Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Banner
By Michael White | January 25th 2009 12:56 AM | 12 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
.

More Adaptive Complexity articles

All

About Michael White

Welcome to Adaptive Complexity, where I write about genomics, systems biology, evolution, and the connection between science and literature, government, and society.

I'm a biochemist


... Full Bio

The world got lucky on February 12th, 1809 with the birth of Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin. In the United States, Lincoln's 200th birthday will be celebrated in acknowledgement that he was possibly the greatest president in U.S. history. It's become cliché to compare our veneration of Lincoln with Darwin's notoriety during this bicentennial year, but the contrast is striking.

Darwin is often perceived by the public as obsolete at best (and inspired by Satan at worst). A large number of people, even many who aren't biblical literalists, are under the impression that evolutionary biology is a poorly supported science, because a slick PR movement has told them that evolution is "a theory in crisis," one propped up only by the desperate wishful thinking of atheistic ideologues posing as biologists.

The main figures in that PR movement are suffering from a massive case of projection. The members of the intelligent design movement do no science, while evolutionary biology thrives. So, to demonstrate how vibrant evolutionary biology is, and in honor of Darwin's birthday, next week I'll start 30 days of evolution blogging. Every day I will talk about a new paper, published in January or Februrary of 2009, that has something to do with evolution.

Follow along and you'll see how much evolution research scientists produce. New research on evolution gets published nearly every day, and if you've never followed this research in any detail, you'll be amazed at how much researchers learn every single day.

I predict that between now and the end of February, we will see stacks of new papers on evolution. I also predict that during the next 30 days, intelligent design "scientists" will not sequence a single gene, compare any genomes, report any field studies, dig up any fossils, carry out any lab experiments, or do anything at all to test any hypotheses about intelligent design. At the end of the month, the score will be 30 for evolution, 0 for intelligent design.

But don't just visit me here for knocks against intelligent design. Evolutionary biology is fun in its own right, even without the social controversy, and I promise that most of the time we'll just talk about great science, like the evolution of feathers, erosion in a bacterial genome, the evolution of pale skin in cave fish, and how a "hitch-hiking parasitic wasp learns to exploit butterfly antiaphrodisiac." You know you're dying to know about butterfly antiaphrodisiacs, so come back and visit next week.

Comments

Stellare's picture
Great teaser!

adaptivecomplexity's picture
Unfortunately, it was only a teaser, because I had the kids for the weekend while my wife went out of town. It was fun, but kids&blogging don't always work out.  So today will be day one - tune in later today for the inaugural piece on dino feathers.

Stellare's picture
Excellent!

You have probably already seen these, but in case you haven't here are a couple of Darwin links (for comparative studies :-))

http://darwin-online.org.uk/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/charles-darwin

I'm looking forward to evolution weeks! :-)


Becky Jungbauer's picture
Darwin is often perceived by the public as obsolete at best (and inspired by Satan at worst).

 There are others that I'd stick with that label and Darwin isn't one of them.

adaptivecomplexity's picture
There is a difference: some people believe Darwin was inspired by Satan, while Dick Cheney is often believed to be Satan:



Becky Jungbauer's picture
Ah - excellent clarification. I always sniffed for brimstone when walking by the Observatory and checked the skies for bats.

Hank's picture
Whew.  It's going to be a looooong 8 years for Republicans.

Becky Jungbauer's picture
It's their own fault.

adaptivecomplexity's picture
Cheney is in a class by himself. We'll get tired of making fun of Republicans long before we get tired of making Cheney jokes.

rholley's picture
Darwin is often perceived by the public as obsolete at best (and inspired by Satan at worst)

I used to think that America was divided into two camps, those who thought that the Devil was Charles Darwin and those who thought he was Bill Gates.  But I now suspect that outside of scientists, the whole of America thinks that the eminent Victorian gentleman is the Devil, or at least his emissary.

The thoughts of the "Creation Scientists" are well known in this regard.  But the other half have taken to Darwin as if he was some kind of Sportin' Life out of Porgy and Bess, telling them that "the things that you're li'ble, to read in the Bible, ain't necessarily so".  And I tells ya all folks, Sportin' Life was up to no good!

adaptivecomplexity's picture
My comment on this was inspired by my subjective reading of the answers to the Gallup poll question:

Just your opinion, do you think that Charles Darwin's theory of
evolution is -- [ROTATED: a scientific theory that has been
well-supported by evidence, (or) just one of many theories and one that
has not been well-supported by evidence], or don't you know enough
about it to say?




Strangely, more people accept evolution than think it is well-supported by the evidence. I take that to mean that some folks don't have any ideological opposition to evolution, but think that as a scientific theory it hasn't held up well, that's it's a theory in trouble.

logicman's picture
There are interesting parallels between genetics and linguistics. The DNA code and human language are both information carriers with error-correcting components.

There are no creationists or intelligent designers in the field of linguistics. If you demonstrate the evolution of a language from its roots, there are no serious challenges. The English language came from various European roots by way of Norman French and Latin. An over-simplification, but broadly true. The evolution of a language can be shown to derive from both social and environmental causes. Internal social pressures leads to uniformity, external pressures lead to word-adoption, linguistic cross-fertilisation. The environment dictates which natural wonders will be 'expressed' in a language. A desert-dweller needs no word for 'tsunami'.

What is it about genetic, as against language, evolution that leads people to continue to believe in intelligent design? It cannot be the diversity of nature, since there is at least a one-to-one correspondence between words and everything in the cosmos, living or not.

For me, the concept of intelligent design is perverse, obtuse, and irrational. Why would an intelligent designer make us humans with legs so designed and adapted that they are a perfectly irresistible morsel for sharks and crocodiles?

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.