Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, January 3, 2012
Science Finding My Evolution
Posted by Charles Mudede on Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 8:22 AM
One of the biggest mysteries (to me) about my past has been why I accepted the truth of Darwinian evolution long before I went to college or even studied O Level biology. Until very recently, my only solution to this mystery was found in a flight I took from London to Lusaka at age 12. At the beginning of this trip, I vividly saw lots of very white people; at the end of it, I vividly saw lots of very black people. Clearly, the dramatic change in location had something to do with this dramatic change in skin color. The two races were different because their environments were different: cold and cloudy regions selected humans with light skin; hot and sunny ones for humans with black skin. What other explanation could there be? That trip made Darwinism clear to me at 12. I was certain of this answer until I recently chanced upon this video...
YouTube is so good at transmitting the deepest parts of your past to the present. I recalled watching that old BBC documentary on peppered moths when I was 9 (my parents only allowed me to watch educational channels) and realizing right away that animals not just adapt to their environments but, more importantly, the process is totally random. (I'm completely ignoring the controversy surrounding the doc because it's dumb.) The trip I took a few years later only confirmed what I learned from the documentary: The dark moths of Britain became the dark skins of African humans; the chance of the factory smoke became the chance of location and the sun. How else could it be? Darwinism stares it at everyone in the face.
1
I don't need to see science in person to believe it. I believe in the scientific method, rationality and the peer review system, and I believe that most scientists are pursuing all three it with integrity. It's kind of like my religion, I guess, except awesome because it sends people into space.
3
realizing right away that animals not just adapt to their environments
Sorry, Charlie, but that is not evolution...that is intelligent design.
Organisms have random mutation, some of which have selective advantages.
Otherwise, we might see green elephants adapted to camouflage themselves against similarly hued warehouse walls.
4
I've found that the phrase "I don't know" can be a deadly weapon in arguments with dogmatic religious types. They ask if I believe that humans are descended from monkeys and I shrug and say "who the fuck knows." They ask me how I can be so sure that there is no god and I say "I don't have an opinion about the existence of a supreme being, but that stories about talking snakes strike me as unlikely."
5
This is the example that I use when explaining evolution to my children. My family is of Northern European descent--red hair, blue eyes, very pale complexions. At the latitudes where our genealogy traces back to, the coloration was necessary to maximize absorption of what little UV exposure was available. This is a good starting point for the discussion. However, it was less productive with my sister, who is adamant that she was made in God's image. Who knew, god Is apparently a 5'5" white woman with curly hair.
6
@1, Eh, myths about the nature of scientific progress, practice, and method (the heroic view of science) are just as harmful as the religious science-deniers. And, as Steve Shapin notes, "The further away you are from the quotidian life of scientific practice, the more you tend to be infatuated with myths of method."
7
@3, you can accuse that wording of lamarkianism but not intelligent design. agreed, wording should be more precise but i did say "selects for" and "random" in my post.
10
For me it was the mammals. The remnants of legs hidden inside flippers, the face and hands of an ape, an entire continent of marsupials of astounding adaptations all showed me clearly that science had the answer.
11
@9, Grow up.
There's also strong genetic evidence that Europeans, Asians, and New Guineans interbred with Neanderthals.
There's also strong genetic evidence that Europeans, Asians, and New Guineans interbred with Neanderthals.
15
@3,@8 - You guys should read about epigenetics. The chemical flushes that creatures experience in their lives turns on various genetic expressions. If those expressions are turned on or off enough times the changes become encoded in the DNA. There's less "random mutation with selective advantage" than we've been taught to believe. Lamarck was somewhat correct, he just could no explain the mechanism.
18
@13,14: Wow! People of different ethnic backgrounds tend to be more at risk for different disorders! Who'd ha' thunk it? Next thing you'll be telling me that people of Mongoloid ethnic background tend to have lower alcohol tolerances than people of Caucasian background!
@16: Oh wow, a lawyer with no background in genetics or neurology is trying to get his client off. Stop the presses!
@17: Intelligence is to some degree heritable, like many other traits? No way!
What exactly do these three papers and one batshit rambling indicate? What are you trying to say, Lassie?
@16: Oh wow, a lawyer with no background in genetics or neurology is trying to get his client off. Stop the presses!
@17: Intelligence is to some degree heritable, like many other traits? No way!
What exactly do these three papers and one batshit rambling indicate? What are you trying to say, Lassie?
19
Comment Pulled
(Trolling)
Comment Policy
20
Comment Pulled
(Trolling)
Comment Policy
21
Comment Pulled
(Trolling)
Comment Policy
22
@19: I am far more educated in genetics than you could possibly imagine. I am well aware that each ethnic group has its own set of genetic disorders to which its members are disproportionately predisposed. I understand the concept of heterozygote advantage, which explains why seemingly deleterious mutations may never go to extinction, nor to fixation.
You are telling me things that I already know. What are you trying to say or prove?
You are telling me things that I already know. What are you trying to say or prove?
23
Uh, it's pretty well established that skin color corresponds to Vitamin D production -- human skin can photosynthesize D3 from UV-B light, but melanin blocks that.
If you think evolution is totally random, you have bought the creationists' 747-assembled-by-a-tornado story. There are two equally important parts to evolution: (1) you have a population that is continuously acquiring random, heritable variations (mutations); (2) some of those variations directly affect survival or reproduction (natural selection). The first force is random, but the second is anything but.
Don't get me wrong; step (1) is important, but (2) is just as critical, or the result isn't evolution. For instance, bacteria reproduce rapidly and have rather lax DNA repair mechanisms, so they have lots of naturally existing variation. Some of those bacteria already have random mutations that make them resistant to antibiotics, while others already have random mutations that make them vulnerable to antibiotics -- both without ever having actually encountered an antibiotic. But when you apply selection -- bacteria, meet antibiotic -- the only bacteria who survive are the ones who already had pre-existing resistance. Those bacteria go on to spawn the next generation of bacteria, and the population as a whole has "evolved" to a state of antibiotic-resistance.
If there is variation but no selective pressure, there is no evolution, only drift. Variation by itself can produce differences in melanin expression, but only the non-random force of selection can force melanin expression to correlate with latitude. If there were mutation with no selection, you would expect all skin colors to be haphazardly distributed around the world.
If you think evolution is totally random, you have bought the creationists' 747-assembled-by-a-tornado story. There are two equally important parts to evolution: (1) you have a population that is continuously acquiring random, heritable variations (mutations); (2) some of those variations directly affect survival or reproduction (natural selection). The first force is random, but the second is anything but.
Don't get me wrong; step (1) is important, but (2) is just as critical, or the result isn't evolution. For instance, bacteria reproduce rapidly and have rather lax DNA repair mechanisms, so they have lots of naturally existing variation. Some of those bacteria already have random mutations that make them resistant to antibiotics, while others already have random mutations that make them vulnerable to antibiotics -- both without ever having actually encountered an antibiotic. But when you apply selection -- bacteria, meet antibiotic -- the only bacteria who survive are the ones who already had pre-existing resistance. Those bacteria go on to spawn the next generation of bacteria, and the population as a whole has "evolved" to a state of antibiotic-resistance.
If there is variation but no selective pressure, there is no evolution, only drift. Variation by itself can produce differences in melanin expression, but only the non-random force of selection can force melanin expression to correlate with latitude. If there were mutation with no selection, you would expect all skin colors to be haphazardly distributed around the world.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Foie Gras Tastes Like Cat Food by Callan Berry
-
SL Letter of the Day: The Tell-Tale Handjob by Dan Savage
-
Cap Hill Is Becoming a Little Like What? by Charles Mudede
-
Pizza Update: Breaking the 5-Minute Barrier by Goldy
-
President Obama Says NSA Spying Is "Transparent" by Paul Constant
-
Today in the Surveillance State: The "War on Reality" by Brendan Kiley
-
Slog Bible Study: Leviticus 20:9 by Goldy
-
The Full Text of David Guterson's Controversial Commencement Speech by Dominic Holden
-
The Monday Morning News by Goldy
-
Egyptian Theatre to Close at the End of This Month by Paul Constant
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (24) RSS