Breaking News: Footprints challenge theory of evolution

Footprints challenge theory of evolution

At least according to a paper in Arizona, which proclaims that “Research by UA assistant anthropology professor David Raichlen and his colleagues provide evidence suggesting that 3.6 billion years ago, hominins walked with the same upright gait that humans do today...”

Link: Arizona Daily Wildcat

Really, upright hominins 3.6 BILLION years ago??? Bipedal locomotion is one thing, but upright walking during the Archean that’s impressive - especially considering the lack of oxygen.


Incidentally, the mentioned research actually makes an argument for hominin bipedalism first occurring around 3.6 MILLION years ago. And the research is not a challenge to evolution; in fact, it fully endorses it.

The research is available at PloS; here’s the abstract:
Background
Debates over the evolution of hominin bipedalism, a defining human characteristic, revolve around whether early bipeds walked more like humans, with energetically efficient extended hind limbs, or more like apes with flexed hind limbs. The 3.6 million year old hominin footprints at Laetoli, Tanzania represent the earliest direct evidence of hominin bipedalism. Determining the kinematics of Laetoli hominins will allow us to understand whether selection acted to decrease energy costs of bipedalism by 3.6 Ma.

Methodology/Principal Findings
Using an experimental design, we show that the Laetoli hominins walked with weight transfer most similar to the economical extended limb bipedalism of humans. Humans walked through a sand trackway using both extended limb bipedalism, and more flexed limb bipedalism. Footprint morphology from extended limb trials matches weight distribution patterns found in the Laetoli footprints.

Conclusions
These results provide us with the earliest direct evidence of kinematically human-like bipedalism currently known, and show that extended limb bipedalism evolved long before the appearance of the genus Homo. Since extended-limb bipedalism is more energetically economical than ape-like bipedalism, energy expenditure was likely an important selection pressure on hominin bipeds by 3.6 Ma.



Raichlen, D., Gordon, A., Harcourt-Smith, W., Foster, A., & Haas, W. (2010). Laetoli Footprints Preserve Earliest Direct Evidence of Human-Like Bipedal Biomechanics PLoS ONE, 5 (3) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0009769

The Views of Biology Teachers towards Teaching Evolution

In discussing Marco Rubio’s anti-science perspectives during the previous post, I mentioned Florida’s miserable (though improving) track record in regards to the teaching of evolution. As it turns out, the National Association of Biology Teachers has recently published the results of a survey which focused on the attitudes held by Florida’s biology teachers towards the teaching of evolution.

The survey’s data was derived from the responses of 353 Florida biology teachers; 28% of which taught biology in kindergarten through the fifth grade, 24% instructed biology in grades six through eight and 48% taught biology at the high school level (grades 9–12).


A Few of the Findings:
20% of Florida’s biology teachers are NOT COMFORTABLE with even INCLUDING evolution as a required science standard


17% of the teachers felt that biology COULD be taught and understood WITHOUT teaching evolution


17% DISAGREED that the earth is at least 4 billion years old (34% of those that disagreed believed that the earth is only between 4,000 and 40,000 years old)


34% felt that believing in God MEANS rejecting evolution


72% of the respondents reported that they HAD NEVER BEEN criticized by other teachers or school administrators in regards to HOW they taught evolution


44% of the teachers indicated that their teaching of evolution HAS BEEN criticized by students or parents


If the above numbers seem frightening consider this: The study’s respondents were solicited from the Building a Presence in Science (BaP) program of the National Science Teachers Association. Therefore, the numbers could be biased towards the "pro" science education end of the spectrum!!!


FOWLER and MEISELS (2010). Florida Teachers’ Attitudes about
Teaching Evolution The American Biology Teacher, 72 (2), 96-99 : 10.1525/abt.2010.72.2.8

Is the Evolution Debate Over?

A recent blog post at National Public Radio’s Cosmos And Culture by astrophysicist Adam Frank has raised my hackles. The post, titled “The Evolution Debate Is Over; It's Time To Move Forward,” argues that “it's time to put the prejudices that drag down discussion between science and the domains of human spiritual endeavor aside.”

I disagree with Adam Frank and believe that a false impression has caused him to misdiagnose and underestimate a serious problem; as stated in a recent psychology publication (cited below):

“Moreover, academics are largely nonreligious, a pattern anticipated by the negative correlation between education and religiosity. Being exposed to like-minded colleagues, academics may form the false impression that religion is a rather rare and marginal phenomenon.”

Furthermore, let me express that I have doubts as to Adam’s sincerity in this stated endeavor. Most would agree that the best way to “move forward” from a subject is to talk about something else – a different topic altogether. Adam chose a different tactic. He placed religion on even ground with science under the premise that both can “be sources of wisdom” and represent "...the many ways humans encounter the True and the Real." This fallacious pairing of religion and science to me seems more conducive to forming an argument than to dispelling one. That aside, the ‘can’t we all get along’ position is a great sentiment, and makes sense in regards to personal communication, but when it comes determining what is real, and what is true in nature, giving equal standing to relativistic mumbo-jumbo and spiritualism is a nonsensical move for anyone that values what is true.

What is real? What is true?

I am typing this piece from the comfort of my couch in Tallahassee, Florida. To type and transmit the text of the post, I’m using a manufactured conglomerate of silicon and plastic that is more commonly referred to as a “laptop computer.” Rather than detailing what precisely a laptop computer is, I am going to assume that the readers of this article are familiar with the technology. Of course, this is a big assumption…

If, for example, you happen to be reading this as a recently arrived member of a primitive tribe from the Amazon Basin or some remote island in Indonesia, a ‘computer’ may be a foreign notion; as would the internet, electricity and many other miracles that I treat as commonplace. In fact, due to its relative rarity in your homeland, your native tongue may not even have the words to describe the luminous rock at which I now peck. Taking it a bit further, the laptop’s ability to conjure light in the absence of fire might even earn it a descriptor with a magical or spiritual connotation! However, regardless if you consider my laptop to be magical or mundane, its nature remains unaltered by our differing languages. It is real - it exists independently of our individual perceptions and doesn’t require faith. It can be held in your hands, measured, weighed and contemplated. The laptop maintains the same physical attributes rather it is in my living room, or it’s placed at a Dani village in New Guinea for use as a backlit fish-cleaning station and object of worship. A laptop is a laptop, is a laptop; thinking that it’s anything other than a laptop is factually incorrect and an artifact of ignorance or self-deception. Believing a laptop to be magic is not insightful, “deep” or quant, quite the opposite - it is something to be remedied through education.

From a philosophical view, does science prove that my laptop is real or that it truly exists? No, science has never, nor will it ever, ‘prove’ anything. After all, it is possible that my laptop is only a figment of my imagination (just as it’s possible that it has magic); but, just because anything is possible, it doesn’t follow that everything is equally likely. There is an ‘objective reality.’ Individual phenomena are labeled as true or un-true based on that objective reality as measured by observation, rationality, discourse and methodical inquiry – reality is measured by science.

Science isn’t in the business of determining certainty; instead it applies a probability based on all available evidence. For example, it is not absolutely certain that humans reproduce through sexual congress. But, based on independent experimentation the stork hypothesis seems unviable, and sex appears to be a statistically significant contributing factor to human pregnancy; thus, sexual reproduction is considered a fact by medical professionals around the world.

In strong contrast to science, religion places subjectivity above objectivity, it requires no evidence, and need not be measurable or even rational. Religion affirms that what may be true for one person need not be true for another. Faith is belief in the absence of, or despite of, evidence. Its tenets are as variable as the range of human personality. With religion all things are possible - even human pregnancy without sex.

Superstitious beliefs are used to affront more than just science education. They’re also used daily as justification for sexism, domestic abuse, racism, killing children, terrorism and numerous other immoral behaviors the world over. Rationalizing these behaviors as different ways of experiencing reality or as acceptable consequences of cultural relativism is just as fallacious as staging a debate between legitimate biologists and creationists – it just serves to validate ignorance.

In closing, let me contrast my perspective from that of Mr. Frank one last time. In his post he writes, “it is clear that at this particular moment in history, when we face such obvious and overwhelming dangers, it's time to put the prejudices that drag down discussion between science and the domains of human spiritual endeavor aside.”

Because I fully agree that there are “overwhelming dangers” in the world, I would declare that the very worst thing we could do would be to offer safe heaven (or, safe haven) to ignorance, superstition and irrationality. Our best hope to prevail over danger is to aggressively combat ignorance with the greatest prejudice we can muster. We should strive to eliminate ignorance from every political office and every schoolhouse. There are some things that should not be tolerated or compromsed.

Sedikides, C. (2009). Why Does Religiosity Persist? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14 (1), 3-6 DOI: 10.1177/1088868309352323

Buffalos and Birds: Flightless Wings from the KT Extinction to Darwin’s Dinner Plate

Although not an aficionado of fine cuisine by any measure, through persistence and voluminous sampling I have refined my palate to appreciate the delicate subtleties of several dishes. And, while I would admittedly be lost at a wine tasting, when it comes to cheeseburgers, pizza or Buffalo wings, I consider myself a gourmet of the highest standard. In calibrating my sophisticated taste buds, Friday night has been officially dubbed as ‘wing night’ with consumption of the deep-fried, cayenne laden morsels a matter of established ritual. This past Friday as my fiancé and I were blindly obliging our delectable dogma we were taken aback when our usual wing-purveyor served such diminutive wings that we jested they must have been taken from hummingbirds or from an assuredly flightless species. Luckily, the chicken wings’ lack of robustness was mitigated by an ice cold pitcher of beer and a nerd-ish banter about the evolutionary history of flightless birds and their place at the dinner tables long passed.

The current scientific “consensus” is that the vertebrate group we now refer to as birds had origins in the late Jurassic Period more than 145-million years ago. Having evolved from bipedal dinosaurs belonging to the theropod clade into an Archaeopteryx-type winged flyer, birds had conquered the air long before the infamous mass extinction event at the end of the Cretaceous Period. Often referred to as the ‘KT Extinction Event,’ a massive environmental upheaval approximately 65-million years ago wiped-out the majority of animal life on the planet, including what at that time was the dominant vertebrate group, the non-avian dinosaurs. The exact cause of the KT Extinction is still a topic for debate with asteroid impacts and volcanic activity viewed as the likely leading contributors, but what is absolutely certain is that the resulting mayhem collapsed the Earth’s ecosystems into complete chaos. Birds, the only members of the dino-clan to survive the cataclysm, emerged from the ruin to occupy a world in disarray but non-the-less rife with newly revealed opportunity.

In addition to leaving behind a ravaged planet, the KT Extinction also instigated the abandonment of numerous ecosystems that had previously been ruled over by the dinosaurs during their Mesozoic habitation. Though left in shambles, these ecosystems had also been vacated by many of the predators and competitors that initially pushed the theropods to the sky during the Jurassic Period. In the absence of rivalry, birds had been granted access to ‘open ecosystems’ and presented with the option to undertake a second conquest of the land. Several species of birds seized on the prospect of life on terra firma and through evolutionary time traded their wings for the physiology of sure-footedness. One modern grouping of these ground dwelling, flightless dinosaurs is called the ‘ratites’ and boasts the South American rheas among its extant members.

There are two species of rhea; the ‘Greater rhea and the ‘Darwin’s rhea,’ which is also known as the ‘Lesser rhea.’ Despite their flightless status, both the Greater (Rhea americana) and the Darwin’s (Rhea pennata) display wings as identifying anatomical features; however, due to the lack of a ‘keeled’ sternum to anchor to their already reduced breast muscles, as well as the presence of a diminished wishbone (furcula) to provide skeletal support, these South American natives are bound to a grounded existence. As an alternative to employment in the aviation industry, the process of natural selection has resulted in enhanced legs that have been optimized for a life on the run. While rhea’s legs have undergone adaptation for speed and agility, they have not yet evolved the ability to avoid entanglement by humans, or for that matter, to steer clear of the occasional dinner table.

On a more historical time scale, one of the most widely used implements of rhea leg entanglement were hunting weapons called ‘bolas.’ Bolas, derived from the Spanish word for ‘ball,’ refers to a weapon constructed with lengths of rope or braided cord with a weighted ‘ball’ attached on each end. The bolas are swung to build-up momentum and then thrown at the legs of fleeing game, tended cattle, or - more to the topic - a running rhea. The momentum of the weighted ends entangles the targeted animal by wrapping the adjoining ropes around its legs; this causes the animal to fall to the ground immobilized, or at least to be sufficiently slowed as to permit dispatch by other means (i.e. gun, knife or club).

Bolas are favorite tools of the South American ‘gauchos,’ which hold a societal role not unlike that of the North American cowboy; they work as ranch hands, hunters, and when the chance presents itself, as wilderness guides. In the year 1833 several South American gouchos were working as rhea-wrangling wilderness guides at the behest of a touring young naturalist from England. In August of that year, the naturalist Charles Darwin documented in his journal a humorous set of circumstances that lead to the dinner table identification of a new species of rhea – the bird now known as Darwin’s rhea.

Rendering of Darwin's rhea by John Gould.

Gould also identified 'Darwin's finches.'

While traversing South America during the voyage of the HMS Beagle, Darwin had observed Greater Rheas in the wild on many occasions. In fact, with the aid of a few gaucho guided bolas, the abundant Greater Rheas had become a mainstay of his diet.

In conversing with the gauchos in regards to habits of these ratites, Darwin had learned that there was a second variety of rhea roaming the continent. This second type, which the gauchos called ‘Avestruz Petise’ was reportedly a smaller version of the Greater and exhibited a darker plumage and skittishness behavior that made it readily distinguishable from the ones he had seen in the wild. Unfortunately, following Darwin’s discussion neither he nor the gauchos were able to collect a specimen of this “lesser” flightless bird for formal description, and in time it faded from Darwin’s attention. The lesser rhea went unspoken of until finally one evening Darwin was enjoying a quiet dinner with Mr. Marten, the Beagle’s contracted artist, who had shot and killed what they believed was a medium sized Greater rhea. As it turned out, the fully cooked ‘medium rhea’ that graced their plates as entrée on closer examination turned-out to be something else entirely; as Darwin himself detailed on pages 108 and 109 of Voyages of the Adventure and Beagle, Volume III:


“When at Port Desire, in Patagonia, Mr. Martens shot [a rhea]; and I looked at it, forgetting at the moment, in the most unaccountable manner, the whole subject of the Petises, and thought it was a two-third grown one of the common sort. The bird was cooked and eaten before my memory returned.”

Fortunately not all was lost. Recognizing the blunder, Darwin quickly gathered the table scraps and remaining carcass from the garbage. He continued,

“…the head, neck, legs, wings, many of the larger feathers, and a large part of the skin, had been preserved. From these a very nearly perfect specimen has been put together, and is now exhibited in the museum of the Zoological Society.”

Phillips, M., Gibb, G., Crimp, E., & Penny, D. (2009). Tinamous and Moa Flock Together: Mitochondrial Genome Sequence Analysis Reveals Independent Losses of Flight among Ratites Systematic Biology, 59 (1), 90-107 DOI: 10.1093/sysbio/syp079

Image from Wikipedia - Public Domain

Insinuations of Lamarckian Evolution and a Lamenting First Impression

I just had a read of Meet your viral ancestors - how bornaviruses have been infiltrating our genomes for 40 million years over at Not Exactly Rocket Science, and then promptly made a follow-up, though cursory, pass at the associated publication from Nature:

Horie, M., Honda, T., Suzuki, Y., Kobayashi, Y., Daito, T., Oshida, T., Ikuta, K., Jern, P., Gojobori, T., Coffin, J., & Tomonaga, K. (2010). Endogenous non-retroviral RNA virus elements in mammalian genomes Nature, 463 (7277), 84-87 DOI: 10.1038/nature08695



Sine Ed has already accomplished the task of detailing the paper (at the above link), I won’t bother to do so here, rather I’ll just provide my initial, perhaps somewhat imaginative, take on it.

My first impression of the work, once again emphasizing that I sometimes express imaginative tendencies, is that it suggests a Lamarckian process of evolution.

The paper reports on a genera of RNA viruses called ‘bornaviruses’ that seemingly have the capacity to enter, and remain in, in the germlines of their hosts. In the instance of primates, for example, the researchers indicate that bornaviruses have been passed to humans from a lineage stretching back 40-million years. Although the authors don’t make specific reference to Lamarck, they do add to the argument that in addition to demonstrating “functional, albeit weak, evolutionary conservation,” the viruses “may have some function in their host species,” such as being a causative agents of psychiatric disorders, AND EVEN being “a source of genetic novelty” as to become “a new source of genetic innovation”!

So, is the paper saying that the introduction of ACQUIRED CHARACTERS into the germline of a lineage has lead to GENETIC NOVELTIES with the demonstrated ability to translate to the expressed PHENOTYPE of an ANIMAL, thus acting as a source of INNOVATION. That seems to have a tinge of Lamarckism…

Fascinating findings and bold suggestions, but in my interpretation the word ‘innovation’ goes too far in that it implies adaptation, fitness benefit and positive selection. Let’s not forget that Lamarck’s theories also relied on the idea of progression; the belief that evolution advances form towards specific functional goals. The research ‘is what it is;’ but, I can’t help but think that its speculative portions could have written a little differently… I’d be surprised if the ‘tinge’ in this paper isn’t abused by the fundys; there might be a pattern emerging over at Nature…

Plants to People: the Swift Tempo of Spontaneous Mutation

Research published today in the journal Science serves to further calibrate the ticking clock of genetic mutation. By tediously analyzing the genomes from multiple generations of the plant Arabidopsis thaliana, scientists from the Max Planck Institute have shown that spontaneous mutations can arise rather frequently in the genome. Despite commonly held assumptions of minimally effectual rarity, the study demonstrates that the rate at which novel mutations occur have more than ample potency to drive evolution. Moreover, when considering the total population size of Arabidopsis, the tempo of mutation indicates that evolution likely proceeds much faster than previously suspected.

Although a single seed of Arabidopsis thaliana may only posses a single point mutation (i.e. a single base or ‘letter’ of DNA) relative to its parents, when multiplied by millions of individual plants over multiple generations, that single mutation quickly compounds to produce tens of new base pairs in only a few years time. The rate of genetic change revealed by the Max Planck study not only aids our understanding of how observed resistance to chemical herbicides rapidly evolves within the weedy plants combated by agriculture, its findings also point to possibly underestimated speeds of mutation in other organisms – like those of humans.

For example, back in September a team headed by Sanger scientists published work in which the rate of mutation in humans was estimated at around 1 mutation per 15 to 30 million nucleotides. Comparatively, this estimate translates to about 150 point mutations in every individual as measured against their parents; that’s a mutation tempo 100 times fold that of Arabidopsis thaliana.



Ossowski, S., Schneeberger, K., Lucas-Lledo, J., Warthmann, N., Clark, R., Shaw, R., Weigel, D., & Lynch, M. (2009). The Rate and Molecular Spectrum of Spontaneous Mutations in Arabidopsis thaliana Science, 327 (5961), 92-94 DOI: 10.1126/science.1180677

Xue, Y., Wang, Q., Long, Q., Ng, B., Swerdlow, H., Burton, J., Skuce, C., Taylor, R., Abdellah, Z., & Zhao, Y. (2009). Human Y Chromosome Base-Substitution Mutation Rate Measured by Direct Sequencing in a Deep-Rooting Pedigree Current Biology, 19 (17), 1453-1457 DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2009.07.032

The Poetry of the Convergent Lizards

Convergence at White Sands

Whiptails and fencers scurry and make haste,
cross White Sands their paths converge and pace.
Tho' differing by both origin and type,
their causal genotypes follow trace.

Independent mutations had aligned,
and were by adaptation refined.
Genes and the surroundings got a hitch,
when their ecosystems intertwined.

Nature reduced the melanin of two,
with methods mechanically askew.
They evolved cryptic gypsum like match,
avoiding predatory subdue.

Even when some common genes play actor,
trait expression is a big factor.
So says Rosenblum quite sincere
in a research paper found HERE.



In case that's not quite enough info here's the abstract:
There are many striking examples of phenotypic convergence in nature, in some cases associated with changes in the same genes. But even mutations in the same gene may have different biochemical properties and thus different evolutionary consequences. Here we dissect the molecular mechanism of convergent evolution in three lizard species with blanched coloration on the gypsum dunes of White Sands, New Mexico. These White Sands forms have rapidly evolved cryptic coloration in the last few thousand years, presumably to avoid predation. We use cell-based assays to demonstrate that independent mutations in the same gene underlie the convergent blanched phenotypes in two of the three species. Although the same gene contributes to light phenotypes in these White Sands populations, the specific molecular mechanisms leading to reduced melanin production are different. In one case, mutations affect receptor signaling and in the other, the ability of the receptor to integrate into the melanocyte membrane. These functional differences have important ramifications at the organismal level. Derived alleles in the two species show opposite dominance patterns, which in turn affect their visibility to selection and the spatial distribution of alleles across habitats. Our results demonstrate that even when the same gene is responsible for phenotypic convergence, differences in molecular mechanism can have dramatic consequences on trait expression and ultimately the adaptive trajectory.



Rosenblum, E., Rompler, H., Schoneberg, T., & Hoekstra, H. (2009). Molecular and functional basis of phenotypic convergence in white lizards at White Sands Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0911042107

Rick Santorum: the High Priests of Darwinism went berserk

Another Science Lesson from Rick Santorum...

I think that I ruffled Rick Santorum’s feathers. Last week I published an article in which Christian fundamentalist and presidential hopeful Rick Santorum was used as a metaphor to dispel one of the commonly held misconceptions about biological evolution. In that post, “What an Unlearned Presidential Hopeful can teach us about Evolution ,” Santorum’s science illiteracy was presented as a ‘proof’ that humans do not occupy the top rung of an evolutionary ladder. On Thursday, just five days later, Rick Santorum published an opinion in the Philadelphia Inquirer in which he argued that evolution and climate change are ideological beliefs used to indoctrinate children and to promote socialism.

At first glance, I thought that the appearance of Santorum’s ‘science based' article a mere five days after mine was coincidental, but then I read his closing, “In some respects, the case for evolution is improving: We may indeed have evolved to the point where we can detect hot air of a different kind.” Now, I may be reading into this a wee bit, but Santorum’s metaphorical use of humans evolving towards an improved state suggests - to me at least - that he read the article here (or at the Faster Times). In addition to his closing lines, Crazy Rick also used the Philadelphia Inquirer as a soapbox to defend his 2001 “Santorum Amendment” that was criticized in my previous post. In his own defense he explained that his “teach the controversy” based amendment was initially well received by the Senate, but then, the next day “the High Priests of Darwinism went berserk” with assertions that there is no controversy. With the “berserk” assertions of scientists, the tides turned, dooming the amendment – luckily for us.

In Santorum’s new post, “The Elephant in the Room: Challenging science dogma,” he argued against science generally, and both evolution and climate science specifically. Far from being bound by conjecture, Santorum brings what he believes to be hard scientific facts to bear in disputing the “ideology” of science. Here are his facts:

“A recent Gallup poll found that only 14 percent of Americans agreed that "humans developed over millions of years" and "God had no part." A Zogby poll this year found that 78 percent of Americans agreed that schoolteachers "should teach Darwin's theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it." The same poll also found that 86 percent of self-identified liberals agreed that "teachers and students should have the academic freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution as a scientific theory." But the scientific "community" claims there is no controversy, and that debate should be banned. …only 37 percent of respondents agreed that man is causing global warming in a recent Rasmussen poll.”

That’s Santorum argument; scientific facts should be determined by opinion polls, not by scientists! So, in addition to disproving the notion of human evolutionary perfection, Santorum has now taught us how to employ incorrect reasoning. To hold a proposition as true simply because many people happen to believe it, is a logical fallacy - argumentum ad populum.


Incidentally, Crazy Rick’s numbers don’t give the whole picture. Setting aside for a moment the fact that ‘belief’ has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with reality or what is true, consider and compare the below 2009 Gallop statistics to those provided by Crazy Rick:

Overall ‘Belief’ in Evolution - Rick's Stats Only Show Atheist

‘Belief’ in Evolution by Level of Education

‘Belief’ in Evolution Cross-referenced to Knowing Darwin


‘Belief’ that Humans are Factors in Climate Change (View at Gallup)

Just for the fun of it – Here’s Belief in Witches, Astrology and Haunted Houses

Then, after irrationally linking popular belief to scientific validly, Santorum goes on to produce even more nonsensical non sequitars; he correlates climatology and global climate change to a socialist conspiracy!

“It is one thing for ideologically driven science to indoctrinate children in classrooms. It is another for politicians to use science to destroy national economies and redistribute global wealth. I refer, of course, to the latest scientific non-controversy, man-made global warming.”

How can one argue with that kind of reasoning? What world does Rick Santorum live in?

In closing, there are about 15,000 independent school districts in the United States and although science education standards are gradually improving, there is still much work to do (check-out the US standing below, listed as #2 from bottom). Rick Santorum, his minions, and others like them are out there, actively working to insert creationist propaganda into textbooks and classrooms – stay watchful! As can be read from the above tables education is a critical factor in promoting rationality.

(source)

Scott, E. (2009). Science Standards Evolve Evolution: Education and Outreach, 2 (3), 538-540 DOI: 10.1007/s12052-009-0153-0

An Imminent Creationist Feeding Frenzy, Courtesy of Nature

An article just published to Nature has turned the world of evolutionary biology topsy-turvy!

Or, so they’d like us to believe…

The paper’s authors Chris Venditti, Andrew Meade and Mark Pagel have devised a new model that shows that evolution is not driven by natural selection or through the accumulative effects of random genetic drift. Rather than incremental and gradual change, their study suggests that the vast bulk of speciation results from rare stochastic events. They call this new theory “punctuated equilibrium” – NO WAIT! They don't...

Actually, they don’t call it punctuated equilibrium, which is strange because that’s what it looks like to me… What’s even stranger is that neither Niles Eldredge nor Stephen Jay Gould’s names appear anywhere in the paper – including the references.

Through phylogenetic analysis of 101 different plant, animal and fungi groups the researchers established that - what I’m going to call - the punctuated equilibrium model is the most parsimonious fit for explaining the branch lengths of the studied taxa.

Although, this ‘rediscovery’ of what’s been known for about the last 30-years may not seem too earthshaking, I’m confident that (with Nature’s help of course) creationists around the world will be harvesting quotes from the article and its associated news release.


Check out these lines:

Quotes from Nature’s accompanying news release-

“New species might arise as a result of single rare events, rather than through the gradual accumulation of many small changes over time, according to a study of thousands of species and their evolutionary family trees.”

“This contradicts a widely accepted theory of how speciation occurs: that species are continually changing to keep pace with their environment, and that new species emerge as these changes accrue.”

“The team's findings might stir things up in the world of evolutionary biology.”It really goes against the grain because most of us have this Darwinian view of speciation," says Pagel. "What we're saying is that to think about natural selection as the cause of speciation is perhaps wrong."



Quotes from around the web-

"A new study published in Nature contradicts the commonly-held belief that most species evolve gradually through sexual selection in response to subtle changes in their environment." (SOURCE)

"This new theory is likely to be quite controversial, as it goes against the Darwinian view of evolution that most people are familiar with. "It really goes against the grain because most of us have this Darwinian view of speciation," says Pagel. "What we're saying is that to think about natural selection as the cause of speciation is perhaps wrong." (SOURCE)

'The surprise is that this model is not compatible with the idea that lots of small events combine to bring about speciation,' he adds. (SOURCE)

"Our research indicates that the idea that new species occur by gradually becoming more and more adapted to their particular niches, is not true. In fact, we have found that new species appear due to rare random events that seem to simply just happen." Pagel (SOURCE)



Quotes from the study -

“The Red Queen describes a view of nature in which species continually evolve but do not become better adapted. It is one of the more distinctive metaphors of evolutionary biology, but no test of its claim that speciation occurs at a constant rate has ever been made against competing models that can predict virtually identical outcomes, nor has any mechanism been proposed that could cause the constant-rate phenomenon.”

“This model predicts a constant rate of speciation, and provides a new interpretation of the Red Queen: the metaphor of species losing a race against a deteriorating environment is replaced by a view linking speciation to rare stochastic events…”

“Speciation is freed from the gradual tug of natural selection, there need not be an ‘arms race’ between the species and its environment, nor even any biotic effects.”

“If the original Red Queen model had a ‘whiff’ of a species running out of breath from the accumulation of many detrimental biotic effects, and then being ‘knocked off’ by the next event, the interpretation we propose is different. Species do not so much ‘run in place’ as simply wait for the next sufficient cause of speciation to occur.”

“This means that researchers seeking to develop explanatory theories of speciation should focus their attention on the size of the catalogue of sufficient causes (speciation factors)
shared by a group of organisms, rather than on special driving forces or how these forces might combine.”





Venditti, C., Meade, A., & Pagel, M. (2009). Phylogenies reveal new interpretation of speciation and the Red Queen Nature DOI: 10.1038/nature08630

What an Unlearned Presidential Hopeful can teach us about Evolution

ABC News reported earlier this week that former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum is ‘absolutely taking a look' at making a run for the White House in 2012. Although I find Santorum’s fundamentalist and ideologically laden history disheartening - and the possibility of his presidential candidacy downright terrifying - the recent disclosure of his political aspirations provides a great opportunity to disprove a commonly held misconception about evolution – the idea that evolution progresses towards perfection.

One of the common misconceptions about biological evolution is that the process pushes organisms towards a pinnacle of perfection in which the ‘most evolved species’ maintain dominance over ‘less evolved’ or ‘lower organisms.’ Often closely associated with this mistaken belief is the erroneous idea that, by virtue of braininess, our own species – Homo sapiens - currently holds sovereignty over evolution’s hypothetical pinnacle. These egocentric assumptions of human grandeur are simply not wrought out by available evidence. In contrast to teleological intentions fashioned with foresight, evolution is a process driven by hindsight; the ‘apparent fit’ that we observe in nature is the result of a filtering process.

As Stephen J. Gould spoke to at the Faxon Institute Colloquium on Scholarly Communication in 1997, “adaptations to a changing local environment do not imply movement to a higher level or an improved state. Change is simply change, with no value judgment implied.”

And the best evidence that we do not necessarily move to a higher level may be Rick Santorum.

Time and time again, Rick Santorum has proven himself to be antithetical to the notion of evolutionary perfection. For example, back in 2000 he was an outspoken proponent of a new amendment to the No Child Left Behind Act. The purpose of the proposed amendment, which later became known as the ‘Santorum Amendment,’ was to challenge the teaching of evolution in public schools and to include in the curriculum the teaching of Intelligent Design. During the presentation of the amendment to the Senate, Santorum quoted fellows from the Discovery Institute (see my post Darwin’s Dilemma for further info on the Discovery Institute) and argued that U.S. schools should be platforms for the “teaching of the controversy” surrounding evolution.

This proves that humans are not the pinnacle of evolution; because, had Santorum truly been perfection incarnate he would have known that there is not the slightest controversy in regards to the existence of evolution. Evolution is fact. The Theory of Evolution holds the same scientific credibility as does Gravitational Theory, the Special Theory of Relativity and the Germ Theory of Disease. Introducing an amendment that requires teaching alternatives to evolution is the equivalent of presenting an amendment that requires that evil spirits be taught as possible vectors of disease – it’s completely asinine.

Far from ‘evolving’ over time, Santorum’s idiotic and anti-scientific mindset has remained stagnate since its emergence from the fundamentalist primordial sludge in which it was born. During a lecture at a Christian school in South Carolina on Thursday, he explained to students that there is an ongoing “war of ideas” in which the religious are being challenged by the secular minded people of academia and public education. After insisting that there is a “controversy” he continued to say,


"There are real consequences to climate change, there's real consequences to evolution, that have to do with not just truth, but your own faith: Whether there is a God. Whether this God is sovereign. Whether this God was a creator. As opposed to… That there is no God. That we are all just a matter of random chance to have arrived at where we are. There's no truth. There's no moral law. There's no lawgiver..."


Now, I’m not a theologian but it seems to me that Mr. Santorum has missed the point of both science and faith. He clearly doesn’t comprehend science if he thinks that the findings of science can be variably applied to suit the particular religious leanings of the person interpreting it. Although he refers to only “this god,” there are in actuality hundreds of mutually excusive religions worldwide; but, there’s only one science standard - it applies to Muslims, atheists, and even un-evolved fundamental creationist Christians. Furthermore, Santorum evidently doesn’t think that faith is something that should be held despite a lack direct evidence for a god; quite the opposite, it seems to me that he predicates his adherence to faith on objective - though not understood - science. His bible thumping rants give the impression that religion will fall if science is accepted. It’s as though he’s telling students to contest science, because should it prevail god will be no more. He portrays his faith like a frail and fleeting wager.

He continued,


“All of these things, whether it's climate science, or whether it's evolution science, have that huge issue hanging over us."


I’m not even going to get into Santorum’s mention of “climate science” because, for one, this is an evolution based blog, and two, Santorum is also a correspondent for Fox News – thus his knowledge of climate science is limited to personal revelation and the four out-of-context email lines central to ‘climategate.’

To close this post, let me reemphasize three points;
1- Evolution is not goal oriented or progressive

2- The Theory of Evolution is a scientific fact regardless of ‘belief’

3- Rick Santorum is an ignorant ideologue that shouldn’t be trusted to represent anyone


Reference:
D'Angelo, K. (1997). Faxon institute colloquium on scholarly communications issues Serials Review, 23 (2), 91-96 DOI: 10.1016/S0098-7913(97)90058-7

The Convergent Brains of Humans and Elephants

In recent evolution news, a research article published this month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has demonstrated that the brains of elephants and humans have followed similar adaptive paths.

The collaborative study, undertaken by scientists from several U.S. universities, analyzed the phylogenomic patterns displayed by genes linked to brain metabolism in fifteen different vertebrate groups; including eleven placental mammals, a marsupial, a monotreme, a bird and an amphibian. Of specific interest to the researchers was the evolutionary history of the elephant brain, which has many physical and functional similarities to that possessed by humans.

Although about four times larger, the brains of elephants are like human brains in that they boast extensive regions of neocortex. The neocortex is the neurological structure responsible for an animal’s sensory perception, motor commands and higher thought processes. Elephants were of particular interest in the study because they - like humans - are known for displaying intelligence, complex social behavior and empathy.

In conducting the research, the scientists examined the occurrence of both synonymous and non-synonymous nucleotide substitutions within each brain-linked gene. Synonymous substitutions can be thought of as ‘silent’ because these changes don’t illicit a change in the resulting amino acid. By contrast, non-synonymous substitutions do result in the incorporation of a different amino acid, and therefore advent a potential for novel risks or benefits on which natural selection can act.

In the case of the brain genes evaluated in this study, the scientists found that when compared to the other vertebrate groups the genomes of elephants and humans show increased frequencies of non-synonymous substitutions in areas responsible for the brain’s aerobic metabolism. So, not only are brains of both elephants and humans relatively large, but they’ve also followed a similar adaptive path in obtaining their current state.

Goodman, M., Sterner, K., Islam, M., Uddin, M., Sherwood, C., Hof, P., Hou, Z., Lipovich, L., Jia, H., Grossman, L., & Wildman, D. (2009). Phylogenomic analyses reveal convergent patterns of adaptive evolution in elephant and human ancestries Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106 (49), 20824-20829 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0911239106

Conclusion: Darwins Dilemma, Creationist Propaganda and Corrupt Christians

This post is the conclusion of a four-part series. The preceding post can be found here, the introductory 1st post is linked here.




According to “many published scientists,” there is a “story being told by Darwinists” that DNA and genetics play a role in evolutionary development, protein synthesis and the ontogeny of the physical characteristics displayed by animals. In hopes of edifying the masses of wayward “Darwinists,” these same “many published scientists” point out in Darwin’s Dilemma that DNA lacks the potency and mechanical know-how required to undertake these tasks. In actuality - according to “many published scientists” - all of life is derived from non-genetic “information” that is harbored within each irreducibly complex cell. Furthermore, this “information” does not arise from earthly processes, rather these “blue prints” are “preordained” by an “intelligent source.”

Many published scientists, many published scientists and many published scientists.

At this point in the science ‘doctrine-mentry,’ piles and piles of cover pages from published articles are shown on screen. Included with these publications are those to be found in THE JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY, which is visually emphasized in the film.

So, the bestowment of consecrated ‘information’ from the heavens has reportedly been shown to be a fact? Who are these “many published scientists?”

As introduced in the film, the ranks of these scientists are held by not only the Discovery Institute’s scientists, but also those from the world acclaimed Biologic Institute in Washington State. Among the “many” – which I counted as three – are Dr. Stephen Meyer, Dr. Richard Sternberg and Dr. Douglas Axe. Incidentally, did I mention that the world acclaimed Biologic Institute, like Discovery Media (the producers of Darwin’s Dilemma), is funded by the Discovery Institute? But unlike Discovery Media, the Biologic Institute is tax exempt as it is a chartable organization!

Regardless of their employers and obvious unscientific motives, if these three ‘esteemed scientists’ have conducted valid research there is no reason to discredit their work. Their individual publications should be evaluated on the merits of established protocol and peer review. For example, just because the intelligent design article credited to Meyer was published to the journal of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington by then editor RICHARD STERNBERG during his last day on post doesn’t mean that the research is necessarily invalid… Of course, the subsequent statement released by the Biological Society of Washington’s Council doesn’t help Meyer’s or Sternberg’s case very much:

“The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories, in vol 117, no 2, pp 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council…would have deemed the paper inappropriate… subject matter represents a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content…”

As for the momentous work by Douglas Axe that was published in THE JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY… Well, it doesn’t actually say anything about intelligent design, or divinely driven biological processes. The paper, titled Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds, essentially reports that mutational rates found in an enzyme that breaks down penicillin (beta-lactamases) are very rare. The exact rarity of these mutations, as estimated by Axe, is determined to be in a range with a high-end value of about 10 to the 74th power- very rare indeed. From this estimation of a rare mutation rate, Axe makes inferences (far reaching) to the evolution of proteins. Once these findings are sifted through the god-filter of creationists, the end result is a pronouncement in Darwin’s Dilemma that the chance of mutation is so rare as to prohibit the process of evolution from occurring. So rare, that in fact the only possible explanation for life is divine creation. Wow, now that’s an impressive leap! The total destruction of modern biology in a single paper; I’m curious as to why thousands of independent researchers the world over continue to study evolution… Must be a conspiracy!

And then, having decimated the fossil record, slandered Darwin, Simon Conway Morris, Richard Dawkins, and Stephen J Gould, AND having misrepresented the whole of modern scientific understanding, the tale of Darwin’s Dilemma comes to an end. Fin.

To draw this novel length critique of Darwin’s Dilemma to a close, let me re-emphasize that although lacking historical accuracy, scientific legitimacy and professional integrity the film’s production value and underlying truth-manipulating strategy make it a dangerous opponent to education and reason. The people behind the film are dishonest, unethical and immoral; they lie, doctor evidence and misrepresent science as a whole. In the process of attacking evolution, they falsify history and tear down the sciences of geology and chemistry.

Though they are fundamentalists and propagandists, they are also cunning and well funded… Take caution.






Axe, D. (2004). Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds Journal of Molecular Biology, 341 (5), 1295-1315 DOI: 10.1016/j.jmb.2004.06.058

Prehistoric Guinea Pigs from Egypt

A study recently published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences describes how modern day representatives of the Phiomorpha and Caviomorpha groups diverged approximately 37 million years ago.

The phylogeny detailed in the article was derived through combination of biogeographical, genetic and fossil evidence, and serves to demonstrate that the Caviomorpha, a group that includes modern-day guinea pigs, separated from the Phiomorpha during the early Eocene epoch between 34 and 40 million years ago.

Prior to divergence, both groups were bound by the rodent infraorder Hystricognathi and were restricted to Afro-Arabia. In sync with the rise of modern mammals during the Eocene, members of the Cavimorpha parted ways with the Phiomorpha and emmigrated to South America, possibly by rafting or other chance dispersal event. The Phiomorpha remained behind in Afro-Arabia where they radiated into a variety of genera, including the extant genus Thryonomys – commonly known as cane rats.

Key to the study’s finding was morphological examination of fossil assemblages excavated from the Fayum Depression of northeast Egypt. The mandibular and maxillary fossils recovered from the site revealed a mixture of both primitive and derived features. This fossil data was amalgamated with independently calculated genetic estimates to narrow the timing for the early Eocene divergence.


Sallam, H., Seiffert, E., Steiper, M., & Simons, E. (2009). Fossil and molecular evidence constrain scenarios for the early evolutionary and biogeographic history of hystricognathous rodents Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106 (39), 16722-16727 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0908702106

Evolution is in the Veins of Our Captors

The human race has been enslaved by evolutionarily superior organisms.

In the beginning there was but inorganic matter. From these lifeless substances came the organics which later gave rise to legion-minded protobionts. The protobionts in time beget prokaryotic cells, and with this pivotal step the guiding hand of evolution took charge and asserted the symbiotic conception of the eukaryotes. Since the self-proclaimed commencement of evolution’s command, the human ancestral line has arrogantly clambered from simple beginnings towards its present summit; however, in their hasty climb humans failed to notice their captor’s gradual rise to global dominance.

Abiogenesis from inorganic matter to life was the first of several milestones in our current masters’ conquest of the animal kingdom. During these first tentative steps, the primitive ancestors of the tyrannical angiosperms underwent adaptation to feed on the then abundant atmospheric carbon dioxide. Through undertaking a process known as photosynthesis, some early plant-forms gained reproductive advantage and quickly out-competed their rivals. In time, their numbers became so great that oxygen – a byproduct of photosynthesis - accumulated in the biosphere to such extent that it triggered a catastrophic transition to an oxygenated planet. In hindsight, this rapid transition, called the ‘Great Oxygenation Event,’ can be viewed as a first step in the angiosperms’ selfish remaking of the Earth, and as foreshadowing the eventual enslavement of all humankind.

Initially, constrained anatomy affectively limited the plants’ ability to channel the xylem tissues required for harnessing the sun’s rays. Xylem tissues are essential to photosynthesis because it is their job to convey water and nutrients throughout the plant. Early plants lacked sufficient internal structure and architecture to serve as pathways for xylem transport; this physically restricted the amount of energy that could be generated through photosynthesis. In other words, because of a lack of adequate venation, the radiation of angiosperms was kept in-check. However, this all changed during the Cretaceous Period.

Over the course of evolutionary history, natural selection tinkered at the physiology of the angiosperms, incrementally improving their clumsy and inefficient application of photosynthesis until eventually, about 120,000,000 years ago, the density of the angiosperms’ veins dramatically increased by 300-400%. The upsurge in venation meant that the plants’ xylem tissues more frequently made contact with individual plant cells; this pushed the capacity of the angiosperms’ energetic processes far beyond what they could achieve previously. Newly acquired energy surpluses were promptly invested in reproduction and as a result angiosperm populations exploded the world over.

Having maximized their capacity for photosynthetic production, the angiosperms diversified and radiated into an enormous variety of species, and in the process of doing so molded the world’s landscapes and ecosystems to meet their own needs. Finally, about 10,000 years ago, the plants made their strike against Homo sapiens.

Like bee’s manipulated into service through bribes of nectar, plants lured humans with delicious offerings. They willingly sacrificed their leaves, roots and stems to obtain the blind loyalty of humanity. Since the Neolithic Agricultural Revolution, some 10,000 years ago, the people of Earth have been enslaved by angiosperms.

People have transplanted angiosperms on every continent, expanding the plants distribution beyond what they could have accomplished on their own. Humans actively clear thousands of square miles to seed monocultures for the most powerful of the angiosperm aristocracy. Humans reap minerals from the earth to compose fertilizers for these overlords. As if afflicted with Stockholm Syndrome people blame themselves and the burning of fossil fuels for recent rises in atmospheric carbon dioxide… It’s too coincidental; it must be part of the angiosperms’ monstrous plan!

Now, with implications ranging into what seems like science fiction, humans apply molecular genetics to enhance angiosperm DNA… When will the human race be freed?


Brodribb, T., & Feild, T. (2009). Leaf hydraulic evolution led a surge in leaf photosynthetic capacity during early angiosperm diversification Ecology Letters DOI: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01410.x

Adapting to Climate Change, the Uphill Pursuit of the Shifting Niche

This post represents the final in a three part series discussing Joseph Grinnell, climate change and ecological niches. The initial post can be found here: Joseph Grinnell, Climate Change and the Legacy of the California Thrasher, and the second here: Tracking the Niche, a Project of Grinnellian Proportions.



Having adopted Joseph Grinnell’s vision as their own, the current Director of the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology at Berkeley and his colleagues have taken on the challenge of following in Grinnell’s footsteps – quite literally. The group, headed by current Director Craig Moritz, has begun the process of resurveying the 700-plus localities that were originally surveyed by Grinnell in the early 20th Century. Their goal is to compare the newly collected data to that inherited from Grinnell in aspirations of gaining insight into how a century of environmental change has impacted California’s avian, mammalian and herpetological faunas. Through application of carefully recalibrated Grinnellian field-methods, and the employment of modern techniques, the group is expanding biology’s understanding of the ecological niche.

As discussed during the first post on this topic (available HERE), the effects of average changes in global climate can be dramatically amplified at local levels. As a case in point, consider the region of California that was originally surveyed by Grinnell between the years 1914 and 1920. Over the past 100 years an approximate one-degree rise in global temperatures has resulted in a 3.7°C increase in minimum monthly temperature! A four-degree change in temperature has undoubtedly altered the ecology of this region - Yosemite National Park – in substantial and quantifiable ways. Such quantification has been precise goal of Grinnell’s successor.

Pulling data from Grinnell’s field-notes and DNA from his collected specimens, Craig Moritz has used climate models, modern genetics and biodiversity informatics to decipher and compare the demographies of mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians of past and present. The analysis rendered from this research clearly indicates that the link between environment-and-species has remained true since its inception in Grinnell’s 'The Niche-Relationships of the California Thrasher'. More specifically, as the 3.7°C increase in minimum monthly temperature pushed Yosemite’s available habitats towards new equilibriums its fauna followed suit.

Yosemite’s geologic and geographic setting entails a range of elevations that extend from about 50 meters to well over 3000 meters above sea level. As is typical for diverging elevations, as altitude increases average temperatures decrease. So, if moving towards the top of a mountain one could anticipate encountering bands of cooler micro-climates. The relationship that exists between a specific temperature range and its corresponding physical components allow for identification of specific ‘life zones’. For example, the hydrology found on a mountain’s glacial peaks will differ in type and quantity to that located near the base of the mountain. In considering this natural phenomenon of elevational transition with specific regard to an overall increase in temperature across the mountainous region as a whole, an upward shift in ‘life zones’ could be predicted. In other words, as a temperature increase reaches a certain threshold, the glaciers capping a mountain will recede as to reduce the total area occupied by ice, and to increase the availability of liquid water. With increased access to water, life zones that had been previously locked in a frozen state will become biologically available to plants formerly bounded to lower glacier-free altitudes.

Moritz’s comparison of the life zones documented by Joseph Grinnell to those surveyed by his research group demonstrated that as Yosemite’s temperature increased over the past century, its life zones moved upwards. Significantly, the research showed that the uphill advance of life zones induced pursuit by those avian and mammalian faunas found below. The general pattern discovered by Moritz was that as temperatures increased in the park, the majority of wildlife populations found at high elevations contacted upwards, abandoning previously occupied portions of their lower habitat range. Correspondingly, those animals occupying lower altitudes shifted their habitats uphill.

The ability of Yosemite’s wildlife to confront ever-shifting environmental attributes with resilience and flexibility is critical to maintaining lineages with the capacity to undergo the morphological and behavioral modifications required for their continued survival. The study of the processes driving this evolution, provides more than just a greater understanding of natural history, it also imparts the tools to ensure species conservation as global climate change accelerates environmental fluctuation. Luckily, field scientists such as Joseph Grinnell have, and will continue, to provide insight into the plasticity of adaptation.


See: The Grinnell Project's website.



Moritz, C., Patton, J., Conroy, C., Parra, J., White, G., & Beissinger, S. (2008). Impact of a Century of Climate Change on Small-Mammal Communities in Yosemite National Park, USA Science, 322 (5899), 261-264 DOI: 10.1126/science.1163428

Tingley, M., Monahan, W., Beissinger, S., & Moritz, C. (2009). Colloquium Papers: Birds track their Grinnellian niche through a century of climate change Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106 (Supplement_2), 19637-19643 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0901562106

Joseph Grinnell (1917). The Niche-Relationships of the California Thrasher The Auk, 34 (4), 427-433

Joseph Grinnell (1924). Geography and Evolution Ecology, 5 (3), 225-229

Tracking the Niche, A Project of Grinnellian Proportions

This post is the second in a mini-series discussing Joseph Grinnell, climate change and ecological niches. The previous post is available here: Joseph Grinnell, Climate Change and the Legacy of the California Thrasher



Joseph Grinnell was THE quintessential field biologist. From the time of his birth in 1877 (or, roughly thereabouts), until his to death in 1939 he marveled at the natural world. He reveled in nature’s aesthetic splendor, and he contemplated its immense mystery. He dedicated his entire life to the field of biology; birds, reptiles, mammals and amphibians – he studied them all, and he did so with great detail.

Grinnell’s philosophy of scientific inquiry focused intently on the task of accumulating as much raw data as possible. For example, during the biological survey he carried out in Yosemite National Park between the years 1914 and 1920, Grinnell and his field crews collected 817 photographs, nearly 3000 animal specimens and more than 2000 pages of notes! Being organized and detail oriented is one thing, but Grinnell’s drive for thoroughness approached the obsessive.

As testimony to Grinnell’s view on taking accurate field notes, consider the following precept that he was known for continuously repeating as a mantra for meticulousness;

“Put it all down. You might not think it’s important, but somebody else may.” (1)

It may very well have been the sheer bulk of his available data that guided Joseph Grinnell to develop the concept of the ‘ecological niche’ discussed during the last post in this series (Available HERE). After all, he collected information on everything from the individual behavioral characteristics and morphology of observed animals to the daily weather patterns of Yosemite; all of these informational axes have been incorporated into the ecological niche concept. Even if the ‘niche’ wasn’t born of the data directly, the huge quantity of collected information would certainly have been useful during the writing of Grinnell’s numerous research papers and species descriptions, which are more than 500 in number.

Yet greater evidence to Grinnell’s tenacity can be found in the fact that despite his time spent collecting, he still managed to teach and perform administrative duties as the first Director of the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology at Berkeley. An absolutely astonishing scientist!

In considering Grinnell’s knack for field work, another of his now famous quotes comes to mind. This one (from 1910) relates to the long-term value of the data that he and his colleagues were collecting.

“This value will not, however, be realized until the lapse of many years, possibly a century, assuming that our material is safely preserved. And this is that the student of the future will have access to the original record of faunal conditions in California and the West, wherever we now work.”

This quote would turn out to be very prophetic…

What possible value could be reaped in modern times for century-old data collected during Grinnell’s survey of the ‘Yosemite Tract’? What would comprehensive and weather-correlated descriptions of wildlife niches tell us about contemporary linkages of climate-and-niche?

A few steps are required in order to assess the above questions. As an initial step, there would be a need to quantify the climate-to-niche relationships of current systems. Once such modern data was in-hand, comparisons could be made between the ‘old’ and the ‘new’ to identify any patterns or inconsistencies. In other words, to gauge change compare Grinnell’s data with what is exhibited by Yosemite’s ecosystems today.



This is precisely what the present Director of the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology at Berkeley has done. He and his colleagues went to field, and using Grinnell’s notes and methods collected new data for the purpose of comparison. Their resurvey - The Grinnell Project - and findings will be discussed during the next post...


UPDATE: The 3rd and final installment of this series is available HERE.


1-As told to Ward Russell during a field survey; an audio recording of Ward’s 1992 interview can be found at the MVZ @ Berkeley website – HERE



Joseph Grinnell (1917). The Niche-Relationships of the California Thrasher The Auk, 34 (4), 427-433

Joseph Grinnell (1924). Geography and Evolution Ecology, 5 (3), 225-229

Moritz, C., Patton, J., Conroy, C., Parra, J., White, G., & Beissinger, S. (2008). Impact of a Century of Climate Change on Small-Mammal Communities in Yosemite National Park, USA Science, 322 (5899), 261-264 DOI: 10.1126/science.1163428

Joseph Grinnell, Climate Change and the Legacy of the California Thrasher

Adaptive plasticity is a predictor of future reproductive fitness. The ability of an organism to confront ever-shifting environmental attributes with resilience and flexibility is critical to maintaining lineages with the capacity to undergo the morphological and behavioral modifications required for continued survival. Regardless if such elastic traits are realized through major swings in ontogenic development, or through the advent of novel life-history strategies, the ability of an organism to accommodate ecological variability is essential. This biological tenet is certainly true today as anthropogenically incited climate change is forcing accelerated rates of ecological alteration.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has reported that mean global temperatures could increase by more than six-degrees over the course of the next century. Six degrees of global change translates to extremely dramatic transformations of biotic and abiotic conditions at the local level. Even if the ‘worse case scenario’ of six-degrees doesn’t come to pass changes in hydrology, periodic weather, seasonal patterns, emigration, extinction and in the availability of resources at regional and local levels are almost certainly inevitable during the next century. To cope with these changes it will be necessary for organisms to adjust their tolerances to environmental variability, they may need to more-efficiently utilize the resources on-hand, or they may need to physically relocate to habitats for which they are better suited. To better understand how these impending organism-to-environment adjustments will occur, it's important to seek understanding as to how organisms fit into their ecosystem. It is the relative position of an organism in its environment and the way in which it behaviorally responds to its surroundings that is referred to as the organism’s ‘niche’.

With respect to etymology, the word ‘niche’ is derived from the French word ‘nicher’ which literally means ‘to nest,’ as in a bird going to nest. In regards to the word’s use in biology – broadly defined above - this literal translation is very appropriate, because the term was first introduced by an ornithologist in a publication describing the distribution of a bird - the California thrasher (Toxostoma redivivum).

The California thrasher is the largest member of the Mimidae Family and can grow to be uupwards of 30 cm in length and weigh as much as 85 grams. The bird’s coloration is fairly non-descript; its body is brown and it has a tan or buff-colored ventral side. There are however a couple of characteristics that make T. redivivum especially unique. One is the bird's restriction to a very narrow geographic range in California, and another is its habitat preference for densely vegetated brushlands. It was the thrasher’s limited distribution and fondness for the concealment offered by shrubs that first attracted the interest of the celebrated naturalist and scientist Joseph Grinnell.

In the October 1917 issue of The Auk, Joseph Grinnell published his work 'The Niche-Relationships of the California Thrasher'. In that enduring contribution Grinnell explained that the reason for the thrasher’s

“…restricted distribution is probably to be found in the close adjustment of the bird in various physiological and psychological respects to a narrow range of environmental condition.”

In other words, Grinnell clearly recognized that the bird’s morphological and behavioral traits linked it to the specific ecosystem that it inhabited. Furthermore, Grinnell identified that

“[t]hese various circumstances, which emphasize dependence upon cover, and adaptation in physical structure and temperament thereto, go to demonstrate the nature of the ultimate associational niche occupied by the California Thrasher.”

In Grinnell’s mind, the relative position of the thrasher in its environment, as well as its distinctive behaviors, established a general rule that could be extrapolated and used as a tool for detailing and predicting the spatial and temporal relationships held between organisms and their environments. The ‘niche’ would quickly become a tool for not only itemizing individual life-history traits, but also for interpreting the evolutionary and adaptive implications of the organism-to-environment dynamic.

Building on his idea of an ecological niche, in July of 1924 Grinnell went on to publish ‘Geography and Evolution,’ a work in which he fathered what are contemporarily known as the competitive exclusion principle and the concept of ‘vacant niches.’

“Some of us have concluded that we can usefully recognize, as measures of distributional behavior, the realm, the region, the life-zone, the fauna, the subfauna, the association, and the ecologic or environmental niche. The latter, ultimate unit, is occupied by just one species or subspecies; if a new ecologic niche arises, or if a niche is vacated, nature hastens to supply an occupant, from whatever material may be available. Nature abhors a vacuum in the animate world as well as in the inanimate world.”

The competitive exclusion principle is the idea that two species occupying the same habitat and fighting for the same resources will not obtain equilibrium until one species overcomes, or out-competes, the other. These ideas are front-and-center to modern biology and are both credited to Grinnell.

Serving as the founding father of the ‘niche’ was but one of Joseph Grinnell’s numerous contributions to science. Over the next couple of days I hope to post more of Grinnell’s work, as well as that of his modern counterparts that are – literally – following in Grinnell’s footsteps in hopes of gaining insight into how the observations of an early 20th Century scientist can be used to decode the effects of climate change in a 21st Century world.


UPDATE: The second part of this post available HERE.

Joseph Grinnell (1917). The Niche-Relationships of the California Thrasher The Auk, 34 (4), 427-433

Joseph Grinnell (1924). Geography and Evolution Ecology, 5 (3), 225-229