Tag: Evolution

The Boston Globe reports on a story about a post doc (Nathanial Abraham) from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution who was fired recently, apparently because he does not believe in evolution. Apparently, even though Abraham was supposed to focus on comparative and evolutionary studies in the lab of Mark E. Hahn, at some point Abraham told Hahn he did not believe in evolution.

This raises the question – that the Globe asks

“Can people work in a scientific field if they don’t believe in its basic tenets?”

I think the answer in this is a bit slippery. If someone does not believe in evolution, but in their work still uses evolutionary analyses and perspective I am not sure what one should do. But Abraham apparently went further and said he would not even discuss evolution in papers on the project. This is reflected in a letter from Hahn quoted in the Globe:

“. . . You have indicated that you do not recognize the concept of biological evolution and you would not agree to include a full discussion of the evolutionary implications and interpretations of our research in any co-authored publications resulting from this work,” Hahn wrote in the letter, which the commission provided to the Globe. “This position is incompatible with the work as proposed to NIH and with my own vision of how it should be carried out and interpreted.”

This then becomes more than “not believing” in evolution outside of work. This is clearly a stance that could jeopardize the quality and integrity of the papers coming out of the project (imagine if I said I was going to write all genome papers from now one based on my belief that DNA is not the material of inheritance but instead that membranes are).

So this looks like a case where the issue is much clearer than in some other cases reported recently. Abraham basically was telling his boss “I vow to do sucky science.” And for this, I think it is perfectly reasonable that he got canned.

PS – Thanks for Iddo Friedberg for pointing this story.

Also – see PZ Myers’ post about this for much more detail.

Thanks to Michael Ferrari who has pointed out a cool new phylogenetics visualization tool called the “Interactive Tree of Life“

Put out (I believe) by Peer Bork’s group, this tool allows users to upload their own trees and then view and manipulate them from anywhere. Seems like Peer is trying to become the Google of phylogenetics.

Tonight ()Tuesday, 11/13, from 8-10 pm) NOVA is running a documentary on the Kitzmiller vs. Dover evolution trial.

For more detail see the NOVA site.

PS – Thanks to Doug Rusch for pointing this out.

The New York Times has an article on Hilary Clinton’s science agenda. She discussed space exploration, global warming, stem cells, and evolution. On evolution she says

“I believe in evolution, and I am shocked at some of the things that people in public life have been saying,” Mrs. Clinton said in the interview. “I believe that our founders had faith in reason and they also had faith in God, and one of our gifts from God is the ability to reason.”

“I am grateful that I have the ability to look at dinosaur bones and draw my own conclusions,” she added, saying, too, that antibiotic-resistant bacteria is evidence that “evolution is going on as we speak.”

I think candidates statements on evolution and a nearly perfect test of whether they will really support science or not if they were to be elected. Those candidates that say they do not believe in evolution and/or that they support teaching ID in science classes are unquestionably more likely to not treat science in general very well. And though I could quibble with Clinton’s quote (antibiotic resistant bacteria are not per se evidence of evolution — it is the spread of antibiotic resistance and the rapid origin of new forms of resistance that are due to evolution). But she has the general issue correct. Good to see some of the politicians are not sucking up too much to the anti-science crowds.

Evolution gets some great props in a new article in the Economist. Specifically they are talking about using “natural selection” as a computation tool in design. I think the article speaks for itself so people should check it out. Some of the quotes I like in particular are:

The inventor’s trial-and-error approach can be automated by software that mimics natural selection

AND

“I HAVE not failed. I have just found 10,000 ways that won’t work.” So said Thomas Edison, the prolific inventor, speaking of his laborious attempts to perfect the incandescent light bulb.

AND

As in biology, most mutations are worse than the original. But a few are better, and these are used to create the next generation.

AND

A century and a half after Darwin suggested natural selection as the mechanism of evolution, engineers have proved him right once again.

Kyung M. Song in the Seattle Times reports that Spencer Wells has won a relatively unknown but quite lucrative prize ($100,000) for his work on the human Genographic Project (see this article in the New York Times by Amy Harmon for more information on this project)

I love the lead in to the story

“Nearly half of all Americans reject the theory of evolution, with many believing instead that humans were created by a higher power. But for more than a decade, a little-known nonprofit based in Bellevue has promoted scientific research into the evolution of the human genome — and dispensed money to spread the knowledge.”

Apparently the “Foundation For the Future” is big on human evolution having awarded their Kistler Prize (named after the Foundations founder Walter Kistler) to the likes of Richard Dawkins, E O. Wilson, etc. Congratulations to Spencer, who I still owe for giving me some excellent advice (when I was an undergraduate and he was a graduate student) about people to work for in graduate school (which I ignored, but it was still excellent advice).

Enough about Spencer — The Times reports that

the foundation wields its $25 million endowment to support an array of scientific endeavors, awarding prizes for books, documentaries and teaching.

Hey – what about for blogs?

Generally, I like the articles Nick Wade writes for the New York Times on science. In fact, I like them so much that I used his work as a template for my April 1 joke about Craig Venter sequencing his own microbiome. But I cannot help but feel that he really punted a bit in his article today entitled “Is ‘Do Unto Others’ Written Into Our Genes? ” The article is mostly about new work by Jonathan Haidt, who has written about “evolutionary views of morality”

I will skip for now discussing my opinions on the meat of the article Haidt’s work. But what irked me about Wade’s article was the beginning. The article opens with

“Where do moral rules come from? From reason, some philosophers say. From God, say believers. Seldom considered is a source now being advocated by some biologists, that of evolution.

At first glance, natural selection and the survival of the fittest may seem to reward only the most selfish values. But for animals that live in groups, selfishness must be strictly curbed or there will be no advantage to social living. Could the behaviors evolved by social animals to make societies work be the foundation from which human morality evolved?”

I have two problems with this lead in. First, it implies that altruism and related behaviors evolved “to make societies work.” This of course is not accurate. Yes, their existence allows societies to work, but they did not evolve to make societies work. Evolution does not have a drive to make societies work. It is a subtle distinction perhaps but an important one.

Second, and more important to me, the introduction could be interpreted as implying that the evolution of altruism itself is not well studied and/or is being debated. This does not appear to be what Wade means (when he says “Could the behaviors evolved by social animals to make societies work” he means in part, “Given that altruism and other social behaviors evolve …”).

However, in discussions I have had with many people about this article they thought Wade was saying the evolution of altruism itself is under debate. If many people are coming away from Wade’s article with this impression that is too bad since the evolution of altruism is well studied (there is a great book on this topic called “The Altruism Equation” by Lee Alan Dugatkin – a good blog about the book is one by Jason Rosenhouse here).

The evolution of altruism is one of my recent pet peeves since it was treated so poorly by Francis Collins in his recent book “The Language of God.” In his book, which has some good discussion of how science and religion should be considered separate areas of study, Collins says that since evolution has been unable to explain altruism, therefore God must exist. This not only contradicts his own discussion in the book on how one should not use a “God is in the gaps argument” as evidence for religious beliefs , but it is simply wrong – evolutionary theory can explain altruism (see the Dugatkin book for more detail).

Note I am not saying anything here about whether I think God or gods exist. I personally believe religion and science can and should be separate fields. But certainly, one cannot use misleading references to non-existent gaps in evolutionary biology as evidence for the existence of one’s own personal view of God/gods.

So – to sum up a way to long blog — altruism can be explained by evolutionary biology and if people say otherwise (i.e., Collins) or could be interpreted as implying otherwise even if they do not mean to (i.e., Wade), don’t believe it.

To all evolutionary biologists or people working on phylogenetics/comparative methods. There is a faculty position available in the Section of Evolution and Ecology at U. C. Davis. U. C. Davis was ranked #1 in the country for graduate programs in Evolution and Ecology in 2006. It is a great school with lots of cool stuff going on in evolution and ecology as well as all aspects of the life sciences. The posting is below:

Quantitative Phylogenetics/Comparative Methods

Quantitative Phylogenetics/Comparative Methods, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS — The College of Biological Sciences, University of California, Davis invites applications and nominations for a tenure-track position in the Section of Evolution and Ecology at the ASSISTANT PROFESSOR level. Candidates must have a Ph.D. (or equivalent) in the biological sciences or related fields. Candidates should have a strong record of research applying phylogenetics to problems in evolution and/or ecology. We will give particular attention to applicants who are both developing and applying quantitative phylogenetic methods. The successful candidate will be expected to teach in the section’s undergraduate program and the graduate program of the Population Biology Graduate Group. Applicants should submit materials online at http://www2.eve.ucdavis.edu/jobs/. These should include: curriculum vita, description of current and projected research, summary of teaching interests and experience, and up to five publications. Applicants should also arrange to have three referees submit supporting letters online at the above website. Closing Date: Open until filled, but all application materials, including letters of recommendation, must be received by October 15, 2007, to assure full consideration. Administrative contact: Barbara Shaneyfelt (bashaneyfelt@ucdavis.edu). Faculty contacts: Bradley Shaffer and Peter Wainwright. The University of California is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer with a strong institutional commitment to the development of a climate that supports equality of opportunity and respect for differences.

Just got forwarded this email that I thought would be worth posting

All:

The graduate students at my institution (Portland State) have created an online petition
to reclassify non-science books from science categories in bookstores
and libraries. To quote from the first paragraph of their petition:

“As scientists, we feel strongly that categorizing Intelligent Design
(“ID”) as science is both inappropriate and misleading. Local bookstores
and libraries unintentionally exacerbate this misleading categorization
when they shelve ID books and legitimate science texts in the same
section . Our goal is to convince the U.S. Library of Congress to
re-classify ID books into sections other than the science section.”

If this is something about which you feel strongly (or even are
lukewarm!), I urge you to support their petition. Check URL:
http://www.sciencea2z.com/z_etomite/