…and this is a 
The History Channel might do something right
Category: Communicating science
Posted on: May 6, 2008 9:47 AM, by PZ Myers
I just got this announcement for a new series to appear on the History Channel in June. This has the potential to be really good — at least it sounds like the focus is on the biology — and we'll have to tune in.
SERIES PREMIERE!
EVOLVE:
EYESEyes are one of evolution's most useful and prevalent inventions, equipping approximately 95 percent of living species. They exist in many different forms across nature, having evolved convergently across different species. Learn how the ancestors of jellyfish may have been the first to evolve light-sensitive cells. In the pre-Cambrian era, insects, in particular the dragonfly, would take the compound eye to new heights. Find out how dinosaurs adapted their eyes to become such successful hunters of prey. And while dinosaurs remained at the top of the food chain for 150 million years, tiny early mammals developed night vision to populate the night as a survival technique. Finally, learn how primates underwent several adaptations to their eyes to better exploit their new habitat, and how the ability to see colors helped them find food.
Throughout eons of evolution, the natural world has played host to a never-ending competition. Since the dawn of time roughly 99% of all species have become extinct. In order to survive, all creatures, including man, must treat life as a battlefield and master the natural weapons and defenses that have evolved: Tyrannosaurus Rex's 13-inch canines; the gecko's Velcro-like toe pads; the bald eagle's telescopic vision that is capable of spotting a hare a mile away. What is the history of these evolutions and how did they come about? They didn't just appear arbitrarily, they evolved for a common reason - to give these animals a critical edge in interspecies warfare. To evolve is to conquer!
The new series EVOLVE traces the history of the key innovations that have driven nature's evolutionary arms race from the dawn of life to today, from the anatomical (eyes, jaws, and body armor) to the behavioral (movement, communication, and sex). This 13-part series will deftly blend spectacular live-action natural history sequences, CGI, epic docudrama, and experimental science to illustrate our and our fellow species' eternal struggle for survival on earth.
PREMIERE: Tuesday, June 17 at 10pm/2am ET/PT
LENGTH: 2 hours
REPEATS: Sunday, June 22 at 11pm/3am ET/PT
PRODUCED BY: Optomen Productions, Inc.
Comments
This sounds a lot better than what was on last night. They tried to rewrite the history, claiming China discovered America in 1421 and used dowsing rods to do it.
Arg!
Posted by: Gilgamesh | May 6, 2008 9:53 AM
"In the pre-Cambrian era, insects, in particular the dragonfly, would take the compound eye to new heights."
I thought land insects developed post-Cambrian.
Its just rabbits that lived in the pre-Cambrian, right?
Posted by: Sigmund | May 6, 2008 9:53 AM
I do hope they stick to evidence based science in this series, because most of the rest of the shows on that network are pure, unadulterated crap.
Posted by: pleco | May 6, 2008 9:57 AM
Yeah, I'm hoping that the "pre-Cambrian insects" are just a stupid error by a copywriter, and aren't going to be in the show. If they are, this has the potential to be an entertaining evening of laughing at the TV set.
Posted by: PZ Myers | May 6, 2008 9:58 AM
This sounds like it could be interesting, but to be nit-picky I worry about some of the language used here... it is very "species selection" in several parts. While invoking species selection makes analogies to warfare easier, as far as I understand it isn't very relevant evolutionary talk.
I did read quite an interesting book last summer about the evolution of the eye called "In the Blink of an Eye" by Andrew Parker.
Posted by: Mozglubov | May 6, 2008 10:03 AM
I didn't know there was a pre-Cambrian *era*.
Posted by: danley | May 6, 2008 10:03 AM
"To evolve is to conquer!"
It sounds like a line from some creationists' bizarre nightmare of a dystopian godless society. Heh heh. Like the sort of thing that a postapocalyptic cyberpunkish kind of villain would say.
Though, seriously, I'm a little bit put off by the anthropomorphizing of traits by saying that they evolved "for a reason." It vaguely smacks of ID-speak, even though I understand that wording is helpful is describing the evolutionary process.
Posted by: Gun Nguyen | May 6, 2008 10:05 AM
Is this going to be on the same History Channel that credulously airs programs about dowsing, alien visitations, and ghosts? Sounds like it could be pure crap.
However, Gilgamesh, there is some evidence that the Chinese had visited North America before Columbus. And they aren't the only ones. There is no longer any doubt that Norsemen had established semipermanent settlements in North America, Polynesians had visited South America, and it is possible that Basque fishermen might also have used North America for resupplying while away from home ports.
The History Channel's big screw ups on last nights episode were the dowsing bunk and the claim that Native Americans are descendant from 15th century Chinese.
Posted by: Dan | May 6, 2008 10:10 AM
"To evolve is to conquer!"
All right, a seam of quote ore!
Miner's helmets on, people.
Posted by: Jason Failes | May 6, 2008 10:11 AM
"Eyes are one of evolution's most useful and prevalent inventions, equipping approximately 95 percent of living species."
Are they counting the different species of single celled organisms in that statistic?
Posted by: Jackal | May 6, 2008 10:14 AM
To evolve is to manage to avoid dying before reproducing. Not quite as exciting, eh?
Posted by: frog | May 6, 2008 10:15 AM
Based on this advert, they're probably going to make a lot of mistakes...and then cretinous IDiots are going to seize on them and act like they disprove evolution...ugh...I have a headache already.
Posted by: Etha Williams | May 6, 2008 10:16 AM
I'm echoing others' concern about the language used in this release. "Tyrannosaurus Rex's 13-inch canines"? 13-inch? "Canines"? I thought trilobites were the eyesight wonders, with their holochroic and schizochroic eyes. "Dinosaurs adapted their eyes" like it was their plan -- that could have been better worded. "Treat life as a battlefield"? Why not treat it as an economy? The whole thing reads as a "piranha of the pampas" treatment to me.
Posted by: CortxVortx | May 6, 2008 10:23 AM
Sounds kinda interesting though....one of the very few times I regret not having cable.
But then the urge passes, and I'll keep my $80 a month, thanks.
Posted by: andrea | May 6, 2008 10:28 AM
Don't be silly. Such organisms are unimportant -- they only make up half the biomass of the planet.
To be fair, this multicellular bias seems extremely common in biology. Even the very notions of "species" and taxonomy are constructed primarily from the point of view of multicellular organisms.
Posted by: Tulse | May 6, 2008 10:28 AM
Their creed is "I'll see it when I believe it", it's how they twist everything.
Posted by: Wallace Turner | May 6, 2008 10:30 AM
IIRC, dinosaurs did not have actual canines. Those are a mammalian characteristic.
Posted by: Brandon P. | May 6, 2008 10:31 AM
"Eyes are one of evolution's most useful and prevalent inventions, equipping approximately 95 percent of living species. "
IANAB, but surely this is bollocks. Plants and single celled organisms alone surely make up the majority of living species.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | May 6, 2008 10:31 AM
If it's done by the same people who are doing "The Universe" it should be pretty good.
I'm thoroughly enjoying that show, and I hope this one proves to be as entertaining.
Though, considering how hostile PZ is to disciplines other than biology, we might also get to see a cage match between Myers and Tyson (Neil deGrasse, not Mike).
Posted by: Seraphiel | May 6, 2008 10:32 AM
I'll give the premise a hearty "Meh", but I doubt that History will do much to alienate their Ghost/Jeebus/UFO/Nostradumbass audience that they've been carefully cultivating since they stopped being the Hitler channel 24/7.
Now if they pick up The Skeptologists, I might get interested . . .
Posted by: Ranson | May 6, 2008 10:33 AM
Hopefully they don't stick it in between programs about UFO's and Bigfoot, or one of their super-slanted Bible specials.
Posted by: Moths & Atheists | May 6, 2008 10:41 AM
I'm hostile to other disciplines? Where'd that come from?
And yeah, THC has great potential to thoroughly screw this one up, but I'm going to give them a little credit for trying, first.
Posted by: PZ Myers | May 6, 2008 10:44 AM
Well, PZ, if you aren't hostile to other disciplines, how the hell do you expect to generate any controversy and attention for your blog? Conflict is the way to go. You've only got what, six, seven regular readers?
Posted by: Ranson | May 6, 2008 10:47 AM
Bah. That'll teach me not to hit the preview button when I use tags.
Posted by: Ranson | May 6, 2008 10:49 AM
I wouldn't make much of their advertisement for the series, which is going to try to be as provocative as possible (canines for T. rex) and likely is just written by some dude.
Really, it sounds very good, the kind of thing that we've wished would be produced and shown. Perfect I'm sure it will not be, but if they even get most of the science right, it will be a good exposition of some of the most interesting science going on today.
I assume that they'll be using molecular evidence to a considerable extent, especially since eyes themselves don't fossilize. It's about time. Tiktaalik was a great find around the time of the Dover trial, but fossils aren't where most of the action is today, and the more people know about genetic evidence for and about evolution, the better off the cause of scientific literacy will be.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | May 6, 2008 10:51 AM
What's interesting is that they don't comment on the fact that dinosaurs could probably see in colour, and in fact, a majority of mammals can't....
Posted by: Graeme Elliott | May 6, 2008 10:53 AM
We've all seen how you look at The Bad Astronomer, PZ.
Posted by: Dan | May 6, 2008 10:54 AM
Having just the teensiest bit of inside information (I know some folks filmed for a few episodes), my understanding is that the producers are earnestly trying to produce an engaging AND scientifically sound examination of various evolutionary themes. Being non-scientists themselves, it looks like they are falling prey to a few misconceptions along the way, but they are relying heavily on filmed interviews with experts so hopefully that'll vet out some of the mistakes. I'm hoping they also run their narration/scripts (I think they're still in the filming/editing stage for several episodes) by scientists at some point in order to weed out the T. rex "canines" and Cambrian dragonflies, etc., but there's never any guarantee of that happening.
Posted by: M. | May 6, 2008 10:56 AM
This microbe-neglect discussion reminded me of one of my favorite comments from an earlier thread -
MikeG:
"Now that sounds like a fun morning.
But aren't you guys forgetting the microbes?
[grumble, grumble, all about the megafauna, grumble ooh! we're multicellular! la tee dah!]"
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/the_morning_session_at_the_ore.php
Made me chuckle.
Posted by: SC | May 6, 2008 10:59 AM
I agree with Glen @25- let's not read to much into the words of the ad copy writer who is working hard to drum up an audience. That said- does anyone know who might have provided their scientific input? The world of likely contributors in this area is not unlimited. And given the number of regular readers on this blog (h/t to the snark above)- maybe someone who comments or lurks here?
Posted by: MikeK | May 6, 2008 11:05 AM
Having written copy before (though not for THC, but definitely while on THC), I can tell you that you are generally given less information than you need and more work than you have time to finish. So blame any mistakes on the copywriter: he doesn't care, he's used to it.
Posted by: Kyle W. | May 6, 2008 11:16 AM
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | May 6, 2008 11:19 AM
This seems hopeful: http://cels.uri.edu/news/nSharkfilm.html
Posted by: Greg Peterson | May 6, 2008 11:19 AM
I have to agree with several of the others. This reads like so many other evolution descriptions by people who don't understand how it works. Several of the statements read as if there was intent behind the evolutionary paths the species involved went through.
This is about the worst "They didn't just appear arbitrarily, they evolved for a common reason - to give these animals a critical edge in interspecies warfare. To evolve is to conquer! Sort of like "Guys, we need better eyes if we Bald Eagles are going to catch the rabbits who just evolved themselves some better camouflage. Tony, you and Heather get right on that, and I want to see the designs next week."
Posted by: azqaz | May 6, 2008 11:21 AM
I think it's pretty great that their doing a two hour show on how a very specific organ has evolved. To scientists, probably not a big deal because you could spend years studying it, but for the layperson it's pretty rare.
Hope the narrator or host is good.
Posted by: Steve_C | May 6, 2008 11:23 AM
"...China discovered America in 1421 and used dowsing rods to do it."
Naw, they used cones and rods....
"I didn't know there was a pre-Cambrian *era*."
That's "E.R.A." (eye revolution age) where every organism had an equal right to develop eyes....
Posted by: Ian | May 6, 2008 11:23 AM
Dude! That's just, like, a lie told by the establishment to keep us from using our minds man! Our minds! The Man doesn't want you unlocking your mind, man!
Posted by: Dan | May 6, 2008 11:23 AM
Though I agree the statement is almost certainly bollocks, animals make up the majority of living species simply because of the diversity of insects. This might be unfair since we have different standards for what constitutes a species among sexually reproducing animals than among bacteria.
Posted by: Escuerd | May 6, 2008 11:24 AM
weed out the T. rex "canines"
T.Rex not haz canines? Canines r 4 punching teh holez in cocanutz. Srsly!
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | May 6, 2008 11:27 AM
They will likely sandwich the show between showings of Nostradomis
Posted by: Randy | May 6, 2008 11:33 AM
Really, how hard would it be to for the writers to run their synopsis by just one evolutionary biologist to avoid any obvious mistakes? Gaging by the comments, they obviously didn't, and it seems like such silly thing not to do. The mind boggles.
Posted by: caynazzo | May 6, 2008 11:34 AM
I'm sure it will be preempted here in Florida. :-P
Posted by: doubtingfoo | May 6, 2008 11:34 AM
(.)(.)
Posted by: wÒÓ† | May 6, 2008 11:34 AM
Stuart Kauffman: Rethink Evo, Self-Organization is Real
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0805/S00052.htm
Posted by: scoop | May 6, 2008 11:36 AM
After actually reading the rest of this, I've found lots of things that annoy me.
-I'm pretty sure that T. Rex, like most reptiles, had teeth that basically all had the same shape (with a few notable exceptions). Canines, bicuspids, tricuspids, etc. are found among mammals.
-The 95% of species seems wrong given that animals don't make up 95% of species. It may be true among animal species, but I don't know.
-They seem to have mixed up the Pre-Cambrian and Paleozoic.
-The sentence "What is the history of these evolutions and how did they come about?" is annoyingly malformed unless they're giving a secondary meaning to the noun "evolution".
In addition to the annoying inattention to detail, there's a strong teleological bent behind all of their descriptions. And the talk of what humans "must do" to survive seems to reinforce that and miss the point of evolution as a biased stochastic process. It probably sounds a lot cooler, but there should be very firm limits on how much truth should be sacrificed for coolness.
Posted by: Escuerd | May 6, 2008 11:44 AM
It'll be sandwiched between "The Real Life of Jesus" and "The Search for Noah's Ark".
Posted by: Steve_C | May 6, 2008 11:46 AM
I sometimes wonder if later archaeologists, anthropologists and historians will look back and refer to the last 50 years, and possibly many years into the future, as The Era of the Half-Assed Effort.
There seems to be nothing on our national agenda so critical to our survival that we actually bother to try.
Posted by: xebecs | May 6, 2008 11:48 AM
I understand that a cardinal rule of modern writing is to avoid the passive voice, but statements like "tiny early mammals developed night vision to populate the night as a survival technique" are a lot less accurate than "tiny early mammals who developed night vision survived to populate the night." The part about how "primates underwent several adaptations to their eyes" is less elegant writing, but better science. Using an active-voice implies intent on the part of the animal, which opens the door for ID folks to either mock evolution roundly or to use as proof of design. It's a shame that the debate has to get muddled by a writers' convention.
Posted by: Jane | May 6, 2008 12:04 PM
Nah, Steve_C, it'll be sandwiched between "Jesus, Man or Myth" and "How Hitler Evolved"
Posted by: Ryan | May 6, 2008 12:05 PM
Unless it's the special night when they're telling us how chupacabra was discovered flying a UFO.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | May 6, 2008 12:06 PM
There's this car, that runs on water, man! And the government doesn't, they, it runs! on water! Man...
Posted by: stogoe | May 6, 2008 12:13 PM
OK, enlighten the poor chemist.
How do we know anything about dinosaur eyes? Eyes don't fossilize... do they?
-OEJ
Posted by: One Eyed Jack | May 6, 2008 12:16 PM
As for the 95% of species having eyes, this reminded me of the recent Christopher Walken sketch on SNL where he put eyes on his plants.
All mistakes aside - and hopefully they're just in the ad copy as noted - this is not a bad thing, and in fact if they do put it between "The Real Jesus" and "Noah's Ark: Cruise Ship for the Worthy" or whatever, it increases the odds that some new information may filter down to those who need it the most, those who think eyes are too complex to have evolved and come troll boards making such claims.
On the other hand, it just struck me that maybe to that audience a show about evolution is as sadly laughable as shows about Noah's Ark or ghost hunters are to the evo crowd.
Posted by: donut | May 6, 2008 12:17 PM
This sounds a lot better than what was on last night. They tried to rewrite the history, claiming China discovered America in 1421 and used dowsing rods to do it.
That was a pretty small part of an otherwise fascinating show about ancient Chinese shipbuilding. And I don't think it is really "trying to rewrite history" to examine the possibility that the Chinese landed in America before Columbus. The show did have other historians saying (kind of like Dawkins' aliens) "yeah it is possible, but there is no evidence in China that anyone ever came back from America in that time period claiming a discovery". They entertained the possibility and presented evidence for and against. But, yes, the dowsing bit was ridiculous and should not have been included.
Posted by: SteveM | May 6, 2008 12:27 PM
In addition to the other niggling errors in the promo, there is the problem with saying "they evolved for a common reason - to give these animals a critical edge in interspecies warfare." That should read "a critical edge in *intra*species reproductive success."
Inability to compete *interspecies* may lead to extinction of a species. But it is mutation *within* a species that makes those individuals having it more reproductively successful (for whatever reason) that will result in a *change* in the species.
Posted by: howard hershey | May 6, 2008 12:30 PM
Does a dogfish have canine teeth?
Posted by: Hammond Wrye | May 6, 2008 12:38 PM
#52, night vision (and perhaps color vision) in dinosaurs was inferred from gene resurrection.
Posted by: paul f lurquin | May 6, 2008 12:43 PM
Posted by: FW | May 6, 2008 12:45 PM
Why is this on the History Channel??? Only a YEC would consider dinosaurs history, right?
Hmmm.
While canines are by no means limited to mammals -- the other way around: all other surviving amniotes have lost them --, Tyrannosaurus rex* did not have canines. Well, an argument could be made that each of its jaws was a caniniform region, but that's somewhat pointless...
And how much is 13 inches? Given the fact that 6 inches are almost exactly 15 cm... oh, wait, I happen to have a ruler Made in England here. It goes to 30 cm and 12 inches. 13 inches is the length of a T. rex tooth, root included. This, too, is somewhat pointless.
Incidentally, bi- and tricuspid teeth are all over the place. Lots of lizards have them, and most living amphibians have bicuspid teeth.
Only placentals are red-green blind. Marsupials aren't. The monotremes appear to be outright color-blind, though.
They don't (except sometimes as a dark patch). It's just phylogenetic bracketing: you plot the distribution of features in living animals on a phylogenetic tree and draw conclusions from there. It turns out that vertebrates see colors, including ultraviolet, unless they happen to have secondarily lost this ability.
---------------------
* The explosion you just heard was my righteous wrath about people who can't be bothered to learn the most basic international spelling conventions. May they be
eaten next-to-lastbitten by an Anthracosaurus. Hard.Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | May 6, 2008 12:45 PM
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | May 6, 2008 12:46 PM
It'll be sandwiched neatly between something about Nostradamus and something about Jesus and the Holy Grail. Just guessing..
*sigh*
Posted by: Jon | May 6, 2008 12:47 PM
LOL @ reading the comments and finding five versions of what I just posted.
:P
Posted by: Jon | May 6, 2008 12:50 PM
New CDK007 video: ERVs in chimps/humans.
Posted by: ennui | May 6, 2008 12:56 PM
I do think it is more likely than not that they will screw-it-up, but we still need something damn it! For example, I taught a class on the origin of birds yesterday. When I asked, "We've all heard of Archaeopteryx, right?" I was expecting most of the students to say yes. Not one person in this 400 level class had ever even heard the name before. I thought they taught that stuff in High School?
We need people to at least know the basics so, if they are curious, they can start to search out more information on their own...
Posted by: Lago | May 6, 2008 12:57 PM
(OEJ, I'll take a first pass at your question, but as a neontology-ontologist [my little joke], I'm not up on all the details, and will welcome any corrections from anyone with more specific knowledge.)
You're right, as a general rule, they don't, but that differs in degree for different structures and different species in the fossil record.
Much of what is provisionally accepted for some species is inference and extrapolation from living species and other sources, such as physics. For example, living in water, ichthyosaurs would have to deal with a different refractive index than land-dwelling dinosaurs, which would have implications for eyes.
For other species, some parts, such as lenses, have been preserved. The following abstract shows one way trilobite eyes were investigated:
And there are also mentions in the literature of what cannot be known about schizochroal eyes (such as some trilobites had), because the parts necessary to study those aspects, have not been preserved. Schizochroal eyes [multiple lenses and corneas] had some very cool features, some of which we understand from the remaining record, and others which we don't, because those parts were not preserved.
DavidM or Thomas Holtz, or any number of other commenters here can no doubt answer your question with more specific knowledge, and I hope if I've gotten anything wrong, someone will let me know.
[1] Horváth G. Geometric optics of trilobite eyes: a theoretical study of the shape of the aspherical interface in the cornea of schizochroal eyes of phacopid trilobites. Math Biosci. 1989 Sep;96(1):79-94.
Posted by: thalarctos | May 6, 2008 1:01 PM
I'm hostile to other disciplines? Where'd that come from?
A joke, from the comments you make when linking to non-biology blogs. ;)
Posted by: Seraphiel | May 6, 2008 1:03 PM
This _is_ the History Channel, so if its like the rest of their output they'll try and link this to the Nazis.
Or they'll claim that eyes can be used to see UFOs or conspiracies or something.
Posted by: James O'Malley | May 6, 2008 1:07 PM
Interesting. I stand corrected there. I somehow had the (evidently false) impression that reptiles and amphibians were mostly homodontic (except for palatal teeth). I've clearly much to learn about this topic.
Was this in reference to the capitalization of the species name? Heh, I see I did it. I actually knew better, but didn't catch my error. This will be good for me, though, since it looks like it's earned me an up close lesson about reptilian teeth I won't soon forget. :)
Posted by: Escuerd | May 6, 2008 2:09 PM
I guess that the existence of bicuspid and tricuspid teeth within a clade doesn't strictly imply heterodonty, but I would guess that something in any clade that has both probably would have been so at some point.
Posted by: Escuerd | May 6, 2008 2:14 PM
Ugh. As much as I love science programming, this is beyond me. And it's not even the fear of THC-style revisionism (no pun intended), or the fact that the copy makes it sound truly misleading. Eyes are my irrational freakout trigger. I've always been the person in charge of squishy bits in my bio lab groups. "Mac will do it, guts don't bother her." "Oh, your rat was pregnant? That's cool. My fetal pig in AP Bio had a cyst-like growth on its left horn of uter... Why are you turning green?" But eyes. Ugh. I hope there are some good reviews posted.
Posted by: Mac | May 6, 2008 2:17 PM
Its just rabbits that lived in the pre-Cambrian, right?
I am glad that you bring this up. I just found(1) this:
1) by find, I could mean typed.
Posted by: jimmiraybob | May 6, 2008 2:21 PM
I briefly watched Discovery Kids and was mortified. Honest to goodness "Atlantian power crystals responsible for opening portals to parallel universes and being responsible for the oddness in the Bermuda triangle." -- With the throwaway line that they are talking out there ass and no phenomenon exists. Honestly, they mentioned near the very end of the show that there's no statistically relevant effects in the Bermuda triangle. I've found the same to roughly be true for the History Channel which spends every day Searching for Biblical History and noting in the end that they haven't got so much as a scrap of evidence behind any of it.
Today we search for Noah's Ark on a different mountain than it says in the Bible and find a stick that somebody buried there. ZOMG!
Posted by: Tatarize | May 6, 2008 2:39 PM
"Catagory: communicating science"...evolution is still a baseless theory, neither testable nor duplicable science. Wikipedia's definition of the scientific method: "It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning." Neither PZ nor anyone has ever shown a whit of evidence for actual frog to prince style macro-evolution. This kind of information-increase must have additonal DNA; you know the super complex linear instrucions that cause three demensional life forms. Will this tv show relate HOW this increase takes place? I think not. Let's break some qoutes down: "Eyes are one of evolution's most useful and prevalent inventions" Ok, who/what added or caused DNA to change adding more complexity; lightening, or a bugs strained vision trying to focus their simple eyes provide no mechanism. In fact nothing (but an intelligent designer) is known or has been discovered to increase DNA of the simple into the more complex. "Throughout eons of evolution, the natural world has played host to a never-ending competition." The idea of hardier animals that remain after each battle do not touch on the unexplained mechanism required for DNA to increase a species complexity.
"To evolve is to conquer!"... A perfect explanation of Hitler's applied game plan, I gag.
Posted by: Michael Woelfel | May 6, 2008 3:05 PM
What a fitting summary of your post.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | May 6, 2008 3:09 PM
Couple months ago, there was an excellent piece on The Science Channel (the digital cable version of The Discovery Channel) about the evolution of the feather. It was a great mix of paleontology and developmental biology and explained very well how each feature of a feather could develop for its own reason without a "purpose" to result in flight. I hope they "evolve" that into an episode of this series.
Posted by: SteveM | May 6, 2008 3:18 PM
I don't think Hitler planned on evolving himself. Are you a Poe? You are misunderstanding and misapplying the theory of evolution. Information can increase in DNA. You should regroup and come back with new ideas that were not debunked years ago.
Posted by: Dennis N | May 6, 2008 3:22 PM
It never fails that when ever scientific interpretation for the public is attempted some specialist will get their panties all up in a wad over the exact use of some specialized piece of jargon, like the use of canine teeth for non-mammals, or whether insects existed prior to the cambrian. Like when Al Gore suggested that those who don't believe in the IPCC sanctioned global warming model were like people who don't believe the earth circles the sun...ha ha! Of course, the Earth doesn't circle the Sun...they both revolve around a common gravitational center and they don't circle but follow an eliptical path...thereby proving that the details don't matter ...ha ha!
Posted by: doug l | May 6, 2008 3:25 PM
M. Woefel: The evidence for "frog to the artist formerly known as Prince" macro-evolution is well documented. Observations and measurements from biogeography, embryology, developmental genetics, immunology, endocrinology, comparative genomics, comparative anatomy, biochemistry, physiology, and behavior can all be brought to bear on the question, but i suspect you already know that. The trouble you're having is with the second part of the scientific method, the "subject to specific principles of reasoning" part. Common descent and macro-evolution are straightahead conclusions from all--I emphasize all--observations and measurements available. Seriously, that's the way that all clear-thinking people with a reasonably open mind think about it. How 'bout you?
Well, first, that's a pretty piss-poor summary of the mechanism of natural selection (I think that's what you were attempting); it's a lot more subtle and interesting than that. But selection can only "choose" from among the genetic variation present in a population, so nobody has ever suggested that natural selection is, or could be, a "source" of "new DNA information." For that, you might want to look into the concepts of gene duplication, genome duplication, random mutation, exons, and modular protein structure.But you won't.
Know why?
'cause you're nothing but an ignorant troll.
(right? this clown's way past the 3-post rule)
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 6, 2008 3:26 PM
Gee this troll is exceptionally stupid and boring. So Michael, you all ready for the Rapture? Travel kit all packed and in Mom's basement where you undoubtedly live.
Posted by: raven | May 6, 2008 3:29 PM
I don't see the problem with a specialist correcting someone when they're discussing his field of study...
Posted by: Dennis N | May 6, 2008 3:31 PM
The second sentence actually sounds better syntactically too, IMO. Sometimes people get so caught up using the active voice that they write very muddled sentences, and forget that this is really more of a guideline than a hard and fast rule. (At least haven't started saying "My mother bore me on..." instead of "I was born on"...yet.)
Also, if they really, really wanted to use the active voice, they still could have been scientifically accurate. For instance: "The development of night vision allowed tiny early mammals to survive and populate the night." Or even something more informative: "When tiny early mammals developed night vision, they were able to survive to populate the night and reproduce, passing on this trait to many more mammals to come." Okay, maybe that's a bit TMI for a promo announcement, but you get my point. There are many ways to say what you mean without sacrificing good writing.
And as for this sentence:
It could be: "Learn how several adaptations in the primate eye gave rise to organisms better able to exploit their new habitat..."
The active voice *can* be used without making a statement of intent. These people aren't suffering from the constraints of using the passive voice. They're suffering from being bad writers.
Posted by: Etha Williams | May 6, 2008 3:37 PM
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 6, 2008 3:39 PM
@#
That's because this isn't how macro-evolution happens. Macro-evolution isn't a "frog to prince" style transformation. It's a gradual transition from one species (or, if you prefer, "kind") to another. No matter how much you ask, you will never get an example of a frog turning into a prince or a dog turning into a cat...because this is not evolution.
Posted by: Etha Williams | May 6, 2008 3:45 PM
Sorry, Etha, we shouldn't let him use "kind". It's not a scientific term, we can't fall prey to their word games. Kinds don't exist. There was no global flood.
Posted by: Dennis N | May 6, 2008 3:49 PM
Etha, Mike's too sophisticated for the "never seen a cat whelp a dog" argument; he's just trying to be original with his clever little turn of phrase. Most macrodenialists use some variant of the shopworn "goo to zoo to you" meme for the purpose.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 6, 2008 3:50 PM
Watching Pokémon is not the best way to learn about evolution.
Posted by: windy | May 6, 2008 3:56 PM
Since the dawn of time roughly 99% of all species have become extinct.
Horseshit...
Posted by: Brocken Spectre | May 6, 2008 4:21 PM