A Very Darwinian Halloween

| 223 Comments

It’s Halloween, so it’s time for a roundup of the SCARIEST October stories in the evolution versus creationism wars!

Plants doing unnatural things to animals

More than a few works of horror and hyperventilating YouTube videos have been inspired by the Venus Flytrap (Dionaea muscipula), a plant with jaws and “teeth” that has a nasty habit of eating bugs that get too close after being lured in by red coloring and secreted nectar.

The actual plant isn’t very big, and the traps don’t get bigger than a quarter, but imagine what a bug would think, if bugs could think:

VFT_ne1.JPG

The Venus Flytrap: So inviting, yet so dangerous. Source: wikipedia.

Creationists like the Venus Flytrap too! In fact, decades before Michael Behe made the mousetrap and its “irreducible complexity” (IC) a thing, the traditional creationists were arguing that the Venus Flytrap trap was too complex to have evolved gradually, and that it must have been designed instead. I guess they thought God had an inordinate hatred of beetles.

The ID people sometimes venture into the Little Shop of Horrors, for example with this October 14 post on the Discovery Institute website, The Venus Flytrap, an Improbable Wonder that Baffled Darwin.

The Discovery Institute post, by the way, might well be authored by David Coppedge, the young-earth creationist who runs the website Creation-Evolution Headlines and who in 2012 lost a lawsuit against JPL, after a huge amount of drama and rhetoric from the DI. It rather fits his style – quote a new paper, refuse to do any due diligence to look to see if there has ever been any research at all on the evolution of the system in question, and declare victory. The main evidence against it being Coppedge is that it begins with “here in Seattle”, unless Coppedge has moved from LA to Seattle.

In any event, “dcoppedge” has definitely written lots of posts for the DI’s Evolution News and Views (although some of these are by other authors, perhaps indicating a shared account and/or Coppedge doing website work in addition to straight writing). I guess after his JPL loss, Coppedge has been working for the Discovery “we’re not creationists, we swear!” Institute. Strange that he’s not listed as an author anywhere on the DI website. Are they…SCARED? Accuracy of the connection between ID and creationism – the horror!

Anyway, you know who else likes Venus Flytraps? Why, evolutionists. Have a look at the logo for next year’s Evolution 2014 meeting in Raleigh, North Carolina:

evo_2014_logo_banner.jpg

Venus Flytraps are native only to a small region of swampy, coastal North and South Carolina. So that’s one reason to put them on the Evolution 2014 banner. But why that species and not some other endemic species? Obviously, Reason #1 is that flytraps are just awesome, but reason #2 is that Charles Darwin himself realized they were awesome, famously calling the Venus Flytrap “the most wonderful plant in the world.” (I believe this is the original letter, although the Darwin Correspondence Project does not have the full text online yet. The letter was published in Natural History in 1923 by Frank Morton Jones; Harvard Forest has conveniently put the article online at this website, direct PDF link)

Here’s the actual quote, in Darwin’s handwriting!

Jones_1923_NatHist_Most_Wonderful_Plant_letter_quote.png

Here’s the full page of the letter (click to zoom).

Jones_1923_NatHist_Most_Wonderful_Plant_letter_last_page.png

…and Jones (1923) has some great commentary reviewing the correspondence between Darwin, Asa Gray, and Canby, including material on how it was Darwin who figured out that the gaps between the teeth of the Flytrap probably had the function of letting small insects escape, after which the trap could reopen without undergoing an expensive digestion step – whereas large beetles and the like were trapped by their size and doomed to a grisly death and digestion in an acid bath.

Short version of what Gray says to Canby about Darwin:

Darwin has hit it. I wonder you or I never thought of it… Think what a waste if the leaf had to go through all the process of secretion, etc., taking so much time, all for a little gnat. It would not pay. Yet it would have to do it except for this arrangement to let the little flies escape. But when a bigger one is caught he is sure for a good dinner. That is real Darwin! I just wonder you and I never thought of it. But he did.

(Asa Gray, writing to Canby, quoted by Jones 1923, p. 595, emphasis original)

As careful scholars, but not creationists, have long observed: Darwin made important scientific advances in lots of areas, not just the theory of evolution.

There’s another reason evolutionists love Venus Flytraps: we know, basically, how the trap evolved! The basic story is pretty obvious to anyone familiar with the traps of the relatives of Venus Flytraps. The closest relative, Aldrovanda, also has a snap-trap, but an aquatic version. Since Dionaea and all of the other relatives are terrestrial, we can infer that the ancestor of the two snap-traps was all terrestrial, although very likely living in swampy, often-flooded ground, like Dionaea and a great many other carnivorous plants.

The next closest relatives are the species of the genus Drosera, the sundews. They catch their prey by secreting sticky glue; once something is caught in the glue, the leaves slowly curl around the prey and digest the victim. There is a huge amount of variability of the closing times of Drosera (of which there are hundreds of species), ranging from days to minutes. Perhaps being stuck in glue and then waiting for days to be digested would be an even more horrifying end for the hypothetical intelligent bug victim, but it would be decidedly less dramatic for the silver screen.

Even more distant relatives are still carnivorous, but lack motion – they either have sticky leaves without motion (genera Drosophyllum and Triphyophyllum), or are pitcher plants (Nepenthes; interestingly, a few of these are actually “sticky pitchers”, indicating that trapping strategies should not be overly essentialized).

Knowing just this information, the basic story is pretty clear to an evolutionist. In the massive 1989 review book Carnivorous Plants by Juniper et al., which reviewed all work up to that point, but which was published just before molecular phylogenetics took off, the story was clear enough to diagram:

Juniper_etal_1989_Carnivorous_Plants_p303_Dionaea_evo.png

Figure 19 from Juniper et al. (1989), Carnivorous Plants. Shows the evolutionary origin of the Venus flytrap, Dionaea muscipula.

What happened when molecular phylogenetics was applied to carnivorous plants? Well, a new test of the hypothesis was available. Cameron et al. (2002) showed the results:

Cameron_etal_2002_AmJBot_Fig3_evo_Venus_flytrap.gif

Figure 3 from Cameron et al. (2002), showing the phylogeny of the Venus Flytrap (Dionaea) and related carnivorous and non-carnivorous plants.

It’s a simple story: first there were plants that trapped with glue, then some of them added the ability to move, and in one surviving lineage, the moving ability became so advanced that glue secretion was no longer needed, and was lost. If, like your typical lazy creationist advocate, all you look at is the Venus Flytrap and some non-carnivorous plant, then the evolution of the flytrap looks like a complete mystery: how could all of those parts come together at once, and how would you have a functioning trap before all the parts came together? Well, here, we had a part, glue, that was essential early on, but later became redundant and was lost. As Pete Dunkleberg pointed out way back in 2003, this is an example of the “scaffolding” route to an allegedly “irreducibly complex” system.

There is a lot more that could be said about the detailed facts that support this basic model – especially about recent work inter-relating the “slow” motion of leaves (shared between Dionaea and Drosera) and how Dionaea uses the slow motion to set off the fast motion of mechanical “snapping” of the leaf, and how this trick was independently discovered in some Drosera with “snap tentacles” (see this amazing YouTube video, and others).

However, this is Halloween, so we’re going for scary, not endless science details. Here’s what’s scary: guess who figured out the evolution of the Flytrap first? Here’s the quote:

CONCLUDING REMARKS ON THE DROSERACEAE.

The six known genera composing this family have now been described in relation to our present subject, as far as my means have permitted. They all capture insects. This is effected by Drosophyllum, Roridula, and Byblis, solely by the viscid fluid secreted from their glands; by Drosera, through the same means, together with the movements of the tentacles; by Dionaea and Aldrovanda, through the closing of the blades of the leaf. In these two last genera rapid movement makes up for the loss of viscid secretion.

[…]

It is a strange fact that Dionaea, which is one of the most beautifully adapted plants in the vegetable kingdom, should apparently be on the high-road to extinction. This is all the more strange as the organs of Dionaea are more highly differentiated than those of Drosera; its filaments serve exclusively as organs of touch, the lobes for capturing insects, and the glands, when excited, for secretion as well as for absorption; whereas with Drosera the glands serve all these purposes, and secrete without being excited.

[…]

The parent form of Dionaea and Aldrovanda seems to have been closely allied to Drosera, and to have had rounded leaves, supported on distinct footstalks, and furnished with tentacles all round the circumference, with other tentacles and sessile glands on the upper surface.

pp. 355-6, 358, 360

Who came up with this model? Why, it was Chucky Darwin himself, way back in his 1875 book Insectivorous Plants, or approximately 110 years before anyone else thought of it (the next suggestions of this model that I have found are a 1985 short piece by Ian Snyder in Carnivorous Plant Newsletter, followed by the work of Juniper and others, in the book and related articles from the late 1980s).

While we’re on the topic, it is worth noting that Darwin’s Insectivorous Plants was, pretty much, the book that codified the whole idea that “carnivorous plants” were a thing, i.e. a coherent phenomenon worthy of a name and dedicated comparative study. While Hooker and other botanists were of course in the know before this (Darwin’s friend Hooker was the one to do the first big review of pitcher plants, something certainly prearranged by the two of them) it was Darwin’s book that seems to have brought the whole subject to the broad attention of the public, for which the whole idea of plants that moved and ate things was deeply counter-intuitive.

In other words, as Gray said, “Darwin has hit it.”

Or, in creationist translation, “AAAAIIIIEEEEEE!!!! It was Darwin himself who framed the entire phenomenon of carnivorous plants which we are now trying to use against him, and furthermore he answered our question about the origin of the Venus Flytraps trap a hundred years before we thought to ask it. The horror! The horror!”

.

.

The most wonderful barnacle in the world

There’s another interesting passage in Darwin’s Insectivorous Plants in “Concluding Remarks on the Droseraceae”:

There can hardly be a doubt that all the plants belonging to these six genera have the power of dissolving animal matter by the aid of their secretion, which contains an acid, together with a ferment almost identical in nature with pepsin; and that they afterwards absorb the matter thus digested. This is certainly the case with Drosera, Drosophyllum, and Dionaea; almost certainly with Aldrovanda; and, from analogy, very probable with Roridula and Byblis. We can thus understand how it is that the three first-named genera are provided with such small roots, and that Aldrovanda is quite rootless; about the roots of the two other genera nothing is known. It is, no doubt, a surprising fact that a whole group of plants (and, as we shall presently see, some other plants not allied to the Droseraceae) should subsist partly by digesting animal matter, and partly by decomposing carbonic acid, instead of exclusively by this latter means, together with the absorption of matter from the soil by the aid of roots. We have, however, an equally anomalous case in the animal kingdom; the rhizocephalous crustaceans do not feed like other animals by their mouths, for they are destitute of an alimentary canal; but they live by absorbing through root-like processes the juices of the animals on which they are parasitic.*

* Fritz Müller, ‘Facts for Darwin, ‘ Eng. trans. 1869, p. 139. The rhizocephalous crustaceans are allied to the cirripedes. It is hardly possible to imagine a greater difference than that between an animal with prehensile limbs, a well-constructed mouth and alimentary canal, and one destitute of all these organs and feeding by absorption through branching root-like processes. If one rare cirripede, the Anelasma squalicola, had become extinct, it would have been very difficult to conjecture how so enormous a change could have been gradually effected. But, as Fritz Müller remarks, we have in Anelasma an animal in an almost exactly intermediate condition, for it has root-like processes embedded in the skin of the shark on which it is parasitic, and its prehensile cirri and mouth (as described in my monograph on the Lepadidae, ‘Ray Soc.’ 1851, p. 169) are in a most feeble and almost rudimentary condition. Dr. R. Kossmann has given a very interesting discussion on this subject in his ‘Suctoria and Lepadidae,’ 1873. See also, Dr. Dohrn, ‘Der Ursprung der Wirbelthiere,’ 1875, p. 77.

(Darwin (1875), Insectivorous Plants, pp. 356-7).

What the heck is Darwin talking about here? He was talking about carnivorous plants, and then suddenly he’s talking about “rhizocephalous crustaceans…allied to the cirripedes”. Let’s parse this out.

Crustaceans are arthropods; well-known crustaceans include shrimp, crabs, lobsters, barnacles, and very likely insects.

Cirri-pede” means basically “hairy-feet”, and is the technical term for barnacles, which during their larval stage look like fairly normal crustacean with a head, eyes, and legs:

cyprid_barnacle.gif

Cyprid stage of a barnacle (the last stage before sticking to a rock). Source: http://www.mesa.edu.au/friends/seas[…]rnacles.html

What makes barnacles weird is that, instead of growing into free-living, hunting adults like respectable crustaceans, they find a comfy rock, glue their head to it, secrete a shell, and eat by filter-feeding from the water with their feathery legs. The resulting headless adult bears almost no external resemblance to its crustacean relatives.

Long before Darwin caught the carnivorous plant bug, and even before he wrote Origin of Species, he had made himself a world expert on barnacles in a series of monographs on living and fossil barnacles. He did this work between 1846 and 1854 (you can see it here, and a summary of it here), and his was the first major modern work on barnacles, as it was only in the 1830s that zoologists realized that barnacles were arthropods; previously they had been thought to be molluscs. Whoops, wrong phylum! Not everything keeps the “bodyplan” it is supposed to have!

How about “rhizocephalous crustaceans”? Well, “rhizo-cephalous” means basically “root-head”, and rhizocephalous barnacles are root-headed. Normal barnacles, while weird, at least retain a few features of the arthropod bodyplan – mostly the legs they are waving around in the water. Rhizocephalous barnacles long ago took their ancestral bodyplan, murdered it, and threw it in a ditch somewhere. Lacking even legs, the rhizocephalous barnacles stick their heads to larger animals instead of rocks, and proceed to grow roots out of their heads and suck nutrition from the animals they are parasitizing.

Asa Gray, in his book Darwiniana, summarized:

While some plants have stomachs, some animals have roots.

Asa Gray (1876), Darwiniana, p. 323

Being parasitized by the head-roots of some crustacean with low respect for the bodyplan concepts of zoologists probably isn’t fun, but it is common – there are nine whole families of rhizocephalans, specializing on parasitizing all sorts of critters.

Rhizocephalans have been in the news latest due to R.R. Helm’s article on Sacculina, the parasitic castrators of crabs.

Haeckel_Sacculina-600x671.jpg

Haeckel’s drawing of Sacculina rhizoids parasitizing a crab. Source.

Helm captures their biology in the spirit of the season:

Your new tormenter is a member of one of the strangest groups of animals known. The adult female body of the rhizocephalan is twisted and deformed, not resembling in any way its barnacle cousins living on rocks near shore. She has lost her hard shell, her legs, her eyes, and transformed into sickly yellow roots and sinuous twisting filaments that are slowly grow like black mold through your tissues.

[…]

Just when it seems it couldn’t be worse, your abdomen explodes. You’re now sterile, and her gonads are erupting out from where your genitals are. Her tumorous ovaries now attract a male rhizocephalan larva, who injects his own cells into her. These grow into testicles within her body. She now has everything she needs for her next takeover.

But none of this bothers you now. She has woven her threads through your brain. She’s been secreting chemicals to control you-you’ve forgotten who you are. You now believe you are female, and the bulge in your abdomen is a brood of your own eggs. Moreover, you are about to give birth. You care for and clean these eggs, as if they were your own.

Read the link for more.

That’s enough to scare anyone, but I think it’s a particularly scary thing for people with a tendency towards typological views about “phyla” and “bodyplans”. This includes creationists, but also, to a degree, some leading biologists, generally those with precladistic educations. I’ve been on the general “down with phyla!” stump several times before, but Sacculina and the other rhizocephalan barnacles make the point even more directly. For example, the assertion is often made that the “phyla” arose in the Cambrian, and that none arose after that. This is often taken to suggest that the basic animal “bodyplans” arose in the Cambrian, and none arose after that. While it’s clear to me that rates of morphological evolution were higher in the Cambrian, it’s far from clear that “phylum” and “bodyplan” are coherent concepts. What we have is a mixture of concepts – morphological differentness, and monophyletic groups of a certain age. These have been combined in modern usage, basically because almost everyone agrees that named taxa should be natural and not artificial groups; i.e., they should be monophyletic.

What the monophyly requirement does, though, is eliminate any chance of “new bodyplans” being recognized even if they do appear in evolutionary history. For example, if there ever is a case in animal evolution where a “new bodyplan” does arise – something really weird morphologically, that bears no resemblance to the other bodyplans – then, without the monphyly requirement, we would be free to call it a new phylum. Under this situation, we might well discover that new “bodyplans” do originate at some rate, even if the rate is lower than in the Cambrian, and even if it is a somewhat subjective call about what constitutes enough different to constitute a “new” bodyplan.

However, with the monophyly requirement, then as soon as taxonomy advances to the point where the really weird critter is found to be a subset of some other phylum, then the phylum containing the weird critter disappears, as does any chance of a “phylum” originating after the Cambrian! This kind of thing has happened enough times that there is even a list on Wikipedia of “Groups formerly ranked as phyla” (and I’m pretty sure it’s an incomplete list). I assume the artist formerly known as Prince is a fan of these ex-phyla.

To sum up: not only is Sacculina a terrifying monster that will invade an organism’s body, explode its gonads, take over its brain and make it brood more parasites, it also does just about the same thing to the still-popular concepts of “phylum” and “bodyplan”. Creationists and typologists, beware! Eeeeeek!

.

.

The terror of being stuck on a boat with…

I’ve mostly been trying to scare the creationists and the squeamish here, but here’s one for the evolutionists. You know those horror movies where someone is stuck on a boat with a ghost/pirate/murderer/monster?

Well, imagine you’ve signed up for a relaxing summer cruise in Alaska. You will see glaciers and whales and sea otters, and enjoy the beauty of nature and learn a little biology while you’re at it. Then you realize, to your horror, that you are on this boat:

DI_Alaska_Cruise.png

It’s a once-in-a-lifetime chance: participate in a floating conference about intelligent design, with some of the world’s most stunning natural scenery as a backdrop. What better place and what better time – Alaska at the height of summer! – to meet the stars of Discovery Institute and learn in depth about the ultimate questions that science has ever asked: How did the universe begin? How did life arise? How did complex life develop?

Explore these subjects and much more on the first ever Discovery Institute cruise. That’s July 26 to August 2. Make your reservation now!

Join us for a fantastic opportunity to learn about the beauty and design in nature while experiencing it first hand. This weeklong conference will take place on Holland America’s splendid and luxurious Westerdam ship, and will take participants from Seattle to Alaska, and back. Featured speakers will include Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, New York Times bestselling author of Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design, and renowned Oxford University mathematician and author Dr. John Lennox.

We’ll be announcing more speakers in the near future. The theme of the conference will be “Science & Faith: Friends or Foes?”

Space is extremely limited. Reserve your room now to get the best selection and pricing!

(Source: DI, formatting original)

A week trapped on a boat with the stars of the Discovery Institute! Suddenly Sacculina doesn’t look so bad!

.

.

Update 11/5/13:

Joe Felsenstein contributes some additional details on the history of barnacle taxonomy here. Lamarck removed barnacles from molluscs in 1812, but put them in their own independent group. This made both barnacles and molluscs both of rank “Class”. The rank “Phylum” apparently didn’t exist until Haeckel invented it.

(Also fixed some typos. Ugh!)

223 Comments

If one reads Nick’s claims concerning fly traps closely one discovers that he doesn’t provide any evidence of evolution; all he does is identify several similar plants then assumes and asserts that evolution has occurred. Of course this is the main characteristic of evolutionary thinking: assume discovery of similarity to mean evolution has occurred.

Hmm. Why then did the DNA form a tree that confirmed the (((Dionaea, Aldrovanda), Drosera), Drosophyllum) relationship that Darwin postulated 125 years before based on morphology?

Picture a science classroom in a state that passes “teach the controversy” or teach “strength and weaknesses of evolution (but not ID/creationism)” while making it illegal to give failing grades to creationist students who get their teacher-challenging questions from Jack Chick, or AiG, or the DI. That would be a classroom that looks a lot like the Uncommonly Dense site.

Indeed, why do any gene comparisons form nested hierarchies? If as Ray claims, species are immutable, then they are actually not related to each other. And note that the answer is not common design. The nested hierarchy extends to molecular characters that do not affect phenotype. The nested hierarchy extends even to organisms that are not superficially similar morphologically, such as whales and hippos.

Ray hasn’t learned anything in the last hundred and fifty years. The sad thing is that he apparently thinks that no one else has either.

I would suggest that the one post per thread rule to applied to Ray. Otherwise…

Nick Matzke said:

Hmm. Why then did the DNA form a tree that confirmed the (((Dionaea, Aldrovanda), Drosera), Drosophyllum) relationship that Darwin postulated 125 years before based on morphology?

You’re restating your claim, Nick. And I didn’t challenge the data; rather, I challenged your pro-evolutionary interpretation by pointing out that you’re assuming discovery of similarity to mean evolution has (= past tense) occurred. In other words, you’ve established an effect of affinity, yet evolution has not occurred until causation identified, evidenced, and explained. As it sits right now your model for supporting evolution is backwards “effect-and-cause” begging the question. The effect isn’t real until cause is established.

As for your specifics: You cite one phenomenal case where the morphology matched up with the DNA. What about when that does not occur? How is it that cows are closer to whales than horses?

Well Ray, perhaps you can explain the observed pattern. You know, provide a better explanation than evolution for the nested hierarchy. See Ray, the thing is that this is the exact pattern that is predicted by evolution. And actually the causal mechanisms are well known. So until you can come up with a better explanation, you have exactly nothing.

And the genes almost always give the same relationships as morphology. When they don’t give the same answer there are good reasons why they don’t. But then again, you wouldn’t know anything about modern science now would you Ray.

You want scarrry! Just read Darwins second book !! Conclusions and methodology for those conclusions will make even the most Darwin-believer leave the room screaming! I wish a creationist would write a book on Darwins ideas, and research thereto, revealed in his second book. it would shed light on the first. Anyone want to sponsor me?! Probably another best seller creationist book.

Robert Byers said:

Just read Darwins second book !!

And what was his second book, Robby?

I must admit though, that Google results also say that some of C. Luskin’s pieces on the Coppedge case have actually been authored by M. Egnor and J. MacLatchie. I don’t know if this is really likely since otherwise one would have to wonder why two non-lawyers rather than Luskin reported on the case. Maybe they are just using user accounts randomly.

Still, it is remarkable that YEC D. Coppedge has his own user account on the Dicovery-“ID is not creationsm”-Institute’s server.

Agreed that the accounts evidence is confusing. Maybe the “accounts” are some weird guess that google is making independently?

Anyway, there’s no doubt Coppedge is a writer for the DI. E.g., this post from…October 31 is 100% Coppedge’s style:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/1[…]2078571.html

All it’s missing is the YEC spin at the end, Coppedge just suppresses the YEC and puts in some ID spin instead typically.

Evidence of agreement between phylogenies made from different parts of the genome, and from characters in different parts of the organism, is the strongest evidence we have for common ancestry. Stronger than fossils, because we can use it for organisms that hardly ever fossilize, and be completely convincing.

Similar evidence convinced most biologists in the 19th century, so that opposition to common descent basically collapsed in the late 1800s.

Our local creationists are stuck back about 1820 and haven’t gotten the word.

But does any of this explain the DJ on WKRP in Cincinatti? (Not Johnny, the other one.)

Or Cincinnati, even.

Creationist beliefs rest on maintaining the inability to distinguish “similarity” from “nested similarities.”

Ray didn’t respond on a thread below, and I bet he won’t here either.

(I suppose I’ll regret this, but people are already getting tangled up with Ray, so here goes:)

Ray: You probably have a pat answer to this, because the question is so obvious, but I’d like to hear it. How does a “species immutabilist” explain the mutating that we do to species all the time?

I’m especially fond of the enormities of mutation we’ve visited on domestic dogs, from teacup poodles to English bulldogs to Irish wolfhounds. By the usual definition of ‘species’, they would be different species, as the tiny poodle can’t breed with the wolfhound without technological intervention. We consider them all the same species ONLY because we KNOW that we have selectively bred them all from a common ancestor species. It surely seems to me that Canis lupus has proved highly mutable.

We did that. We still do that. Corporations make big money doing that with many species of livestock, crops, ornamentals …even marijuana, for cryin’ out loud!

Explain to me why that isn’t proof and demonstration of the mutability of species.

Or do you deny that selective breeding actually works?

Hi Ray, I think your objection is valid in a sense, but is perhaps somewhat too strict for the “historical” sciences, where there is no opportunity to roll a 10,000- or, in the case of evolution, a many-million-year long film. If one were to apply your criterion to my field, for example, ancient Near Eastern studies, I don’t think I could legitimately conclude that, let’s say, the cuneiform script used in Urartu in the 9th-8th cent. BC was “genetically” related to the very similar script used by Assyria before and during that time. Nonetheless, I am tempted to conclude that a borrowing took place, even though I doubt I will ever be able to point to the exact time, place and causal factors behind such a borrowing. Of course, I remain very open to the possibility that it may have occured in some other way if and when such evidence should become available. Do you see my thoughts on this matter as reasonable, or no? A related question on such “historical” sciences would naturally be, what manner of evidence could a scientist point to in order to construct a convincing case for evolution if the data and argumentation presented above are not sufficient? And in the case of other historical sciences? All the best, Jared

Ray’s idea, which is that “overall similarity” is what is used to classify organisms, is known as phenetics, and was abandoned decades ago in evolutionary biology. Overall similarity reliably represents phylogeny only under the special case of clocklike evolution at constant rates. Although, statistically, it works well enough in many cases, which is why the Linnaean hierarchy, despite its problems, was a good first-order argument for common ancestry, in Darwin’s day and now, and why Darwin was able to figure out the Droseraceae pretty well (note that there are mistakes in the more remote parts of his classification – we now know that Nepenthes is a relative of Droseraceae, and Byblis and Roridula are not)

The reason Hennig is famous is that he pointed out that similarities are of two types – shared ancestral character states (symplesiomorphies) and shared derived character states (synapomorphies). Only the latter are informative about shared history, i.e. phylogenetic relationship. With whales, cows, and horses, synapomorphies in fossil whales actually allow us to group whales and cows (and other artiodactyls) against horses (perissodactyls). Fossil whales with legs, and other artiodactyls, have e.g. a double-pulley astragalus bone in their ankles, and they share features of their skulls and earbones. This was all covered by Kevin Padian in the Dover trial:

http://www.sciohost.org/ncse/kvd/Pa[…].html#whales

So, whales were a case where increased knowledge of the fossil record ended up confirming the relationship of whales within artiodactyls that was suggested first by molecular data (e.g., the whale pseudogene for Hageman factor, one of the components of the “IC” blood-clotting cascade: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9678675 )

The features that cows and horses share – 4 legs, body covered with hair, etc. – are all character states shared much more widely, they do not specifically group cows and horses against everything else. The only way there would be an ambiguity about this would be if a biologist had only 3 species and absolutely no information about anything else. This is an unrealistic situation in real science, it only occurs in the poorly-informed minds of creationists.

Even if Ray or whoever wants to just ignore all of the above, it’s not as if whales went just anywhere in phylogenetic trees. They’ve always been placental mammals, whatever their detailed placement. If some studies said whales were subgroups of ferns, other said they were subgroups of Archaea, and others said they were frogs, THEN we’d have an actual large incongruence. Bouncing around within merely placental mammals is a small incongruence in the grand scheme of things.

Just Bob said:

Ray didn’t respond on a thread below, and I bet he won’t here either.

(I suppose I’ll regret this, but people are already getting tangled up with Ray, so here goes:)

Ray: You probably have a pat answer to this, because the question is so obvious, but I’d like to hear it. How does a “species immutabilist” explain the mutating that we do to species all the time?

I’m especially fond of the enormities of mutation we’ve visited on domestic dogs, from teacup poodles to English bulldogs to Irish wolfhounds. By the usual definition of ‘species’, they would be different species, as the tiny poodle can’t breed with the wolfhound without technological intervention. We consider them all the same species ONLY because we KNOW that we have selectively bred them all from a common ancestor species. It surely seems to me that Canis lupus has proved highly mutable.

We did that. We still do that. Corporations make big money doing that with many species of livestock, crops, ornamentals …even marijuana, for cryin’ out loud!

Explain to me why that isn’t proof and demonstration of the mutability of species.

Or do you deny that selective breeding actually works?

No man, you got it all wrong. It’s not species that are immutable, it”s Ray’s opinion about where they come from, that’s what is incapable of change, regardless if the evidence.

You know what is scary to a believer? The very idea that Behe’s god would design a blood parasite to make us sick.

make that blood-borne

Karen S. said:

You know what is scary to a believer? The very idea that Behe’s god would design a blood parasite to make us sick.

FL knows why. It’s because we allow same-sex marriage and don’t all go to the proper church (his).

And he’s glad that his god punishes everyone randomly like that. Because, you know, 3-yr.-old little girls are just as guilty as the rest of us.

@PT: Rhizocephalan parasite body has only female gonads & remains of brain; so totally dependnt on host 4 nourishmnt: GOP’s ideal 4 women.

[Tweeted from DiogenesLamp0, a twitter feed for wit related to science & pseudoscience]

didymos1120 said:

Robert Byers said:

Just read Darwins second book !!

And what was his second book, Robby?

Was it the one about movement in plants?

didymos1120 said:

Robert Byers said:

Just read Darwins second book !!

And what was his second book, Robby?

It was the ascent(or was it the descent) of man.

Joe Felsenstein said:

Evidence of agreement between phylogenies made from different parts of the genome, and from characters in different parts of the organism, is the strongest evidence we have for common ancestry. Stronger than fossils, because we can use it for organisms that hardly ever fossilize, and be completely convincing.

Similar evidence convinced most biologists in the 19th century, so that opposition to common descent basically collapsed in the late 1800s.

Our local creationists are stuck back about 1820 and haven’t gotten the word.

lets think about this. First fossils are not biological evidence for anything because if the geology is wrong the biology is wrong. So there, logically, is no biological evidence in fossils for descent. Even if they were a trail of descent it would be a special case of biological data points in accurate succession by accurate deposition.

Parts of the genome and characters in parts of the organism need not be the only option for agreement. a creator working from a common blueprint/laws, (like in physics) would also have this arrangement. so if this is your evidence its only a line of reasoning that upon another option being offered fails to be evidence. Since its only the logic and not actual biological evidence that is the source for the confidence in common descent. Truly evolutionists rely on a logical deduction for a conclusion in descent. the logic fails with any other option and anyways is not scientific biological evidence. no science equals no claim of evolution to being a scientific theory. Verrry scarrry for evolutionism.

Robert Byers said:

didymos1120 said:

And what was his second book, Robby?

It was the ascent(or was it the descent) of man.

Nope.

Robert Byers said:

lets think about this. First fossils are not biological evidence for anything because if the geology is wrong the biology is wrong. So there, logically, is no biological evidence in fossils for descent.

What does this even mean? And why are we taking it as established that the geology IS wrong, which you would have to do to dismiss the biological data in fossils?

Parts of the genome and characters in parts of the organism need not be the only option for agreement. a creator working from a common blueprint/laws, (like in physics) would also have this arrangement.

So why do some onions have seven times more DNA than their cousins, and why would they have five times as much as a human? Why does a pufferfish need roughly 1/3 as many base-pairs of DNA as you, but a lungfish needs a whopping 46 times more than you?

so if this is your evidence its only a line of reasoning that upon another option being offered fails to be evidence.

Science doesn’t even work that way, Bobby. Two competing ideas can still claim evidence for themselves without it having to be exclusive. Also, the close agreement between genetic evidence and independently-derived fossil evidence constitutes its own strong evidence in favor of common descent and evolution.

Correction: Some onions only have about five times more DNA than their cousins.

Nick Matzke said:

The reason Hennig is famous is that he pointed out that similarities are of two types – shared ancestral character states (symplesiomorphies) and shared derived character states (synapomorphies). Only the latter are informative about shared history, i.e. phylogenetic relationship. …

We’ll leave out Walter Zimmermann and other predecessors.

But I am pleased to hear that there is not any such thing as homoplasy, and that we always know which is the ancestral character state. And thus that all these numerical and statistical methods for inferring phylogenies (including even parsimony methods) were a waste of time. What a great relief.

Joe Felsenstein said:

Nick Matzke said:

The reason Hennig is famous is that he pointed out that similarities are of two types – shared ancestral character states (symplesiomorphies) and shared derived character states (synapomorphies). Only the latter are informative about shared history, i.e. phylogenetic relationship. …

We’ll leave out Walter Zimmermann and other predecessors.

But I am pleased to hear that there is not any such thing as homoplasy, and that we always know which is the ancestral character state. And thus that all these numerical and statistical methods for inferring phylogenies (including even parsimony methods) were a waste of time. What a great relief.

Hmm, I guess should have added: “I can only explain a piece of the story in a short blog comment, see Inferring Phylogenies by Joe Felsenstein for a thorough introduction.” :-)

1. Yes, but they’re still bacteria, so it isn’t evolution. or…

2. Yes, but people had something to do with it so it’s intelligent design, so it isn’t evolution. or…

3. Yes, but if you even think it might be evolution, sweet baby Jesus will cry, and then send you to hell for eternal torture.

Eric wrote:

“Since the current subject of the thread seems to be common sense and intuitiveness, I’d say that for situations like this the best thing to do is admit that our common sense notions of time, speed, etc. are just no good at describing what’s going on. ‘The subjective speed is infinite’ is a less accurate statement than ‘our human notion of speed no longer applies.’

Thanks Eric. That was my point. Common sense didn’t give the right answer, relativity gave the right answer. Common sense doesn’t tell you where new species come from, Darwin tells you where new species come from.

And Ray remains senseless.

Yeah, common sense consists of ad-hoc rules that are based on personal experience. Those rules just don’t cover things that are significantly different than what the person has dealt with personally.

Henry J said:

Yeah, common sense consists of ad-hoc rules that are based on personal experience. Those rules just don’t cover things that are significantly different than what the person has dealt with personally.

Like three billion years of cumulative selection.

Just Bob said:

KlausH said:

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/[…]zWpyVj8bds_Q said:

Ray’s problem is that he thinks common sense always works. It doesn’t. Case closed.

A real beauty.

Let’s not forget that an Evolutionist wrote the comment above. In other words, evolution is counterintuitive and senseless. This is precisely why the theory is so “misunderstood.”

So you think common sense always works Ray? Well answer me this, oh fount of wisdom:

If two spaceships are moving directly toward each other and each is traveling at the speed of light, are they approaching each other at twice the speed of light?

Actually, the speed of light in a vacuum is infinite. The apparent speed of light is actually that rate at which time, itself, changes with distance in 4D spacetime. That is the reason it takes infinite energy to accelerate matter to “lightspeed” and you get “time dialation”.

IANAphysicist, but the speed of light may be infinite IF YOU’RE THE LIGHT, or traveling with it, but here on Earth I can measure with great accuracy how long it takes light to travel from A to B, and the speed always turns out to be the same. So for all practical purposes, light has a finite and measurable speed.

No, that should more properly be called “the speed of space”. That is why c shows up in so many formulas describing spacetime, even when photons are not involved.

Helena Constantine said: Ray, the moths eat the birds whose color makes them stand out form the tree trunks they settle on.

Gee, that’s news to me.

It came to me this morning like a revelation what Ray is gibbering about. He claims that Darwin’s observation that the selection made of domestic animals by farmers provides a model for natural selection is in fact proof of his assertion that early farmers introduced variation into their livestock, hopelessly confusing variation and selection (to the degree he thought my clear statements on the matter were actually confused).

His Darwin lie is just meant to put a ps.-scientific dress on his essential religious belief. He believes that farmers were able to introduce variation into plants and animals because the Bible says they were able to do so. Why are you ashamed to admit it, Ray? The book of Genesis describes how Jacob caused his sheep to bear offspring with particular colors and patterns of wool by making them look at similar patterns while they were mating (this was actually a widespread ancient belief–the Roman poet Martial has an amusing piece about the unfortunate woman who happened to glance at her pet monkey at the moment of conception–thought to equal the time of the man’s emission since they believed the ejaculate grew into the fetus like a seed growing into a plant).

So Ray, it seems that you are desperately trying to justify your obviously false and irrational religious belief (the inerrancy of the Bible) by a veneer of ps.-scientific lies. How do you think your arguments can be taken seriously? But if my revelation is incorrect, please explain clearly and fully what your true beliefs are, and how they differ from what I’ve suggested.

Helena Constantine said:

Ray understands science fine, I’m sure. he just makes about half a million a year (based on is public tax records, telling idiots that it’s not true (have you ever seen the videos of his phone operators using well established manipulative techniques to co-erce money from his victims? There is no question of his disingenuous). That is what bending the knee to Baal means. Our Ray is the one that is deluded.

Are you thinking of Ray Comfort here? Because Ray Martinez is a much less consequential (and even less reality-connected) loon.

Just Bob said:

… IF YOU’RE THE LIGHT, or traveling with it, but here on Earth I can measure with great accuracy how long it takes light to travel from A to B, and the speed always turns out to be the same.

Precisely, and therein lies the rub. You can’t travel with the light. There is no frame of reference that can travel at the speed of a photon. In all inertial (i.e. non-accelerating) frames of reference, the speed of light (in vacuo) is the same, about 3 X 10^8 m/s.

So it is nonsensical to speak about “traveling with a photon”. You might as well be speaking about traveling faster than a photon. Can’t do it. It’s a mental construct that is not realizable, thus useless. A Gendanken experiment based upon a false premise.

You said, “So for all practical purposes, light has a finite and measurable speed.” I would change that to read, “So for all genuine, real, and practical purposes, light has a finite and measurable speed.

You’re quite right.

If a photon is traveling at the speed of light, and also has an oscillation perpendicular to the velocity vector, wouldn’t the combined motion vector (forward speed + oscillation) be moving ever-so-slightly faster than the photon? (That’s probably a really bad analogy. It assumes that some “part” of the photon is oscillating.) But then that raises the question, of what is actually oscillating. It is the electric and magnetic fields within the photon. (Right?) But, isn’t the photon the particle that is conveying the electromagnetic fields?

This whole notion that “fields” are actually made up of certain particles “exchanging” certain other particles is just bizarre.

Dang, this stuff really is counterintuitive. (And hence, by Ray’s definition, senseless and therefore wrong.)

I sure wish I could have sprung that one on the 3rd semester physics TA. “The professor’s explanation contradicts my intuition, and doesn’t make any sense to me (i.e., it is counterintuitive and senseless). Therefore the professor is wrong.” That sure sounds like a good answer to me! Gotcha, stupid professor! It would have saved a lot of studying in college.

Some experiments with light are best understood as propagating waves, while others are better understood as particles. Mixing the two together, into one, leads to contradiction and is not recommended.

Common sense derives from our everyday experience of the macroscopic world around us. Projecting that understanding into the very large, or the very small, requires amendments that don’t make sense to us. Nevertheless, they are real, and repeatable, leading to predictions that are confirmed.

The Old Orthodoxy, well-grounded in the Bronze Age, wants none of this.

‘Common sense’ told us that there was no speed of light–it was instantaneous.

And a toddler ‘intuitively’ knows that if he closes his eyes, you can’t see him!

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Nick Matzke published on October 31, 2013 5:10 PM.

A superb new fossil from Dmanisi, Georgia was the previous entry in this blog.

Megachile rotundata is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter