Is a Darwinian Anthropology?
    JONATHAN MARKS What, if anything, is a Darwinian anthropology? Not too many years ago, I was scanning the job advertisements in anthropology and stumbled upon one for a faculty post in a fairly distinguished department in California. The ad specified that they were looking for someone who ‘studied culture from an evolutionary perspective’. I was struck by that, because it seemed to me that the alternative would be a creationist perspective, and I had never heard of anyone in this century who did that. Obviously my initial reading was incorrect. That department specifically wanted someone with a particular methodological and ideo- logical orientation; ‘evolutionary perspective’ was there as a code for something else. It has fascinated me for a number of years that Darwin stands as a very powerful symbol in biology. On the one hand, he represents the progressive aspect of science in its perpetual struggle against the perceived oppressive forces of Christianity (Larson 1997); and on the other, he represents as well the prevailing stodgy and stultified scientific orthodoxy against which any new bold and original theory must cast itself (Gould 1980). Proponents of the neutral theory (King and Jukes 1969) or of punctuated equilibria (Eldredge 1985) represented themselves as Darwinists to the outside worlds, and as anti-Darwinists to the inside world. Thus, Darwinism can be both the new and improved ideology you should bring home today, and is also the superseded Brand X ideology. That is indeed a powerful metaphor, to represent something as well as its opposite. Curiously, nobody ever told me in my scientific training that scientific progress was somehow predicated on the development of powerful metaphors.
    [Show full text]
  • Ten Misunderstandings About Evolution a Very Brief Guide for the Curious and the Confused by Dr
    Ten Misunderstandings About Evolution A Very Brief Guide for the Curious and the Confused By Dr. Mike Webster, Dept. of Neurobiology and Behavior, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Cornell University ([email protected]); February 2010 The current debate over evolution and “intelligent design” (ID) is being driven by a relatively small group of individuals who object to the theory of evolution for religious reasons. The debate is fueled, though, by misunderstandings on the part of the American public about what evolutionary biology is and what it says. These misunderstandings are exploited by proponents of ID, intentionally or not, and are often echoed in the media. In this booklet I briefly outline and explain 10 of the most common (and serious) misunderstandings. It is impossible to treat each point thoroughly in this limited space; I encourage you to read further on these topics and also by visiting the websites given on the resource sheet. In addition, I am happy to send a somewhat expanded version of this booklet to anybody who is interested – just send me an email to ask for one! What are the misunderstandings? 1. Evolution is progressive improvement of species Evolution, particularly human evolution, is often pictured in textbooks as a string of organisms marching in single file from “simple” organisms (usually a single celled organism or a monkey) on one side of the page and advancing to “complex” organisms on the opposite side of the page (almost invariably a human being). We have all seen this enduring image and likely have some version of it burned into our brains.
    [Show full text]
  • Darwins-Corrosive-Idea.Pdf
    This report was prepared and published by Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, a non-profit, non-partisan educational and research organization. The Center’s mission is to advance the understanding that human beings and nature are the result of intelligent design rather than a blind and undirected process. We seek long-term scientific and cultural change through cutting-edge scientific research and scholarship; education and training of young leaders; communication to the general public; and advocacy of academic freedom and free speech for scientists, teachers, and students. For more information about the Center, visit www.discovery.org/id. FOR FREE RESOURCES ABOUT SCIENCE AND FAITH, VISIT WWW.SCIENCEANDGOD.ORG/RESOURCES. PUBLISHED NOVEMBER, 2016. © 2016 BY DISCOVERY INSTITUTE. DARWIN’S CORROSIVE IDEA The Impact of Evolution on Attitudes about Faith, Ethics, and Human Uniqueness John G. West, PhD* EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In his influential book Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, have asked about the impact of science on a person’s philosopher Daniel Dennett praised Darwinian religious faith typically have not explored the evolution for being a “universal acid” that dissolves impact of specific scientific ideas such as Darwinian traditional religious and moral beliefs.1 Evolution- evolution.5 ary biologist Richard Dawkins has similarly praised In order to gain insights into the impact of Darwin for making “it possible to be an intellect- specific scientific ideas on popular beliefs about ually fulfilled atheist.”2 Although numerous studies God and ethics, Discovery Institute conducted a have documented the influence of Darwinian nationwide survey of a representative sample of theory and other scientific ideas on the views of 3,664 American adults.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Causal Processes in the Neutral and Nearly Neutral Theories
    Dartmouth College Dartmouth Digital Commons Dartmouth Scholarship Faculty Work 12-2008 The Role of Causal Processes in the Neutral and Nearly Neutral Theories Michael R. Dietrich Dartmouth College Roberta L. Millstein University of California, Davis Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.dartmouth.edu/facoa Part of the Biology Commons, Evolution Commons, and the Philosophy of Science Commons Dartmouth Digital Commons Citation Dietrich, Michael R. and Millstein, Roberta L., "The Role of Causal Processes in the Neutral and Nearly Neutral Theories" (2008). Dartmouth Scholarship. 1906. https://digitalcommons.dartmouth.edu/facoa/1906 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Work at Dartmouth Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dartmouth Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Dartmouth Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Role of Causal Processes in the Neutral and Nearly Neutral Theories Michael R. Dietrich and Roberta L. Millstein† The neutral and nearly neutral theories of molecular evolution are sometimes char- acterized as theories about drift alone, where drift is described solely as an outcome, rather than a process. We argue, however, that both selection and drift, as causal processes, are integral parts of both theories. However, the nearly neutral theory ex- plicitly recognizes alleles and/or molecular substitutions that, while engaging in weakly selected causal processes, exhibit outcomes thought to be characteristic of random drift. A narrow focus on outcomes obscures the significant role of weakly selected causal processes in the nearly neutral theory. 1. Introduction. Gabriel Dover once complained that being nearly neutral is like being “just a little bit pregnant” (Dover 1997, 91).
    [Show full text]
  • Dawkins on Nowak Et Al. and Kin Selection « Why Evolution Is True 25/03/2011 10:17
    Big dust-up about kin selection « Why Evolution Is True 25/03/2011 10:19 Why Evolution Is True « Bummer Peregrinations » Book Links « Home Big dust-up about kin selection About the Author Search About the Book Excerpt Find » Last August I wrote about a new paper in Nature by three Harvard Research Interests biologists, Martin Nowak, Corina Tarnita, and Edward O. Wilson. Their Reviews Meta paper was, as I called it, a “misguided attack on kin selection,” referring Register Log in to the form of selection in which the reproductive success of a gene Buy the Book (usually a gene that affects behavior) is influenced not only by its effects Amazon.co.uk Links on its carrier, but also by its effects on related individuals (kin) carrying Amazon.com the same gene. This idea, introduced to evolutionary biology by George All posts Barnes & Noble All comments Price and W. D. Hamilton, has been enormously productive, explaining all Borders sorts of things from parental care and parent-offspring conflict to sex Indie Bound Email Subscription ratios in animals and, perhaps most important, the evolution of “altruism.” Nowak et al.’s paper attacked the idea that this form of Enter your email address to selection—based on a gene’s “inclusive fitness”—was important in subscribe to this blog and explaining anything; indeed, they didn’t even see kin selection as a form receive notifications of new of natural selection. My original post details most of my objections to posts by email. their paper. Now, seven months later, Nature has published a spate of objections to the Nowak et al paper: there are five critiques and a response to them by Nowak et al.
    [Show full text]
  • How a Generation Was Misled About Natural Selection
    Gabora, L. (2011). How a Generation Was Misled About Natural Selection. Psychology Today (online). http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mindbloggling How a Generation Was Misled About Natural Selection Subtitle: Natural Selection: How it Works, How it Applies to Culture Liane Gabora Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia Okanagan Campus, Arts Building, 333 University Way, Kelowna BC, V1V 1V7, CANADA For 'Mindbloggling' column, Psychology Today Abstract This article explains how natural selection works and how it has been inappropriately applied to the description of cultural change. It proposes an alternative evolutionary explanation for cultural evolution that describes it in terms of communal exchange. When science is explained to the general public it is necessary to simplify. Inevitably details get left out, details that some consider important, and the ‘sexy' parts of the story get played up. But so long as the overall picture is more or less right, scientists generally appreciate the efforts of popular science writers, the press, and in some cases their fellow colleagues, to make their work accessible to a wider audience. The public in turn benefits from the opportunity to see the world they live in from a new perspective, and consider questions they might not otherwise have considered. Sometimes, though, the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater. The ‘babyless' version of a scientific story may be a hit nonetheless. Unless one has advanced training in a highly specialized area of a scientific discipline, it may appear to make sense. In most cases, the 1 misrepresentation of science doesn't make much difference; life goes on as normal.
    [Show full text]