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.
- Log in to post 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!
"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?
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.
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.
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.
I didn't know there was a pre-Cambrian *era*.
"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.
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.
"To evolve is to conquer!"
All right, a seam of quote ore!
Miner's helmets on, people.
"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?
To evolve is to manage to avoid dying before reproducing. Not quite as exciting, eh?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Their creed is "I'll see it when I believe it", it's how they twist everything.
IIRC, dinosaurs did not have actual canines. Those are a mammalian characteristic.
"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.
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).
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 . . .
Hopefully they don't stick it in between programs about UFO's and Bigfoot, or one of their super-slanted Bible specials.
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.
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?
Bah. That'll teach me not to hit the preview button when I use tags.
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
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....
We've all seen how you look at The Bad Astronomer, PZ.
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.
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_o…
Made me chuckle.
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?
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.
The potential of THC to screw things up is well-known to college students.
This seems hopeful: http://cels.uri.edu/news/nSharkfilm.html
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."
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.
"...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....
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!
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.
weed out the T. rex "canines"
T.Rex not haz canines? Canines r 4 punching teh holez in cocanutz. Srsly!
They will likely sandwich the show between showings of Nostradomis
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.
I'm sure it will be preempted here in Florida. :-P
(.)(.)
Stuart Kauffman: Rethink Evo, Self-Organization is Real
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0805/S00052.htm
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.
It'll be sandwiched between "The Real Life of Jesus" and "The Search for Noah's Ark".
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.
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.
Nah, Steve_C, it'll be sandwiched between "Jesus, Man or Myth" and "How Hitler Evolved"
Unless it's the special night when they're telling us how chupacabra was discovered flying a UFO.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
There's this car, that runs on water, man! And the government doesn't, they, it runs! on water! Man...
OK, enlighten the poor chemist.
How do we know anything about dinosaur eyes? Eyes don't fossilize... do they?
-OEJ
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.
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.
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.
Does a dogfish have canine teeth?
#52, night vision (and perhaps color vision) in dinosaurs was inferred from gene resurrection.
No it isn't. http://dictionary.com/browse/evolution
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-last bitten by an Anthracosaurus. Hard.
For that, LSD would be much more effective -- almost effective enough to make you believe Expelled, at least for a while, until you're chased out of the cinema by a purple popcorn-breathing dragon and a 20' Snickers. If you want to giggle all the way through, THC is an option -- only if you're stoned out of your gourd might you actually enjoy it.
It'll be sandwiched neatly between something about Nostradamus and something about Jesus and the Holy Grail. Just guessing..
*sigh*
LOL @ reading the comments and finding five versions of what I just posted.
:P
New CDK007 video: ERVs in chimps/humans.
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...
(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.
I'm hostile to other disciplines? Where'd that come from?
A joke, from the comments you make when linking to non-biology blogs. ;)
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.
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. :)
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.
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.
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.
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!
"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.
What a fitting summary of your post.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
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.
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.
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!
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)
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.
I don't see the problem with a specialist correcting someone when they're discussing his field of study...
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.
Sums it up.
@#
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.
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.
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.
Watching Pokémon is not the best way to learn about evolution.
Since the dawn of time roughly 99% of all species have become extinct.
Horseshit...
here's one reference to support the ad copy statement:
http://www.lassp.cornell.edu/newmme/science/extinction.html
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."
Pedant's corner: both those statements are active voice. "Night vision was developed by tiny early mammals" is passive voice. The problem with the first statement is not active vs passive voice; it's the use of the word "to".
THC Chinese Discovery [rant]
What I get annoyed about is all the mention on THC of having to rewrite the history books because Columbus wasn't first. Yeah, well, most educated people know about the Viking Vinland and the possibilities that the Chinese and the Polynesians may have visited America. So what. What really matters is who brought their alleged discovery to the attention of the rest of society, and who were responsible for leading the waves of exploitation.
If the Chinese visited in 1421, they returned to a unified China, where the whim of the Emperor caused the discovers to break up their ships and "forget" the discovery.
The possible Polynesian discovers were from a fragmented society spread over many islands in the Pacific and looking to spread more, but the distance to the Americas from the closest Polynesian island probably discouraged further voyages, let alone any colonization.
The European discoverers were from a religiously "unified", but politically fragmented society on the verge of cultural and religious revolution. This spurred further competition between the new sea powers once the knowledge of the Americas escaped Spain. Hence Spain, England, and others colonized America, not the Chinese, nor the Polynesians.
Of course, the Europeans were in reality the second set of colonizers and exploiters of the Americas. The first colonized this land mass, IIRC, about 15000 - 30000 years ago. Re-write the history books my ass.[\rant]
There is just too much woo-woo on the History Channel and the Science Channel lately. My kids are still at the stage of development where the argument from authority has a very strong appeal, and I resent having to fight the apparent authority of those channels. I hope they don't screw that series up, but I wish it would be on anything but the History Channel. History? Since when is the time before the invention of Writing history?
Did anybody see How the Earth Was Made by the History Channel? And if so can you point out the flaws in that two hour program?
Sven Demilo re#78 According to Wikipedia: "Gene duplication is believed to play a major role in evolution""Susumu Ohno was one of the most famous developers of this theory"... Notice the word 'believed' and the word 'theory'. Again evolution is in the catagory of conjecture. Theories are interesting thoughts, daydreams, observational guesses, etc. But face the facts, frogs or cellular globs don't change into people, nor do single cells morph into dual eyeballs with three dimensional focusing, connected to a processing brain. This is a statement of faith but not scientific. The theory of evolution has become a religion with 'time' being the functional god... if given enough 'time' rocks naturally transform into all life we see today. When the theory is written out as it is here, it is not even a good fairy tale.
You don't know what a "theory" is.
You don't know the difference between conjecture and inference.
And yet you take time out of your busy idiot's day to come to a blog run by a scientist and read by scientists to spout your clueless bullshit.
You're a piece of work, Woefel, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
But I'm sure you're not.
Know why?
'caus you're nothing but an ignorant troll.
To SC @29, If I have made one person laugh (or chortle gently), it's all worth it. The whole multicellular bias does bug me (bug, get it? that's what we call the isolates in the lab... see... Crap. That wasn't funny at all.)
To Michael Woeful,
I... Um... wow, dude! Let go of the "great chain of being" thing first, then there may be some discussion possible.
I don't really think you're arguing in good faith, so I'll say no more.
*Shakes a Stratocaster threateningly at Michael Woelfel, #92*
bah
someone hijacked my THC joke.
Woeful sez the same things every time he spews forth:
http://www.google.com/cse?cx=017254414699180528062%3Auyrcvn__yd0&q=Mich…
*yawn*
Crap, I forgot, OT: PZ, I'm not a morpher, just changing email to my new domain.
Don't cast me into the Dungeon, those folks scare me.
I'll be changing the 'nym to Lab Boy, too, once the association has been made. Too damn many Mike's around.
He really is tiresome, isn't he?
(And before the apostrophe police catch me about the last post, I know. I know.)
Michael Woelfel wrote:
@#92 Michael Woelful (should be Woeful?) --
I try not to get involved in arguments with bad-faith arguers, but this one really annoys me...
Time is an observed, well-accepted scientific fact. God/space aliens/unnamed intelligent designer...not so much. Also, evolution has a mechanism beyond just "time" -- it's called self-replicating macromolecules that encode biological information with random variation. This is a mechanism with a lot more explanatory power than some vague "God Intelligent Designer did it."
Well yeah. When you write it out as a straw man, it's not even a good fairy tale...it's some kind of poorly written horror story that I wouldn't wish told to my worst enemy.
I'm facing those facts. (And I do agree that they are facts...strange, out-of-left-field-and/or-yer-ass facts, but true ones nevertheless.)
My worldview is intact.
I think that might be because I understand what I'm talking about. Try it sometime, Mike.
What -- the -- fuck.
And even if not, encountering Archie is a bit hard to avoid... I'd have... thought.
Oops. Yes, I was only thinking about vertebrates in comment 59. Trilobite lenses were are solid calcite, part of the armor.
The key is that "reptile" and (to a lesser degree) "amphibian" are useless, if not outright actively obfuscating, terms. Yes, the average lizard (snakes included) does have an outright boring dentition; but that's just the average.
Yours? No, I was quoting the ad in the post. And it's not just the capitalization but also the lack of italics -- that's just a Recommendation rather than a Rule, but still.
Indeed not. Homodont dentitions with bi-, tri- or multicuspid teeth are fairly common.
Ermmmmm... there is no passive voice in "tiny early mammals who developed night vision survived to populate the night". They actively developed, actively survived, and actively populated.
And for our favorite little wolf pup...
http://cectic.com/144.html
and then
http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/
Enjoy.
I'm going to have to stand up for my sister opisthokonts and say, "What are fungi, chopped liver?!" ;-)
#89 & #103 -- you are of course correct about the active voice...my point still stands: these people weren't constrained by conventions of writing. They were constrained by their own unwillingness or inability to write well (I suspect the latter).
To OrbitalMike @90:
"If the Chinese visited in 1421, they returned to a unified China, where the whim of the Emperor caused the discovers to break up their ships and "forget" the discovery."
I haven't seen this show, but have read the book on which this stuff is based, 1421: the Year China Discovered the World, by Gavin Menzies. It's readily apparent to anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of science and history that the Chinese voyages of 1421 to 1424 are a figment of Menzies' imagination.
It is certainly possible that Chinese explorers did at some point visit the Americas, although one would expect that more information on this would have been preserved in the Chinese historical record. But there is no evidence that this particular voyage happened at all. Talk of the Chinese breaking up the ships and "forgetting" the expedition are just Menzies' way of accounting for the complete lack of documentary evidence from the Chinese.
Menzies proposed that four voyages simultaneously circumnavigated the world, discovering not only the Americas, but also Australia, New Zealand, Antarctica and Africa. The only germ of truth behind all this is that the admiral of Menzies' alleged armada (who seems to have been able to control ships thousands of miles apart by telepathy) was a real person, Zheng He, who made genuine voyages of discovery through the Indian Ocean as far as the east coast of Africa. The Chinese have not destroyed evidence of these voyages.
Next month, The History Channel will reveal that Nostradamus derived his prophecies from fortune cookie fortunes written by an obscure Chinese philosopher named Hoo Flung Poo.
Somewhat related to this thread so I'm posting it here. Some bozo from a Presbyterian church in the benighted pandhandle of my retarded home state has been trolling the Florida Citizens for Science website. He's posting crap from AiG (of course) to "support" his claptrap and has latched onto the old Guzman/Supersport-esque demand for a mutation that creates new genetic information.
I'm off to bed now (looooooong day in court tomorrow) so could somebody who is up wit' teh science please go chew on him a bit? I'm really tired. www.flascience.org/wp/?p=575#comments
I'm also a moron who doesn't know how to post active links. I am shamed.
No, but some of them taste just like chicken.
Yeah, I'm not going to get my hopes up since seeing (only a few weeks ago) a program called Hitler and the Occult in which they had some 'expert' make the Darwin -> Hitler -> genocide claim. (Unrebutted, I believe)
Bah!
Here is one such, a gene duplication under strong selective pressure in humans. There are many more examples. I'm not going to post it though but anyone can copy and paste it. Not in the mood to deal with brain dead creo trolls. The main branch of the US Presbyterian church has no problem with evolution and hasn't for decades.
raven | May 5, 2008 8:59 PM | Reply
Selective sweeps of adaptive mutations are known in humans. Two of the best characterized involve human diet. Adult lactose tolerance is well characterized. Recently a copy number variation in amylase has been found that correlates with amount of starch in modern diets.
Seeing is believing. Given the time frames of these mutations, within the last 10,000 years and coinciding with the invention of agriculture, they must have conferred a significant fitness advantage. Who would have thought ability to drink milk and eat wheat and rice would be so difficult. It isn't now, of course, but 10,000 years ago it must have been different.
Nat Genet. 2007 Oct;39(10):1256-60. Epub 2007 Sep 9. Links
Comment in: Nat Genet. 2007 Oct;39(10):1188-90. Diet and the evolution of human amylase gene copy number variation.Perry GH, Dominy NJ, Claw KG, Lee AS, Fiegler H, Redon R, Werner J, Villanea FA, Mountain JL, Misra R, Carter NP, Lee C, Stone AC. School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287, USA.
Starch consumption is a prominent characteristic of agricultural societies and hunter-gatherers in arid environments. In contrast, rainforest and circum-arctic hunter-gatherers and some pastoralists consume much less starch. This behavioral variation raises the possibility that different selective pressures have acted on amylase, the enzyme responsible for starch hydrolysis. We found that copy number of the salivary amylase gene (AMY1) is correlated positively with salivary amylase protein level and that individuals from populations with high-starch diets have, on average, more AMY1 copies than those with traditionally low-starch diets. Comparisons with other loci in a subset of these populations suggest that the extent of AMY1 copy number differentiation is highly unusual. This example of positive selection on a copy number-variable gene is, to our knowledge, one of the first discovered in the human genome. Higher AMY1 copy numbers and protein levels probably improve the digestion of starchy foods and may buffer against the fitness-reducing effects of intestinal disease.
I also read the Menzie's book. Found it entertaining, to a point.
The ancient chinese were obsessive record keepers. They wrote about everything. It's hard to believe that something as monumental as discovering an unknown continent would leave behind no record at all.
Menzie's isn't alone. I believe there's some Canadian guy who claimed to have found what he thinks is the ruin of a Chinese settlement on Prince Edward Island. (These chinese were apparently shipwrecked and never went back to china, hence no records) Don't know enough details to tell if this should be considered intriguing archeology, entertaining fantasy, or total kookery.
has latched onto the old Guzman/Supersport-esque demand for a mutation that creates new genetic information.
no need for specifics, just point the person to a page on polyploidy.
done.
here's a decent basic overview:
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/P/Polyploidy.html
you could easily just point them in the direction of the Index to Creationist Claims as well, as the whole "no increase in information" nonsense is covered there too.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
95% of living species have eyes? That can't be right. What about all the plants and microbes?
-jcr
Does it really matter, the same people who refuse to accept evolution also refuse to watch Hist, Disc, Sci, etc.
At least WE will have something new to watch. I think it will help more if NBC, CBS, and ABC started showing such programs, but I don't believe that will be happening anytime soon.
BTW Did anyone else find it odd that these were the only channels(Hist, Disc, Sci, etc.) I saw preveiews for Expelled on the week before opening?
"I didn't know there was a pre-Cambrian *era*."
EPOCH FAIL.
To Number8Dave @#107,
Thanks for the clarification on the Chinese "expeditions". My point was more on the notion of needing to rewrite the history books. The most it would deserve in a history book, if they or others visited the Americas before 1492, is a footnote. Any other claims, like that of Arabs, Africans,etc., would still not change the fact that the European exploration / exploitation of the Americas is due to the 4 voyages of Columbus.
There's a very nice sorta kinda legend that points to California. But that is it. Menzies never tries to falsify his speculations.
Not so, young padawan.
Yeah, I know, David. I was just having fun with #6's comment.
When you're #117, just about everything has been said, and all that is left is pure punnery.
(That, and I felt it was good for my mental health to stop yelling at fundies for a few days, and just crack a few one-liners)
I see that the History Channel is showing this late at night so the kids don't get brainwashed. I'm not impressed with the programming on that channel thus far.
Sweet! This premieres on my birthday! XD
@92
If anyone found evidence of a frog turning into a person it would necessitate a major rethinking of evolutionary analysis. It would not shore up anything in the minds of scientists...as a matter of fact I would guess that finding a frog-to-person transformation would do far more to support creationism as it falls right in line with that kind of magical thinking.
I've searched the History Channel web site and there is no sign of this series. There is a program on June 17th called How Life Began, but no Evolve.
Sure this is for real?
Same story here, #124.......no evidence of evolution on the History Channel's website. Must have disappeared along with all those transitional species (I jest, of course). I was looking forward to this. Anyone know what's up?
Here's the update
It's been rescheduled to the end of July.
...and only after I post #125 do I look for this:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/let_your_tivos_stand_down.php
Call off the dogs.
My mate's Lebensgefährtin refers to the History Channel as 'Happy Holidays with Hitler', which, I think, sums it up pretty well.