A museum exhibit is getting ready to travel the country with an extremely controversial idea: evolution isn’t perfect.
Oh wait, that’s a false controversial idea. Reality-based folks know it’s not perfect. We have bad backs, ridiculously poorly designed organs, and a whole host of other problems because we haven’t perfectly adapted to our environment yet. Genetic drift and pressures of environmental adaptation take a while, and we’ve only come out of our arboreal phase a few million years ago.
Well, that, or because some chick gave some dude an apple. I can never keep all this "science" straight.
Tip o’ the herniated L5/S1 disk to my bro Sid.
April 28th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
I like the article until it got to the end and they just had to mention ‘intelligent design’.
At least it was just a dismissive blurb.
April 28th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
I think that evolution is a good theory. But if I know well sometimes there are big leaps in the change of species. I have read scientific explanations of this, but the weren’t too detailed. What’s up with this?
And a philosophic question: what was the reason for the Big Bang to occur?
If you think, that I’m a creationist after reading my questions, you’re wrong. I’m just curious about theese questions. I prefer the scientific method to figure out things
April 28th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
TG: I don’t know much about the big leaps, but my guess would be that selection pressures rapidly changed and the species that got lucky enough to survive necessarily changed (relatively) rapidly with them. Alternately, it could just be a stroke of “luck”, if you will. Random occurances, such as mutations, are statiscially spoken as some number per unit of time, but within that stream you will always find groupings of seemingly non-random patterns. I.e., out of the trillions or more mutations that have ever occurred, it makes statistical sense that we would see a limited number occur with high frequency relative to the mean or average. (Likewise, some would occur with low frequency.)
As for a reason for the Big Bang, who says there is one? Even if we were to pinpoint the cause, there is no requirement that the cause be effected by an intelligent entity with a specific intent. For all we know, we’re the result of a cosmic 32-dimensional rockslide that happened because. . . such things happen.
April 28th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
As far as I can tell, no one knows what caused the big bang. The best theory I’ve seen is that every once in a while (10^10^10^10^10^10 or some other obscenely unimaginable number of years) a universe will just pop into existence all at once for no apparent reason.
This is why I don’t like quantum mechanics.
April 28th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Hold on… what does it even mean to talk about a theory being perfect or not? It either refers to the ability of the theory to explain observations, or the power of the phenomenon to achieve certain goals. The article is clearly talking about the latter, and that troubles me.
It’s like saying gravity isn’t perfect, because some things are still up rather than down. It isn’t the ‘goal’ of gravity to make things fall, and it isn’t the ‘goal’ of evolution to create ache-less beings.
Evolution by natural selection is merely the principle that best explains how complex life has come to exist. It’s not a tool to make life more comfortable, and it’s a little pernicious to word it that way, even if you are a reputable museum. It’s going to lead to confusion.
April 28th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
I’ll have you know I’m still quite attached to my tree!
TG, why do you think there should be a ‘reason’ for the Big Bang? (I’m curious, but not really interested in debating it.)
April 28th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Uh, museum = educational establishment. I don’t know why I thought it was a museum.
April 28th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
What, evolution not perfect?
All I can say is….DUH.
The human body is inefficent. It doesn’t make proper use of all the “fuel” put into it. It isn’t structurally sound to heavy shocks, and is prone to malfunctions.
Not even the shark is perfect, although is does come as close as I know any animal does.
April 28th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Geez, man, I just wrote a post today on the evolutionary history of the spine: http://startswithabang.com/?p=389
Kind of an amazing thing, but yes, we sure as hell ain’t “perfectly designed”. We’re also not the apex of evolution, as people erroneously claim. Just the apex of egotism, maybe?
April 28th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Evolution? Definitely…the evidence is overwhelming. I have, however, seen some pretty persuasive arguments (to my layman’s mind) that it occurs in catastrophic leaps, rather than slowly and steadily. Or perhaps a combination of both.
So, it’s not a perfect theory. It’s better than vague appeals to magical beings.
April 28th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Daffy,
Evolution doesn’t necessarily mean “gradual change over time”. That’s one form of evolution, called “gradualism”. The other major form is called “punctuated equilibrium” and was made famous by Stephen J. Gould.
It looks like both may occur in nature, although more evidence is needed. But they’re both examples of evolution. It just means we need more information to understand the mechanism.
April 28th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Thanks for the clarification, Ethan. A fascinating subject, no doubt about it.
April 28th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
I do not see a problem with showing how evolution is the cause of so many critically important aspects of every species on Earth but either neutral or counterproductive to some aspects of what we would consider “perfection” in humankind.
Humanity has taken a path where natural selection not always has a part in our continuing evolution. We also consider our life after childbearing age as essential, while there is no mechanism in evolution that favors life after having children.
If we had not created complex societies, natural selection would have taken care of this species that runs slower than some turtles, has trouble delivering babies, has teeth with no use and has a back that mostly just keeps the hands far away from the floor. There is no reason to think we humans will ever find a solution to these problems in evolution. We have found partial solutions through science.
April 28th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
If you want to see why evoltion seems to move in ‘leaps’ watch the ‘evolution IS a blind watchmaker’ video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0
April 28th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Great leaps in evolution – that is, rapid adaptive radiations – often occur when a new resource is made available through evolutionary adaptaions. For example, marine reptiles, bats, land plants all epxerienced huge and rapid speciation events shortly after their initial appearances. This is all part of evolution as Darwin described it. There are other causes for sudden and significant changes to body form, including fusion or division of chromosomes, alteration of Hox genes, retroviral influences and such. There are also examples of “Lamarkian” evolution, where aquired traits are inherited through methylation of genes. These are new and strange and interesting things we didn’t know could happen. They extend, rather than contradict, our understanding of evolution.
April 28th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
One term I like is that Evolution isn’t survival of the fittest, it’s survival of the adequate.
April 28th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
One additional theory on the pre-big band universe:two of many other universes existing in four dimensions bumped into each other. The explosion created us.
It’s not a great theory, in that I don’t believe there is any substantial proof and that it creates more questions then it answers (so where did THOSE come from?) but if you have something better I’m sure the cosmologists would pay very handsomely to borrow your time machine.
April 28th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Most people uneducated in science believe incorrectly that evolution is a process with a goal, or a process that is improving organisms so they are closer to “perfect”. Neither of these true. Evolution is a random walking process that constantly changes due to constantly changing abiotic and biotic factors effecting populations. In short, evolution is dumb, and our bodies are artifacts of that dumb process.
April 28th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
@ Andres
I would counter your argument by pointing out the the evolution of the human brain has had no small part in our species “creating complex societies”… it was the evolution of the hominid brain that allowed it to overcome and adapt better than its predecessors… I still say ultimately it’s the hand of evolution at work there…
April 28th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
One additional theory on the pre-big band universe:two of many other universes existing in four dimensions bumped into each other. The explosion created us.
M-branes collisions. Our four dimensional (three space, one time) lies on the surface of one of these M-branes. Dark energy is a force acting between the branes. It’s called the ekpyrotic model.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_Model
Itâ??s not a great theory,
According to whom? The two current cyclic theories are quite the cutting edge.
in that I donâ??t believe there is any substantial proof and that it creates more questions then it answers (so where did THOSE come from?)
On the contrary, they answer some questions far more cleanly (dark energy, for one) than the inflationary model does, hence their attractiveness.
but if you have something better Iâ??m sure the cosmologists would pay very handsomely to borrow your time machine.
The cosmologists build their own time machines. Or, rather, have engineers like me build them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMAP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_Surveyor
April 28th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Thanks for the real information QD, I’ve never actually taken a class on this stuff and I’m going mostly by memory. I don’t really know anything about dark energy right now, so that didn’t really cross my mind. I’ll have to take a closer look when I have more free time. I still maintain that this model is not quite finished, though quick glance over the information does look fascinating. . .
April 28th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Budget Astronomer: Wasn’t it Herbert Spencer, not Darwin that coined the phrase “Survival of the fittest”?
April 28th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
@Andres: “We also consider our life after childbearing age as essential, while there is no mechanism in evolution that favors life after having children.”
Well, one thing that comes immediately to my mind is that it certainly aids our species to survive by helping our children to survive. Or even other people’s children.
April 29th, 2008 at 2:10 am
Very true. I must also point out that optimization processes do not always end up with perfect solutions only because time is lacking, but also by getting stuck in local optimums.
April 29th, 2008 at 6:14 am
Everyone repeat after me.
“The apple story is a metaphor.”
Phil, Sorry to hear about your brother’s herniated disk. Mine was C6/7…the worst experience of my life.
I see that the article refers to the U of Penn. If you are ever in Philadelphia, check out the Mütter Museum at the Philadelphia College of Physicians…it will creep you out.
April 29th, 2008 at 7:28 am
@ Celtic_Evolution, OtherRob:
My point is, once evolution took us to the point where we could create complex societies, we (humankind) have moved farther and farther away from the mechanisms that make species evolve into a better adaptation with the surroundings. Now our own mechanisms are superseding most of those that made us evolve until now, and our idea of “perfection” comes from our own sense of what it should be.
Our bad backs (if we can consider them so bad) will not improve through evolution because those with better backs in our generation have no bigger opportunity to have a numerous offspring, and their offspring have no better chance than the rest of the population of reaching childbearing age. Also, our backs are already good enough to work reasonably well until after childbearing age, so even if we had no health and hygiene systems in place, we would not evolve into a species with better backs.
April 29th, 2008 at 7:38 am
James – I believe you are correct, Spencer coined the phrase, but Darwin adopted it. In fact one of the chapters in the Origin of Species is entitled “Natural Selection; Or The Survival Of The Fittest “.
April 29th, 2008 at 8:34 am
Don’t forget that “fittest” doesn’t mean “the most fit that one can be”, but “the most fit out of the choices currently available”. Also, “fittest” doesn’t necessarily mean one choice, but a selection of the most fit varieties.
April 29th, 2008 at 8:42 am
@ Andres
I can’t disagree with that… in fact, that very thought process ocurred to me just the other day while I was watching a Discovery Health channel program on a little girl who was born with severe deformities and all the trials and surgeries she will need to endure just to survive. Clearly, we are effecting the evolutionary process here, and in all cases where we cure disease. No other species directly interferes with the process of selection as we do… however, one could make the case that it is our evolution, specifically the evolution of our brain, that has allowed us to achieve the ability to cure ouselves. And so I wonder, can we call learning and knowledge a part of the evolutionary process? I’m not sure I’m qualified to give that answer… I simply don’t know.
But I can answer to your eventuality that we as humans have moved beyond the point where the evolutionary process can affect us. I’m not sure I agree with that. Rapid climate change, epidemic disease… these things can bring about sudden and rapid changes that we, as a species, may or may not be able to adapt to rapidly enough to survive… but there will be other species on the planet that would. Evolution at work…
April 29th, 2008 at 9:08 am
@Celtic_Evolution
Yes, in my case the image that does not leave my head is this:
When the wolves are exterminated the population of deer increases exponentially until the supply of food becomes scarce, but when that happens the shortage is so severe that the deer can extinguish altogether.
Are we, the humans in the path of the deer?
April 29th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Exactly, Andres… and that is one of the mechanisms of evolution.
And to answer your question, “are we, the humans, in the path of the deer”. Quite possibly. Although my belief is that we will continue to learn and gain knowledge that will allow us to find ways to sustain ourselves on resources that are not finite… that we will learn to propogate our species to other planets… and in doing so ensure our survival.
And that’s really my question… can that process of learning and gaining knowledge, and thereby knowing better how to adapt and survive as a species, be defined as an evolutionary process?
April 29th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Most non-scientific laypeople, in my experience, still have an anthropocentric perspective, so if you can get them to accept that we are a product of evolution, they believe that we are therefore the pinnacle of evolution.
It’s a common misunderstanding that pops up in many places. Creationists will argue that if the solar system formed according to the laws of physics, then we shouldn’t see the oddities (in orbits, axes of rotation, etc) that we see.
I find it fascinating that many people equate the chaotic variability of the natural world with an omniscient creator, as though only a perfect intelligence could/would create something so imperfect.
Comments like “ridiculously poorly designed organs” only serve to confuse the issue, Phil.
April 29th, 2008 at 10:31 am
@C_E, Andres:
I see what you’re saying and I have to pretty much agree. What’s with this outbreak of reasonableness here.
This discussion kinda reminds me of a conversation I had with my wife a few months ago…. From a purely genetic point-of-view, our adopting our cats is the worst thing that could happen to them. We had them neutered, of course, which means that their genes will never go back into the gene pool. And their “lines” will end with them. And they all seem to be pretty healthy cats so their genes might’ve done the population some good.
They’re still awfully cute though.
April 29th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Evolution doesn’t favor perfection…..if you’re running from the lion you only have to run faster than the rest….not be a perfect runner. Evolution selects those that can survive most efficiently in a specific environment to breed and raise offspring.
The mechanism for this, as i understand it, is random genetic mutation and natural selection.
April 29th, 2008 at 11:23 am
[...] Heck, our silly species* can’t even procreate without killing about 1% of its females. Via Bad Astronomy, there’s a new exhibit that highlights this: An exhibit five years in the making, it uses [...]
April 29th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Did anyone happen to catch the Glenn Beck television show last night? He had Ben Stein on as a guest. This man is truly a mound of sewage if there ever was one.
Ben rambled on about his new movie: Expelled: I’m not Very Intelligent, or some such thing.
Besides the usual anti-evolution claptrap, Ben reported to a smirking Glenn Beck, how the movie is doing stupendous business at the box office.
The general consensus among movie critic’s is that the movie tanked.
But Ben tells us otherwise. He said audiences are giving standing ovations at the end of the movie.
These people seem to be almost totally disconnected from realty.
April 29th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
..Isn’t that a little redundant, saying that about Creationists, John?
April 29th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
I’ve always said that my bad knees are proof that intelligent design doesn’t exist.
April 29th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Yes it is Brad G. I am just so weary of these creeps trying to destroy our education system. Sorry for being redundant.
April 29th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
“ridiculously poorly designed organs”
Have to disagree with you on that one.
If our organs are ridiculously poor we’d hardly make it to age of 10. Of course our organs are not perfect, but they arent ridiculously poor.
Religion hardcore fanatics (fundies or whatever they call themselves) piss me off too. Not fond of hardcore atheists either. Bunch of closed minded idiots that make normal religious and atheist peple look bad.
Take care.
April 30th, 2008 at 5:49 am
WRT the rate of evolutionary change:
The key questions really are: how fast is “fast”? and how slow is “slow”?
In the fossil record, there are periods of relative stability that last millions or tens of millions of years with only small changes observed in fossils within the stratum. By comparison, a change that takes 100,000 years will appear sudden when viewed from our perspective. But, actually, 100,000 years is a long time (Arguably, human civilisation has been around for less than 10,000 years).
100,000 years will also be 100,000 generations for many organisms (it’s about 4000 – 5000 generations even for humans), and much adaptive change can occur in 100,000 generations.