Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Click here for general club info, how to join, and members/affiliates.

Humans today aren't subjected to natural selection the same way we used to be.  In the early days of humanity, people with poorer vision or slower reflexes were more likely to end up being unable to find enough food to survive, or possibly becoming food for a saber-toothed tiger.  Today, though, the only things which frequently cause people to die before they can reproduce are disease and accidents, to which just about everyone is equally susceptible.  So it isn't initially obvious what, if any, selective pressures there are that still affect humans in the present.

Daniel Seligman, in his book A Question of Intelligence, points out a rather worrisome trend in this area.  According to several studies conducted over the past 30 years, fertility rates are negatively correlated with intelligence—meaning that people with low IQs tend to have more children, and have them sooner, than people with high IQs.  When you think about this, isn't entirely surprising that it's the case.  It's easy to imagine that people who have children as teenagers are less intelligent, on average, than people who wait until their 20s or 30s for it.  And because of the inevitable effects of natural selection, if people with low intelligence have a higher rate of reproduction than people with high intelligence, over multiple generations this will cause humans in general to become dumber.

With this in mind, here is this month's topic:  Should it be considered a problem that natural selection is favoring humans becoming less intelligent?  And if so, what should be done about it?

My opinion about the answer to this question is something that's changed over time.  Until around five years ago I was a Social Darwinist, meaning that I thought it was important for society to be structured in a way that encouraged natural selection.  As is pointed out by Mainstream Science on Intelligence, an article published in the Wall Street Journal and the psychology journal Intelligence with the signatures of 52 specialists in this area, intelligence is very strongly correlated with economic success—regardless of race or family background, more intelligent people earn more money on average than less intelligent people do.  As a Social Darwinist, I thought that if there weren't any government handouts for low-income people, perhaps they wouldn't have enough money to raise families, and natural selection could be made to favor people with high intelligence rather than the opposite.  While this system seems unkind to the people who would end up losing out under it, the idea is that this cost would be outweighed by the overall benefit of humanity becoming smarter.

I still think that something like this would be worthwhile if it were possible, but what I've realized over the past five years is that it isn't.  The problem is that there simply is no such thing as "not enough money to raise a family".  When one looks at people in third-world countries who earn less than five dollars a day, this doesn't prevent them from having kids—if anything, they end up having more children because their children can help them to try to earn money.  So if anyone is hoping to create a society where intelligence correlates with reproductive success, getting rid of handouts to poor people is not the way to do it.

A second way to try and accomplish this is using eugenics, where the government gets directly involved preventing certain people from reproducing, but that has its own set of problems.  The simplest of them is just that historically, no government has ever been able to exert this kind of power without eventually starting to abuse it.  The most obvious example of a failed attempt at eugenics is Nazi Germany, in which an attempt to make sure only "genetically superior" people could reproduce gradually morphed into a system of persecution based on race, religion, political preference, and other traits which had nothing to do with what eugenicists normally care about.  Eugenics policies of the United States in the early 20th century didn't stray quite this far from their original purpose, but even in the U.S. people were occasionally sterilized against their will for no reason other than their race—as though the people running this system had completely forgotten the distinction between a difference in average intelligence between races, and the idea that every member of a certain race has lower intelligence.

However, even if it were possible to implement a eugenics policy while avoiding this kind of corruption, there's also a much more fundamental problem with the idea.  In the early 20th century, it was widely assumed that it would be easy to identify which genetic traits we should want natural selection to favor in humans:  intelligence, physical endurance, good eyesight, and so on.  But the reality is far more complex than this, because what genes make one individual more "fit" than another is almost always subjective, even when it comes to traits such as intelligence that are seemingly without a downside.  As Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending point out in this paper, the same genes which code for higher IQ also place people at greater risk for a number of hereditary diseases.  And as a result, in at least one population of humans where natural selection has favored intelligence especially strongly, these diseases have also become much more prevalent than they are among the rest of humanity.  Even if a government were able to successfully implement a eugenics policy that favors intelligence, it would inevitably lead to a higher rate of these diseases also.

So if eugenics is a bad idea and Social Darwinism isn't possible, then what can be done about the current selective trend towards lower intelligence?  Fortunately, there's a third possibility which might become a reality soon.  As scientists identify the functions of more and more genes in the human genome, it's becoming possible for parents who use in vitro fertilization to specify which genetic traits they want their offspring to have.  As stated in this article, it's already possible for prospective parents to make sure the embryo they implant doesn't have certain genes which would result in an elevated risk for cancer, so it soon might also be possible for them to make sure it has genes for above-average intelligence.  And since these decisions would be made on an individual embryo-by-embryo basis, parents would be able to avoid the specific combinations of genes which result in hereditary diseases.

This solution isn't without its own set of pitfalls.  At the moment, parents are only able to choose from a selection of embryos produced by their own eggs and sperm, but it's easy to imagine how far this field of "designer babies" could go.  Will parents one day inject non-human genes into their embryos, based on ridiculous fashions for kids with traits like bioluminescent hair?  Still, virtually every scientific advancement has its downside—such is the price of progress.

Click here for general club info, how to join, and members/affiliates.

The ancient ruling archosaurs of the mesozoic were such a diverse and wildly successful group that if often seems like a shame that their reign met its end at the end of Cretaceous. Filling almost every possible niche, the archosaurs - which is the group of diapsids containing dinosaurs, pterosaurs, crocodiles, birds, and several other extinct groups - radiated into thousands of unique and fascinating morphologies and functions. They inhabited the seas, the skies, and every Mesozoic land environment until the mass extinction event at the end of the era destroyed all but a few groups of them. With a clade of such startling success and diversity, it's hard not to think about what could have been. What would time have done to these awesome creatures had they been given another 65 million years to flourish?

65 million years is a lot of time for species to go extinct just from more ordinary causes, like competition and more minor climatic changes. But some groups of dinosaurs had been immensely successful for millions of years prior, so it's easily to see how they could have stuck around for another 65. Dromaeosauridae, for instance, evolved in the middle Jurassic, meaning that the "raptor" family existed for over 100 million years. Barring a global extinction event, it's easy to see how they could have continued evolving up to the present day. What would these feathered fiends have turned into, given enough time? Would they have grown small and flighted, as their ancestors eventually did? Or, along with their cousins the Troodontidae - as the most intelligent groups of archosaurs alive at the time - would they have evolved into something... more interesting?

Which brings me to this month's discussion question: What kind of forms and functions do you imagine the dinosaurs and their cousins occupying in the present day if most of them had not been wiped out at the end of the Mesozoic?

Many people have wondered whether dinosaurs would have eventually evolved sentience as primates did. The paleontologist Dale Russell believed that Troodonts would have eventually evolved an upright stance and an enlarged braincase, mirroring the course of evolution that hominids took on their path to sentience. He called this hypothetical animal the "Dinosauroid" and collaborated with the artist Ron Sequin to create a lifelike model of this creature. While such a thing is possible, I'm hesitant to say whether I think it's actually likely - I think of the evolution of true sentience as much more of a happy accident than an evolutionary inevitability, which needs a lot of specific selection pressures in order to arise.

Other paleontologists have speculated on this on a broader scale, like Dougal Dixon in his book The New Dinosaurs. While more of an interesting thought experiment than true science, this book explores the possibilities of many new forms dinosaurs could have evolved into, from the duck-like predatory "Pouch" to the arboreal snakelike "Treewyrm." In this hypothetical future, archosaurs are still by and large the dominant animal group, with mammals still existing in the shadows of giants.

The possibilities are truly endless for what could have been. It's sad to think that such a timeline could not possibly have produced an "us" to observe them!

Click here for general club info, how to join, and members/affiliates.

Some of you might have guessed why I was waiting until today to post this month’s topic, but for anyone who hasn’t figured it out already, today is Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday.  This makes 2009 a rather important year for evolution, and it also is for one other reason:  on November 24th of this year, it will have been exactly 150 years since the publication of his book The Origin of Species.

As is probably obvious from the name of this group, no single person is considered more important to the theory of evolution than Charles Darwin.  And historically, it makes sense that he would receive the credit for it, since The Origin of Species was more responsible than anything else for making evolution a widely-known biological process.  In this respect his discovery was similar to that of Christopher Columbus—both of them deserve credit for being the one who introduced their society to what they discovered, but neither were actually its sole discoverer.  Just as the Vikings had been to North American before Columbus, the theory of evolution owes its existence to more people than just Darwin.

Evolution as it exists today has undergone several modifications from Darwin’s incarnation of it, among the most notable being Mendel’s mechanism of heredity, Gould’s punctuated equilibrium, and Dawkins’ selfish gene theory.  Less well-known but equally important were Darwin’s precursors, who proposed earlier theories of evolution that lacked some of the details which Darwin would later add.  The most famous of these was probably Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, who like Darwin believed that all animals shared a common ancestor, and that by undergoing small changes over successive generations, the descendents of this ancestor had given rise to the animal kingdom’s current diversity.  Unlike Darwin, however, Lamarck believed that these changes happened within each animal’s lifetime, with animals developing the traits which were most important to their survival, and then passing these traits on to their offspring.  With the exception of processes such as epigenetics, this idea that acquired traits can be passed on to offspring has now been abandoned.

Even before Lamarck, however, the concept of evolution had existed for centuries.  If the theory of evolution itself were traced back to its earliest ancestor, that ancestor would probably be Anaximander of Miletus, a philosopher who lived in Greece during the sixth century B.C.  Anaximander was the founder of uniformitarianism, the now-central idea in natural history that the world operated in the past by the same physical processes which currently govern it.  While most people in his time and place believed that the world and everything in it had been created by the Greek gods such as Zeus and Hera, Anaximander reasoned that if this were the case, the gods’ intervention should still be visible in the present.  And since nobody in Anaximander’s time ever saw Zeus or Hera creating animals, he believed that this hadn’t occurred in the past, either.

So if humans were not created directly by the gods, where could they have come from?  Since Anaximander was aware that in the present, humans cannot come into the world without a parent providing for them both before and after birth, he concluded that the first humans must have been descended from other types of animals.  As for where the first land animals had come from, Anaximander’s conclusion was that they were descended from sea animals.  I’m fairly sure that his theory didn’t attempt to explain what the process was that had caused these ancient animals to evolve into their present forms, but for what he did manage to figure out, Anaximander was still millennia ahead of his time.

Darwin’s main contribution to the already-existing study of evolution was his explanation of natural selection as the process responsible for it, but even that is something for which he doesn’t deserve exclusive credit.  Alfred Russel Wallace came up with this idea at approximately the same time, and exchanged ideas with Darwin at several points leading up to the publication of Darwin’s book.  So while Darwin may be the name that everyone remembers in connection with evolution, it’s worth also remembering the people such as Wallace, Lamarck, Anaximander, and numerous others upon whose ideas Darwin built his own theory, or the more recent people who have subsequently built upon Darwin’s ideas.

Most evolution-related communities are celebrating Darwin’s birthday this month, but this month I’d like to ask something a little different:  Do you think the other people who have contributed to the theory of evolution receive too little credit in comparison to Darwin?  Or is it reasonable for Darwin to receive most of the credit the way he does?

So far, most of the topics that I’ve posted about here have been ones that I had strong opinions about, but in this case I don’t really.  As unfortunate as it might seem that some of evolution’s other contributors have had so little time in the spotlight, I’m also aware that this tends to be the case for most discoveries.  The New Yorker describes this fact here, in reference to the way discoveries tend to be named after someone other than the person who originally made them.  Quoting Stephen Stigler:  “It can be found that Laplace employed Fourier Transforms in print before Fourier published on the topic, that Lagrange presented Laplace Transforms before Laplace began his scientific career, that Poisson published the Cauchy distribution in 1824, twenty-nine years before Cauchy touched on it in an incidental manner, and that Bienaymé stated and proved the Chebychev Inequality a decade before and in greater generality than Chebychev’s first work on the topic.”  Stigler has even formulated what he calls “Stigler’s Law” about this tendency: “No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer.”  The theory of evolution being known as “Darwinism” might be another example of Stigler’s Law.

It seems that Stigler’s Law is so universal, there would be little point in making a big deal about this in Darwin’s case.  So we may as well continue using the word “Darwininsm” for the theory of evolution, and thinking of Darwin as the main person responsible for it, as long as we don’t forget that in his studies he was far from alone.

Click here for general club info, how to join, and members/affiliates.

Evolution and dinosaurs have been depicted in various works of fiction for decades, with varying degrees of success and accuracy. Dinosaur-related fiction has run the gamut from early portrayals in novels like Arthur Conan Doyle's The Lost World to modern video game and cinematic classics like the Turok series and Jurassic Park.

Evolution-related fictional portrayals have run a similar gamut, though with perhaps less installments. The most noteworthy recent example is, of course, Spore. Often overlooked are older portrayals, like the SNES game E.V.O.: Search for Eden and the comic portrayal of evolution in The Cartoon History of the Universe by Larry Gonick.

So, this month's topic is: What is your favorite fictional portrayal of dinosaurs or evolution, and why? This can apply to novels, comics, video games, television shows, movies, or anything else along those lines. All we ask is that you PLEASE be more creative than Jurassic Park. ;)

I have quite a few favorites, though it took a while to narrow them down. My favorite dinosaur-related fictional portrayals are:
  • The Age of Reptiles comics by Ricardo Delgado. While not anatomically accurate by today's standards, these comics were brilliant at portraying the life and emotion of dinosaurs in a semi-realistic and not overly anthropomorphized way. They also influenced my own art, especially at designing realistic emotional expressions.
  • In the Time of the Dinosaurs, Megamorphs #2 in the Animorphs series. While clearly written for a younger age bracket, this was the first portrayal of dromaeosaurs in fiction that I stumbled across that stressed their relationship to birds. As a youngster I found this very interesting, and also really enjoyed seeing my favorite characters getting to "be" dinosaurs - something I had always dreamt of myself.
  • Raptor Red by Robert Bakker. Most dinosaur nuts are familiar with this tale of a Utahraptor's journey through life and her struggles to survive and find a mate. While fairly realistic, it still manages to capture a great deal of personality and emotion in the animals, and remains to be one of the standards for realistic dinosaur fiction. Despite the realism of the situations and characters, I thought the writing style still left something to be desired; for this reason, I still consider this niche in fiction to be somewhat lucrative.

Owing to the dearth of really good portrayals of evolution in fiction (creationist arguments aside, har har), my list of favorite evolution portrayals consists of only one item: E.V.O.: Search for Eden. This was one of my favorite games as a kid and still remains in my top 20 or so. It was not overly realistic by any means, but the degree of freedom in evolving your own organism was extremely engaging at the time.

So, share your own! And try to be somewhat creative and original.

Click here for general club info, how to join, and members/affiliates.

My apologies for being kind of late with this month’s post.  I was going to post it earlier, but didn’t think I should yet because Christian Forums was down, and this topic involves linking to a thread there.

Anyone who consistently debates with a particular group of people is likely to have certain arguments against the opposing position which they’re particularly fond of.  It could be because these points are particularly striking, particularly difficult to refute, or for any other reason.  This trend isn’t restricted to creationism vs. evolution—I’ve noticed the same thing in some of the debates that Jason Malloy of Gene Expression has with people who insist that there are no biological differences between humanity’s races.  (For more details about that topic, see our post from October.)  So this month’s topic is: What is your favorite line of evidence for evolution, and why?

In my case there are two answers, for two different reasons.  The first answer is endogenous retroviruses, and in particular this essay about them.  For those who don’t know, endogenous retroviruses are bits of DNA that are inserted into an organism’s genome as a result of a failed viral infection, which can in some cases be passed on to its offspring.  No two ERVs are the same, even if they came from the same virus, since what specific bits of DNA are left behind and where in the genome they’re left is different for each infection.  So if two animals share an ERV, there is no plausible explanation for this except that they both inherited it from a common ancestor.

As the aforementioned essay shows, the pattern of ERVs found in humans and other primates exactly mirrors the relationships between them which has been concluded from fossil and anatomical evidence.  This essay also does an excellent job refuting basically all of the creationist arguments against this idea.  My fondness of this essay in particular relates to a second reason why I especially like this line of evidence—this essay was written by R. Allan Glenn, who was a friend of mine in my debates with creationists in 2004 and 2005, but died in November of 2005 from complications of cystic fibrosis.  A lot of members of the creation/evolution section at Christian Forums still regard Allan’s essays as so authoritative, they continue to cite what he’s written there even three years after his death.  Many of them, myself included, consider his essay about endogenous retroviruses to be among his best.

A second piece of evidence that I particularly like relates to evolution’s ability to predict future discoveries; something which creationism has never been able to match.  One of the best examples of this is the fact that several paleontologists were able to predict the existence of feathered dinosaurs more than a decade before they were discovered.  (Perhaps "predict: isn’t the best word to use here, since the feathered dinosaurs obviously existed already, but the point is that the theory of evolution was able to determine their existence before there was any direct evidence for it.)

The paleontologist who’s most famous for having made this prediction is Gregory S. Paul, whose book Predatory Dinosaurs of the World contains several illustrations of the plumage he’d concluded these animals would have had.  One such illustration can be found here.  As can be seen from the date on this drawing, it was created in 1988, while the first feathered dinosaur fossil to be discovered, Sinosauropteryx prima, wasn’t found until 1996.  Greg Paul also managed to correctly predict a few more specific details of their anatomy, such as the fringes or "proto-wings" on the Velociraptor’s arm, which have more recently been discovered in the fossils of dinosaurs such as Caudipteryx and Sinornithosaurus.

The prediction about feathered dinosaurs that I consider most striking, though, was not nearly so recent as the 1980s.  In 1915, the American zoologist William Beebe reached a conclusion about the type of animal from which birds would have evolved, based on his studies of bird embryos.  He predicted that their ancestors would have included a small, feathered dinosaur that flew using wings on its legs as well as its arms—a fairly good description of Microraptor gui, a feathered dinosaur whose remains were discovered 88 years later.

William Beebe also illustrated this hypothetical animal, which he referred to as “Tetrapteryx”.  To anyone who does not know this illustration was created in 1915, it could easily be mistaken for a reconstruction created within the past five years of 2003’s discovery.  I’ve included his illustration side-by-side with the original fossil in order to show their similarity; note the unique “leg-wings” in each case.

Willian Beebe's prediction by Agahnim

In addition to my general interest in feathered dinosaurs, the reason why I particularly like this piece of evidence is because it’s one of the only examples where it’s possible to show an illustration, based only on an understanding of evolutionary theory, of something whose existence was not actually discovered until decades later.  What other specific pieces of evidence for evolution are the people here especially fond of, and why?


Recent Journal Entries