DOCSLIB.ORG

Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution Is Wrong/By Jonathan Wells

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution Is Wrong/By Jonathan Wells ON SCIENCE OR MYTH? Whymuch of what we teach about evolution is wrong Icons ofEvolution About the Author Jonathan Wells is no stranger to controversy. After spending two years in the U.S. Ar my from 1964 to 1966, he entered the University of California at Berkeley to become a science teacher. When the Army called him back from reser ve status in 1968, he chose to go to prison rather than continue to serve during the Vietnam War. He subsequently earned a Ph.D. in religious studies at Yale University, where he wrote a book about the nineteenth­ century Darwinian controversies. In 1989 he returned to Berkeley to earn a second Ph.D., this time in molecular and cell biology. He is now a senior fellow at Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (www.discovery.org/ crsc) in Seattle, where he lives with his wife, two children, and mother. He still hopes to become a science teacher. Icons ofEvolution Science or Myth? Why Much oJWhat We TeachAbout Evolution Is Wrong JONATHAN WELLS ILLUSTRATED BY JODY F. SJOGREN IIIIDIDIREGNERY 11MPUBLISHING, INC. An EaglePublishing Company • Washington, IX Copyright © 2000 by Jonathan Wells All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or trans­ mitted in any form or by any means electronic or mechanical, including pho­ tocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system now known or to be invented, without permission in writing from the publisher, except by a reviewer who wishes to quote brief passages in connection with a review written for inclusion in a magazine, newspaper, or broadcast. First paperback edition 2002 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Wells, Jonathan. Icons of evolution: science or myth?: why much of what we teach about evolution is wrong/by Jonathan Wells. p. em. ISBN 0-895 26-200-2 1. Evolution (Biology) I. Title QH366.2.W4 5 2000 576.8-dc21 00-062544 Published in the United States by Regnery Publishing, Inc. An Eagle Publishing Company One Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 Visit us at www.regnery.com Distributed to the trade by National Book Network 4720-A Boston Way Lanham, MD 20706 Books are available in quantity for promotional or premium use. Write to Director of Special Sales, Regnery Publishing, Inc., One Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20001, for information on discounts and terms or call (202) 216-0600. For Josie and Peter ---------------------- Theiconography <ifpersuasion strikes even closer than words to the core <ifour being. Every demagogue, every humorist, every advertising executive, has known and exploited the evocative power <if a well-chosen picture.... But many <ifour pictures are incarnations <if concepts masquerading as neutral descriptions <ifnature. These are the most potent sources <if conformity, since ideas passing as descriptions lead us to equate the tentative with the unambiguously factual. -Stephen Jay Gould, Ttondeiful Life (New York: W W Norton, 1989, p. 28) Contents Preface Xl Chapter 1 Introduction 1 Chapter 2 The Miller-Urey Experiment 9 Chapter 3 Darwin's Tree ofLife 29 Chapter 4 Homology in Vertebrate Limbs 59 Chapter 5 Haeckel's Embryos 81 Chapter 6 Archaeopteryx: The Missing Link 111 Chapter 7 Peppered Moths 137 Chapter 8 Darwin's Finches 159 Chapter 9 Four-Winged Fruit Flies 177 Chapter 10 Fossil Horses and Directed Evolution 195 Chapter 11 From Ape to Human: The Ultimate Icon 209 Chapter 12 Science or Myth? 229 Appendix I An Evaluation of Ten Recent Biology Textbooks 249 Appendix II Suggested WarningLabels for Biology Textbooks 259 Research �otes 261 Index 333 Preface uring my years as a physical science undergraduate and biol­ D ogy graduate student at the University of California, Berke­ ley, I believed almost everything I read in my textbooks. I knew that the books contained a few misprints and minor factual errors, and I was skeptical of philosophical claims that went beyond the evidence, but I thought that most of what I was being taught was substantially true. As I was finishing my Ph.D. in cell and developmental biology, however, I noticed that all of my textbooks dealing with evolu­ tionary biology contained a blatant misrepresentation: Drawings of vertebrate embryos showing similarities that were supposed to be evidence for descent from a common ancestor. But as an embry­ ologist I knew the drawings were false. Not only did they distort the embryos they purported to show, but they also omitted earlier stages in which the embryos look very different from each other. My assessment of the embryo drawings was confirmed in 1997, when British embryologist Michael Richardson and his colleagues published an article in the journal Anatomy and Embryology, com­ paring the textbook drawings with actual embryos. Richardson was subsequently quoted in the leading American journal Science as saying: "It looks like it's turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology." Xl xii • Preface Yet most people remain unaware of the truth, and even biol­ ogy textbooks published after 1997 continue to carry the faked drawings. Since then, I have discovered that many other textbook illustrations distort the evidence for evolution, too. At first, I found this hard to believe. How could so many textbooks contain so many misrepresentations for so long? Why hadn't they been noticed before? Then I discovered that other biologists have noticed most of them, and have even criticized them in print. But their criticisms have been ignored. The pattern is consistent, and suggests more than simple er ror. At the very least, it suggests that Darwinism encourages distortions of the truth. How many of these distortions are unconscious and how many are deliberate remains to be seen. But the result is clear: Students and the public are being systematically misinformed about the evidence for evolution. This book is about that evidence. To document it, I quote from the peer-reviewed work of hundreds of scientists, most of whom believe in Darwinian evolution. When I quote them, it is not because I want to make it sound as though they reject Darwin's theory; most of them do not. I quote them because they are experts on the evidence. Wherever possible, I have avoided technical language. For those who want more details, I include extensive notes at the end of the book referring to the scientific literature. The notes are not intended to be exhaustive (except where they list sources of quo­ tations), but to aid readers who want to pursue matters further. The chapters are followed by two appendices. The first critically evaluates ten widely-used biology textbooks, from the high school to the graduate level. The second suggests warning labels, like those used on packs of cigarettes, that schools might want to place in their teaching materials to alert students to the misrepresentations. Priface • xm Many people were kind enough to review and comment on the manuscript. Those who assisted me with technical details in the indicated sections or chapters include: Lydia McGrew (Intro­ duction); Dean Kenyon and Royal Tr uman (The Miller-Urey Experiment); John Wiester (the Cambrian explosion, in The Tr ee ofLife); W Ford Doolittle (molecular phylogeny, in The Tr ee of Life); Brian K. Hall (Homology); Ashby Camp and Alan Feduccia (Archaeopteryx); Theodore D. Sargent (Peppered Moths); To ny Jelsma (Darwin's Finches); Edward B. Lewis (genetics of triple mutants, in Four-winged Fruit Flies); and James Graham (human origins, in The Ultimate Icon).Listing these people here does not imply that they endorse my views. On the contrary, many of them will disagree with my conclusions and recommen­ dations. But for these fine people, science is the search for truth, and I am indebted to them for helping me get the facts straight. Of course, any errors that remain are my fault, not theirs. People who patiently read and commented on major portions of the manuscript include (in alphabetical order) To m Bethell, Roberta T. Bidinger, Bruce Chapman, William A. Dembski, David K. DeWolf, Mark Hartwig, Phillip E. Johnson, Paul A. Nelson, Martin Poenie, Jay Wesley Richards, Erica Rogers, Jody F. Sjogren (who also did most of the illustrations), Lucy P. Wells, and John G. West, Jr. Some of these readers helped me with scientific content, but all of them helped me to make the book readable. If there are still errors or rough spots, it is because I failed to follow all of their excellent advice. I am grateful for research assistance from many people, espe­ cially Winslow G. Gerrish and William Kvasnikoff, and from staff members of the Natural Sciences and Health SciencesLibraries at the University of Washington, Seattle. Research funding for the book was generously provided by the Center for the Renewal of xtv • Priface Science and Culture (www.crsc.org), a project of the Discovery Institute in Seattle. In addition to the people named above, other scientists at uni­ versities in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom helped with various parts of the manuscript, but prefer to remain anonymous. In several cases, they chose anonymity because their careers might suffer at the hands of people who strongly disagree with the conclusions of this book. For those scientists, public acknowledgment will have to wait. Seattle, Washington July 2000 CHAPTER I Introduction " cience is the search for the truth," wrote chemist Linus Paul- S ing, winner of two Nobel prizes. Bruce Alberts, current president of the U. S. National Academy of Sciences, agrees. "Science and lies cannot coexist," said Alberts in May 2000, quoting Israeli statesman Shimon Peres. "You don't have a scientific lie, and you cannot lie scientifically. Science is basi­ cally the search of truth." For most people, the opposite of science is myth.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Origin and Early Evolution of Dinosaurs
    Biol. Rev. (2010), 85, pp. 55–110. 55 doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.2009.00094.x The origin and early evolution of dinosaurs Max C. Langer1∗,MartinD.Ezcurra2, Jonathas S. Bittencourt1 and Fernando E. Novas2,3 1Departamento de Biologia, FFCLRP, Universidade de S˜ao Paulo; Av. Bandeirantes 3900, Ribeir˜ao Preto-SP, Brazil 2Laboratorio de Anatomia Comparada y Evoluci´on de los Vertebrados, Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales ‘‘Bernardino Rivadavia’’, Avda. Angel Gallardo 470, Cdad. de Buenos Aires, Argentina 3CONICET (Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cient´ıficas y T´ecnicas); Avda. Rivadavia 1917 - Cdad. de Buenos Aires, Argentina (Received 28 November 2008; revised 09 July 2009; accepted 14 July 2009) ABSTRACT The oldest unequivocal records of Dinosauria were unearthed from Late Triassic rocks (approximately 230 Ma) accumulated over extensional rift basins in southwestern Pangea. The better known of these are Herrerasaurus ischigualastensis, Pisanosaurus mertii, Eoraptor lunensis,andPanphagia protos from the Ischigualasto Formation, Argentina, and Staurikosaurus pricei and Saturnalia tupiniquim from the Santa Maria Formation, Brazil. No uncontroversial dinosaur body fossils are known from older strata, but the Middle Triassic origin of the lineage may be inferred from both the footprint record and its sister-group relation to Ladinian basal dinosauromorphs. These include the typical Marasuchus lilloensis, more basal forms such as Lagerpeton and Dromomeron, as well as silesaurids: a possibly monophyletic group composed of Mid-Late Triassic forms that may represent immediate sister taxa to dinosaurs. The first phylogenetic definition to fit the current understanding of Dinosauria as a node-based taxon solely composed of mutually exclusive Saurischia and Ornithischia was given as ‘‘all descendants of the most recent common ancestor of birds and Triceratops’’.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Why Darwin Matters Matters Why Darwin Matters: the Case Against Intelligent Design, by Michael Shermer
    Evo Edu Outreach DOI 10.1007/s12052-008-0109-9 BOOK REVIEW Why Why Darwin Matters Matters Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design, by Michael Shermer. New York: Henry Holt, 2006. Pp. xxii + 199. S/b $14.00 Tania Lombrozo # The Author(s) 2008. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com The first decade of the twenty-first century will be a curious a brief but lucid overview of key evolutionary ideas. He chapter in the future history of evolutionary thought. In emphasizes that the source of resistance to evolution is rarely 2005, resistance to evolution manifested in the highly the scientific details but rather the perceived consequences of publicized trial of Dover, Pennsylvania over teaching evolution: atheism, ethical nihilism, and a lack of meaning. Intelligent Design in public schools. Only four years later, What people care about “is whether teaching evolution will in 2009, universities, museums, and individuals across the make their kids reject God, allow criminals and sinners to globe celebrate the 150th anniversary of the publication of blame their genes for their actions, and generally cause society Darwin’s Origin of Species. Released in the interlude, to fall apart” (p. 25). But according to Shermer, an even Michael Shermer’s Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against greater threat to the theory of evolution is misunderstanding. Intelligent Design takes on the challenge these landmark A large proportion of the public not only misunderstands dates represent: how a thoroughly vetted and accepted evolutionary theory but also aspects of science and the scientific theory can be the source of so much cultural scientific process—for example, that calling evolution a conflict.
    [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]
  • Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Washington University St. Louis: Open Scholarship Washington University Law Review Volume 83 Issue 1 2005 Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution Matthew J. Brauer Princeton University Barbara Forrest Southeastern Louisiana University Steven G. Gey Florida State University Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Education Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, Religion Law Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Matthew J. Brauer, Barbara Forrest, and Steven G. Gey, Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution, 83 WASH. U. L. Q. 1 (2005). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol83/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Washington University Law Quarterly VOLUME 83 NUMBER 1 2005 IS IT SCIENCE YET?: INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONISM AND THE CONSTITUTION MATTHEW J. BRAUER BARBARA FORREST STEVEN G. GEY* TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................................................................................... 3 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • "Critical Analysis of Evolution"; Innovative Lesson Plan Or
    THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION L10H23 “CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF EVOLUTION”; INNOVATIVE LESSON PLAN OR STEALTHY ADVOCACY TOOL? Robert Day, The Ohio State University. Presented at the National Association of Researchers of Science Teaching (NARST) annual conference, San Francisco, CA. April 2006. Abstract: This paper will discuss the ongoing controversy surrounding a particular Ohio Department of Education tenth grade lesson plan titled “Critical Analysis of Evolution” (Ohio Department of Education identification L10H23). The lesson professes to encourage students to “critically examine” evidences for and against evolution and invites them to discuss definitions of some common evolutionary terms and concepts. Proponents insist that this lesson is a thought-provoking exercise in critical thinking and scientific objectively. Critics claim that the lesson is at best, unscientific and at worst, a thinly-veiled attempt to introduce creationist ideas into the classroom in accordance with the so-called “wedge” strategy of certain pro-creationist organizations. A complicating factor is that this lesson plan has been used as the subject of graduate level research on the effect of teaching “the evolution controversy” to Ohio students, and subsequently, this research has been used to support similar initiatives in state hearings outside of Ohio. We will present the findings from a series of surveys conducted with life-science high school teachers, college faculty, and graduate students intended to establish whether or not practicing scientists and science educators agree with the Ohio Board of Education’s assessment that “there is no ID [intelligent design] there”. We will look for trends in the opinions of different sub-populations, identify key differences of opinions between participants and Ohio Board of Education members and suggest possible reasons for any apparent conflicts of opinion.
    [Show full text]
  • Peppered Moths and the Industrial Revolution: Barking up the Wrong Tree? by Avril M
    NATIONAL CENTER FOR CASE STUDY TEACHING IN SCIENCE Peppered Moths and the Industrial Revolution: Barking up the Wrong Tree? by Avril M. Harder1, Janna R. Willoughby1,2, Jaqueline M. Doyle3 Part I – Hypotheses and Predictions The story of how Britain’s Industrial Revolution led to changes in peppered moth coloration is a classic, textbook ex- ample of evolution in action. You might even already be familiar with the plot and the findings of the main researcher of the phenomenon, H.B.D. Kettlewell. Although the peppered moth story has been told and re-told in thousands of biology classrooms, most narratives leave out an important bit of history: after Kettlewell published his results that described changes in morph population frequencies over time, many of his peers questioned the validity of his data. Your first task in this case study will be to put yourself in the place of one of Kettlewell’s contemporaries, evaluate his experimental methods, and decide whether his data support his assertions. Background Biston betularia is a medium-sized, nocturnal moth. Al- though the peppered moth is found across the world, some of the first research on this species was conducted in Great Britain. Before the Industrial Revolution, tree trunks in unpolluted areas were covered with lichens, and peppered moths with light colored wings were well camouflaged against this background (Figure 1). In this environment, light morphs vastly outnumbered dark morphs. During the Industrial Revolution, increasing air pollution led to the formation of acid rain and inhospitable conditions for the lichens. The death of the lichens combined with soot deposition on tree trunks led to an important environmen- tal shift for the moths.
    [Show full text]
  • PRISCUM the Newsletter of the Paleontological Society Volume 13, Number 2, Fall 2004
    PRISCUM The Newsletter of the Paleontological Society Volume 13, Number 2, Fall 2004 Paleontological PRESIDENT’S Society Officers COLUMN: Inside... President Treasurer’s Report 2 William I. Ausich WE NEED YOU! GSA Information 2 President-Elect by William I. Ausich Reviews of PS- David Bottjer Sponsored Sessions 3 Past-President Why are you a member of The Paleontology Portal 5 Patricia H. Kelley The Paleontological Society? In PS Lecture Program 6 Secretary the not too distance past, the Books for Review 9 Roger D. K. Thomas only way to receive a copy of the Journal of Book Reviews 9 Treasurer Paleontology and Paleobiology was to pay your dues Conference Announce- and belong to the Society. I suppose one could Mark E. Patzkowsky have borrowed a copy from a friend or wander over ments 14 JP Managing Editors to the library. However, this was probably done Ann (Nancy) F. Budd with a heavy burden of guilt. Now, as we move Christopher A. Brochu into the digital age of scientific journal publishing, Jonathan Adrain one can have copies of the Journal of Paleontology and Paleobiology transmitted right to your Paleobiology Editors computer. It actually may arrive faster than the Tomasz Baumiller U.S. mail, you do not have to pay anything, and Robyn Burnham you do not even have to walk over to the library. Philip Gingerich No need for shelf space, no hassle, no dues, no Program Coordinator guilt – isn’t the Web great? The Web is great, but the Society needs dues-paying members in order Mark A. Wilson to continue to publish in paper, digitally, or both.
    [Show full text]
  • Did Kettlewell Commit Fraud? Re-Examining The
    www.ssoar.info Did Kettlewell commit fraud? Re-examining the evidence Rudge, David Wÿss Postprint / Postprint Zeitschriftenartikel / journal article Zur Verfügung gestellt in Kooperation mit / provided in cooperation with: www.peerproject.eu Empfohlene Zitierung / Suggested Citation: Rudge, D. W. (2005). Did Kettlewell commit fraud? Re-examining the evidence. Public Understanding of Science, 14(3), 249-268. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662505052890 Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Dieser Text wird unter dem "PEER Licence Agreement zur This document is made available under the "PEER Licence Verfügung" gestellt. Nähere Auskünfte zum PEER-Projekt finden Agreement ". For more Information regarding the PEER-project Sie hier: http://www.peerproject.eu Gewährt wird ein nicht see: http://www.peerproject.eu This document is solely intended exklusives, nicht übertragbares, persönliches und beschränktes for your personal, non-commercial use.All of the copies of Recht auf Nutzung dieses Dokuments. Dieses Dokument this documents must retain all copyright information and other ist ausschließlich für den persönlichen, nicht-kommerziellen information regarding legal protection. You are not allowed to alter Gebrauch bestimmt. Auf sämtlichen Kopien dieses Dokuments this document in any way, to copy it for public or commercial müssen alle Urheberrechtshinweise und sonstigen Hinweise purposes, to exhibit the document in public, to perform, distribute auf gesetzlichen Schutz beibehalten werden. Sie dürfen dieses or otherwise use the document in public. Dokument nicht in irgendeiner Weise abändern, noch dürfen By using this particular document, you accept the above-stated Sie dieses Dokument für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke conditions of use. vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, aufführen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Mit der Verwendung dieses Dokuments erkennen Sie die Nutzungsbedingungen an.
    [Show full text]
  • A Critique of Evolution Within Catholicism and Its
    Approval Page J Donnelly i A CRITIQUE OF EVOLUTION WITHIN CATHOLICISM AND ITS SUBSEQUENT LINKS WITH FUNDAMENTAL CHRISTIANITY JOHN DONNELLY DIP.PHIL., B.D., H.DIP.ED., DIP. MISSION STUDIES, M.ED., FREEDOM BIBLE COLLEGE AND SEMINARY THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE DOCTORAL DISSERTATION COMMITTEE IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DOCTOR OF THEOLOGY DEGREE J Donnelly ii CONTENTS Page Acknowledgements iv Thesis Statement v Introduction 1 PART ONE: EVOLUTION AND CATHOLICISM Chapter 1: A Short History of Evolution Theory 3 Chapter 2: Evolution and Catholicism – The Current Position 34 Chapter 3: Can Evolution Blend with Catholicism? 54 Chapter 4: Why Evolution Can Never Become Part of Catholic Doctrine 66 Chapter 5: Why Catholics Should Reject Evolution 91 PART TWO: SOME PHILOSOPHICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND EFFECTS OF EVOLUTION WITHIN CATHOLICISM Chapter 6: Why Evolution is Pseudoscience – Some Philosophical Considerations 105 Chapter 7: Dangerous Effects of Evolution 130 Chapter 8: A Lesson from History 140 PART THREE: CATHOLICISM AND BIBLICAL CRITICISM – A NEED TO RETURN TO THE SCRIPTURES Chapter 9: Moses and the reliability of the Pentateuch 167 Chapter 10: Two Different Accounts in Genesis? 175 PART FOUR: CONCLUSION Chapter 11: Evolution, Catholicism and Fundamentalism 184 Bibliography 212 J Donnelly iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I owe a huge debt of gratitude to the following people: Amy Joy Reilly who helped me with advice on editing; Vidis my wife who kept encouraging me when things were going slowly, enabling me to recommence; my parents John and Alice who also were a source of encouragement and who goaded me on; my pupils who were so interested in this theme and created even more enthusiasm in me; my daughter Clodagh who has never ceased to ask questions about evolution and kept me on my toes.
    [Show full text]
  • ETD Template
    EXPLAINING EVOLUTIONARY INNOVATION AND NOVELTY: A HISTORICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL STUDY OF BIOLOGICAL CONCEPTS by Alan Christopher Love BS in Biology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1995 MA in Philosophy, University of Pittsburgh, 2002 MA in Biology, Indiana University, Bloomington, 2004 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History and Philosophy of Science University of Pittsburgh 2005 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH FACULTY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES This dissertation was presented by Alan Christopher Love It was defended on June 22, 2005 and approved by Sandra D. Mitchell, PhD Professor of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh Robert C. Olby, PhD Professor of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh Rudolf A. Raff, PhD Professor of Biology, Indiana University, Bloomington Günter P. Wagner, PhD Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Yale University James G. Lennox, PhD Dissertation Director Professor of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh ii Copyright by Alan Christopher Love 2005 iii EXPLAINING EVOLUTIONARY INNOVATION AND NOVELTY: A HISTORICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL STUDY OF BIOLOGICAL CONCEPTS Alan Christopher Love, PhD University of Pittsburgh, 2005 Abstract Explaining evolutionary novelties (such as feathers or neural crest cells) is a central item on the research agenda of evolutionary developmental biology (Evo-devo). Proponents of Evo- devo have claimed that the origin of innovation and novelty constitute a distinct research problem, ignored by evolutionary theory during the latter half of the 20th century, and that Evo- devo as a synthesis of biological disciplines is in a unique position to address this problem.
    [Show full text]
  • See a Color Pdf of This Month's Issue Here
    Newsletter of the University of California Museum of Paleontology UCMP NEWS JAN 2013 New species from the drawers of UCMP A frequent question we get at the museum is whether all our fossils are described. We can assure you there are many, many left to be described, and every year many scientists de- scribe new species and do new research based on fossils they find in our drawers. In 2012, UCMP vertebrate fossils were used in 81 published studies by scientists from around Courtesy of Erica Clites Courtesy of Jason Carr the world, and 13 new taxa were named Erica working on 550-million-year-old fossils Jason sits beside a jacket containing the jaw- from previously undescribed specimens. in the Ediacaran Hills of South Australia bone of a Miocene amphicyonid representing Here’s the new taxa roundup for 2012. while a master’s student in Mary Droser’s lab the largest and most complete fossil carnivoran January—UC alum Samantha Hopkins at UC Riverside. yet recovered in Panama. and her student Jonathan Calede1 described Hesperogaulus shotwelli, a new species of New Museum Scientist Meet Jason Carr, the new horned rodent from Nevada in the Zoologi- Erica Clites to manage fossil preparation lab cal Journal of the Linnean Society. USGS fossil collection manager March—Recent UC graduate Brian 2 Growing up in Ann Arbor, Michigan, Erica Jason Carr grew up along the Central Coast Swartz named Tinirau clackae, a stem tet- Clites says her early training as a scien- of California, in Santa Maria, surrounded rapod from Nevada Devonian in PLoS One.
    [Show full text]
  • The Peppered Moth and Industrial Melanism: Evolution of a Natural Selection Case Study
    Heredity (2013) 110, 207–212 & 2013 Macmillan Publishers Limited All rights reserved 0018-067X/13 www.nature.com/hdy REVIEW The peppered moth and industrial melanism: evolution of a natural selection case study LM Cook1 and IJ Saccheri2 From the outset multiple causes have been suggested for changes in melanic gene frequency in the peppered moth Biston betularia and other industrial melanic moths. These have included higher intrinsic fitness of melanic forms and selective predation for camouflage. The possible existence and origin of heterozygote advantage has been debated. From the 1950s, as a result of experimental evidence, selective predation became the favoured explanation and is undoubtedly the major factor driving the frequency change. However, modelling and monitoring of declining melanic frequencies since the 1970s indicate either that migration rates are much higher than existing direct estimates suggested or else, or in addition, non-visual selection has a role. Recent molecular work on genetics has revealed that the melanic (carbonaria) allele had a single origin in Britain, and that the locus is orthologous to a major wing patterning locus in Heliconius butterflies. New methods of analysis should supply further information on the melanic system and on migration that will complete our understanding of this important example of rapid evolution. Heredity (2013) 110, 207–212; doi:10.1038/hdy.2012.92; published online 5 December 2012 Keywords: Biston betularia; carbonaria gene; mutation; predation; non-visual selection; migration INTRODUCTION EARLY EVIDENCE OF CHANGE The peppered moth Biston betularia (L.) and its melanic mutant will The peppered moth was the most diagrammatic example of the be familiar to readers of Heredity as an example of rapid evolutionary phenomenon of industrial melanism that came to be recognised in change brought about by natural selection in a changing environment, industrial and smoke-blackened parts of England in the mid-nine- evenifthedetailsofthestoryarenot.Infact,thedetailsarelesssimple teenth century.
    [Show full text]