Acceptance of evolution in the US

There is a new Pew survey on the US Public’s Views on Human Evolution.

As these surveys tend to be, it is depressing reading for science-minded people.

According to the survey, 60% of the US public believes that humans have evolved over time, while 33% thinks that humans have existed in the present form since the beginning.

This means that 1/3 of the US population doesn't accept the evidence for human evolution.

While this number is lower than in other polls, it is still a depressingly high number of people who simply disregards what science shows us, and instead goes for something which there is not just no evidence for, but something which there is actual evidence against!

It probably comes as no surprise to you that the acceptance of evolution very much depends on peoples' religious view, with unaffiliated and white mainline protestants having the highest acceptance rates (76% and 78% respectively) and white evangelical protestants having the lowest (just 27%).

White evangelical protestants are quite influential on the Republican party, and help define their policies - also on scientific issues. This might explain why the acceptance of evolution among GOP voters have dropped from 54% in 2009 to just 43% now, and the belief that humans haven't changed over time, have gone up from 39% in 2009 to 48% now.

The survey clearly indicates just how damaging it would be to sound science if the GOP got into power.

I guess I have been Evolutionized

Via facebook I became aware that Answers In Genesis, that paragon of stupidity, is warning people that they might have been "Evolutionized"

Evolution can become so ingrained in our thinking that we don’t even notice it. Our government schools and universities are entrenched in evolution, from biology to philosophy and even English class. There is no escaping evolution after we graduate, either. We encounter it in the newspaper, on the radio, on television, and in blockbuster movies.

Yes, it's funny how science can become ingrained in our thinking isn't it? Concepts like the fact that our world rotates around a sun, and not the other way around, that it's round, and that there is something called gravity, also seem to be ingrained in our thinking.

So, how do you know if you’ve been evolutionized? Here are a few questions to find out:

Given the fact that AIG hasn't ever demonstrated that they understand evolution, I am quite doubtful of their ability to make sensible questions related to it. But let's go through the questions, shall we?

Are tribes in the South American rain forest more primitive forms of humans than we are?

And BAM! Straight away, stupidity strikes. Biologically speaking, there is no difference between humans, so the question makes absolutely no sense. It's like asking: "Which of these forks are most fork-like?" Forks are forks, like humans are humans.

The concept of "primitive" humans is a socio-economic construct, and has historically been propagated by, among other things, organized religion.

Did dinosaurs live before humans?

We know that dinosaurs roamed the Earth in the period from 230 to 65 million years ago. We also know that the oldest known fossil of Homo sapiens is approximately 200,000 years old. Do the math.

Even if we take the oldest know fossil of an ancestor (or, more likely, a species which shares a common ancestor with us), Ida, is approximately 47 million years old.

Were the people who lived in caves and used simple tools not very intelligent?

Depends on what you mean by "people" and "intelligent".

Chimpanzees use spears for hunting and Rooks can use tools as well, yet I think few people would claim that they are as intelligent as us. Ancestors to Homo sapiens also used tools, and some even lived in caves, and it's quite likely that they were less intelligent than what we are now.

If we are only talking about Homo sapiens, then they quite intelligent. They figured out to use tools after all. What they were lacking however, was all the knowledge we now have, including such things as common languages and writing.

Did Noah lack special tools or equipment to build the Ark?

The Ark is supposed to have carried 14 (or perhaps 7) or 2 of all animals, depending upon their cleanness. Given the number of species which exist, this would require an extremely large boat - way beyond the skills of the time. Even now, it's not possible to build a wooden boat large enough to fit them all, or even to just accommodate the measures given in the Bible

This of course ignores all the other problems with the global flood story.

So, this question is much like asking: "Does Santa Claus lack special tools or equipment to maintain his sled?" The problem is not the tools, but the fact that what is described is fundamentally impossible.

Are the stars older than the earth?

Yes. As a matter of fact, most, if not all, stars are older than the earth.

What does this have to do with evolution anyway? I can see why the global flood and Noah's Ark might relate to evolution, but the age of stars?

Is there more than one race?

Race is a social construct, so this has nothing to do with science and evolution.

Does it take millions of years to form fossils, oil, coal, or diamonds?

Yes. What's more, diamonds are formed from coal.

Did Adam have to learn how to speak, read, and write after he was created?

Quite often people misuses the phrase "begging the question", but this is actually a very good example of it. For this question to make sense, we have to grant the premise of Adam having been created.

Well, guess what, I am not going to grant that premise.

Unless AIG can provide any scientific evidence of the creation of a human male approximately 6000 years ago (heck, give or take a few millenniums), by some divine being, I am going to say that this question is nonsense.

We understand the evolution of our species pretty well, and know that it's much older than the mere 6000 years that AIG and other Biblical literalists claim.

We also know that many species communicates (or speak if you prefer), so it's quite possible, even likely, that our ancestors communicated before becoming Homo sapiens.

Anyway, that was the questions which should demonstrate whether the reader was evolutionized. If you answered yes to any of them, then you are supposedly evolutionized - which presumably means that answering no, would mean that you reject evolution, even if the questions didn't make sense or were based on a wrong, even grotesquely warped, understanding of what evolution entails.

If you can bear the stupidity, try to see the answers to the questions accordingly to AIG - they also give the answer from the evolutionary side as well. As horribly wrong as anything else they say.

The stupidity ... it burns!

Yes, I know that I have used that post title before, but it's still true.

So, what stupidity am I talking about this time? I'm talking about a blogpost over at Darwin's God called The (Real) Problem With Atheism

You can see from the title alone that this is going to be a goldmine of stupidity, can't you? Well, let's dig in, and do some fisking.

Did you know the new atheism is on the wane? Did you even know there was such a thing as the new atheism?

Yes, I am aware that there is a group of people commonly being referred to as "new atheists", and that they have spearheaded a push to get atheism into the open, letting atheists know that they are not alone, and that it's perfectly alright to be an atheist.
I didn't know it was on the wane however - I seem to see quite a few references to the new atheists in the media, and there were (and still is) a lot of coverage of the atheist bus campaigns around the world. Perhaps you could provide us with some evidence for this claim?

In recent years there has been a surge of activity from atheists. Organizations, web sites, conferences and books advocating the materialistic world view have entered the spiritual marketplace. Fueled by strong convictions, these thinkers have made little attempt to make their hard-edged attitudes palatable to the unsuspecting public. Instead, they have force-fed their ideas onto searchers, insisting that atheism is mandated by science and logic. When you strip away religious sentiment and just look at the data, they declared, atheism is required.

Yes, authors publishing books about atheism, and why they don't believe in a god, can only be considered force-feeding ideas to other people. Unlike the many books by religious people about their religions and why they are religious, which are of course just informative.

How dare atheists publish slogans like "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life" on billboards, without attempting to make it palatable to the "unsuspecting public"?

No, seriously, the author of the blogpost obviously haven't read the works by the new atheists, which are generally quite respectful towards other people (if not their beliefs). Reading these books would also have made the writer aware that none of those books, articles etc. claims that atheism is required based on the scientific evidence, but instead that the scientific evidence doesn't support any religious claims, and thus makes atheism a viable option. This is very different from what he claims that the atheists says.

Initially the new atheism attracted quite a bit of attention but now, as Bryon McCane pointed out this week, it is fading fast.

The evidence McCane provides for this claim is the fact that there are no books by new atheists on the bestselling charts. No great surprise, given the fact that none of the big names in that movement (Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Dennett) have published anything recently.

I take some solace in its demise not because I dislike atheists but because the new atheism sowed needless confusion. Atheism is, and always has been, irrelevant in the origins debate. But the rise of the new atheism made atheism appear more important than it really is.

I have read through this part several times, and no matter how many times I've read it, it makes no sense.

There can be two sorts of debates about origins: a science-based one, and one based on religious views. In the first case, I agree that atheism is not important, since religion plays no role, and thus is kept out of it. In the second case, atheism plays a very important role, even if you're religious - it's what keep dragging the debate back to reality. If religion, no matter how moderate, gets to dominate that debate, science won't be allowed to do its job without interference - that's why even religious people should appreciate the atheistic view in that context.

Unless of course they are not willing to conform their religious views to reality, in which case, an atheistic counterpoint becomes even more important.

For many, atheism is the driving force behind evolutionary thought. Isn't the origins debate between religious people and those who reject god? Did not Princeton's Charles Hodge early on identify Darwinism as atheism in disguise? Is not the rise of twentieth century atheism evidence for this? After all, it was the leading atheist Richard Dawkins who admitted that "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

It's only among the fundamentalist religious groups that science, such as the Theory of Evolution, is equaled to atheism. In the rest of the world, e.g. among Catholics, it's accepted that one can be religious and understand science as well. If science and religion conflicts, religion adjusts (as both the former Pope and the Dalai Lama has acknowledged).

What Dawkins meant by his comment about "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist" (which wasn't an admission but an explanation) was that until Darwin explained evolution, atheists might well realize that there were no gods, but they couldn't explain how humans came to exist. After Darwin's book, atheists could now understand how this might happen, even though there were no gods around.

It would be a mistake to think, however, that this meant that Dawkins (and others) didn't think that people couldn't be atheists before Darwin wrote his book - back then, there were still the same problems with the lack of evidence for any gods, and the problems with a multitude of religions. They just didn't have an alternative explanation (something which entirely valid - one can discard a hypothesis without having another in its place).

The rise of the new atheism seemed to confirm such views. Evolution, it seems, is all about atheism.

If you think that, you obviously haven't been following the subject very closely. Dawkins, and to some degree Dennett, did involve evolution in their arguments, but Hitchens and Harris didn't, and even Dawkins focuses much more on the lack of evidence for the existence of a god, than on evolution.

Maybe it would be better to actually read some of the authors that you criticize?

Before we close this case, however, let's take one more look. First, there are no arguments for evolution made from atheism. If you study the evolution genre, and especially that part that argues for the veracity of the theory, you will have great difficulty finding atheistic premises. In fact, I have not found any.

If you haven't found an atheistic premise for evolution, then you haven't understood anything about science. All science operate under the fundamental premise that there is nothing super-natural involved, including gods. Since the Theory of Evolution is science, the fundamental premise behind it, is that no gods have been involved - do you know what "atheist" means?

In other words, the whole damn premise of our understanding of evolution, is based on atheism.

This doesn't make science anti-religious as such, but only allows science to operate in the known, observable world, instead of the unobservable realms of the super-natural.

The strong arguments for evolution are, and always have been, from theism. God would not create this gritty world so it must have evolved. There is no meaningful distinction between theist and atheist when it comes to belief in evolution--they both rely on the same theological premises. An evolutionary theist, such as Francis Collins, and an evolutionary atheist, such as PZ Myers, use arguments that rely on the same theological assumptions.

I am sorry, but you, sir, are a moron. The strong arguments for evolution has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with observable facts - the very sort of facts that lead Darwin to understand the fundamentals of evolution in the first place. Facts such as bio-diversity and the fossil record, mutating diseases, genes etc.

For you to think that the arguments for evolution are from theism shows such a confounding stupidity, that it's a wonder that you're even able to type those words.

Oh, and I've been reading PZ Myers' blog for years, long before it moved to ScienceBlogs - could you point me to any place where he bases his arguments on any theological premises? And no, the base premise of science (which I explained above) is not a theological premise.

This is the dirty little trade secret of atheism: it is parasitical on theism. Atheism, itself, has nothing to add to the origins debate. As McCane notes, "the new atheists’ biggest mistake, by far, was to be openly intolerant of religion. They mocked, derided and made fun of it."

Atheism is the lack of religion. Nothing more, nothing less. "New atheism", or vocal atheism as I prefer to call it, is a push against the religious fanatics, which tries to impose their religious views on other people, including through removing the teaching of evolution from science classes. Pushing against such people, explaining why their arguments are not only wrong, but ridiculously wrong, is not parasitical to those arguments.

And in a science context, theism has nothing to add to the origins debate, and every time someone tries to argue from a theistic view-point, they just end up getting their arguments disproved. This is why the smarter religious sects, such as the Catholic Church, avoid doing so.

Indeed, atheism is motivated by skepticism of theism. It is not a positive argument for atheism, but a negative argument against theism. But an argument against theism usually entails theological convictions. Talk to any atheist and you're liable to hear strong convictions about what god should and should not do.

If you talk with an atheist in a strongly religious country, this is obviously the case (you are a product of your environment after all), but talk to an atheist from a secular country, and they will have a very relaxed attitude to religion (sorry, you probably didn't realize that there might be atheists outside the US).

One thing is true though, there is not really any positive arguments for atheism. There can't be - again, atheism is just the lack of belief in a god. Most people become atheists by following the evidence for gods to where it leads - nowhere. Being an atheist is a default option, where no other option makes sense to you.

As the atheist Myers wrote in the LA Times recently:

We go right to the central issue of whether there is a god or not. We're pretty certain that if there were an all-powerful being pulling the strings and shaping history for the benefit of human beings, the universe would look rather different than it does.

How do they have any idea what god would and would not do? Because they hold certain beliefs about god. Their atheism relies on their theism. Unbelievable. The folks who bring you the new, cutting edge, atheism rely on, yes, their own ridiculous pious pleadings. How pathetic.

Like many other atheists, PZ Myers didn't start out being an atheist, so he actually knows a fair bit about the beliefs of others. In this case, his argument is based on the concept of god as most people hold it, which is as a beneficiary deity.

I am leaving out a part where the author goes into atheism in the past, making no point whatsoever, and start where he returns to the now.

The story is no different today. Scientifically the theory is a muddle, but metaphysically it is mandated. Its truth is derived from the rejection of design / creation. Today, as in centuries past, the arguments come from the theists and are borrowed by the atheists.

If the past paragraphs had left me in any doubt about the lack of knowledge of the author on the subjects of atheism and evolution, this paragraph would have left me no doubt. The Theory of Evolution is one of the most well-tested, well-founded theories of science, and for someone to claim that it "is a muddle", just serves to demonstrate that he is a moron. Something we were not really in doubt about, but which has now, once again been demonstrated.

Again, evolution is clearly demonstrated as have happened in the past as well as happening now. There are no theistic arguments involved, and while design/creation is rejected, it's not only necessary to do that, because theists (such as the Discovery Institute) try to inject those concepts into the sphere of science.

Evolution is not about science, it is about god, and atheism is irrelevant. It makes no difference whether the theological arguments come from a theist such as Francis Collins or an atheist such as PZ Myers, the science is asinine either way.

What can one say in the presence of such grand stupidity - is it even possible to gleam a coherent idea from the above paragraph?

Evolution is a natural phenomenon, happening as I write this. In science, the Theory of Evolution explains the mechanisms for evolution. Science is based entirely on an atheistic premise.
Of the things that he mentions, science, god, and atheism, the only thing that is irrelevant for evolution, is god. The very thing he claims it's about.

And what was it that Dawkins said? "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." Note the causal relationship. It was evolution that enabled atheism, not the other way around. The real problem with atheism is not that it is the driving force behind evolution; rather, the real problem is that it masks the driving force behind evolution. It is theism, not atheism, that is the driving force behind evolution.

I think I have already addressed this.

Reading through this garbage, I notice that not once does the author try to provide any evidence for his claims about theism (or god) being the driving force behind evolution. Not surprising, I guess, since there is no evidence for this.

Disease genes older than previously thought

The New Scientist brought my attention to some recent research with some interesting results.

The disease legacy of our distant ancestors

GENETIC diseases such as diabetes and Huntington's disease may be an evolutionary hangover from our primitive ancestors. This surprising discovery might make it possible to study human diseases in fish and insects - unlikely as that seems - as well in the more usual mice.

To discover when disease-related genes emerged in humans, Tomislav Domazet-Loao from the Ruder Boakovic Institute in Zagreb, Croatia, and colleagues compared our genome with that of organisms as diverse as bacteria and primates, which come from different stages in the evolution of living species.

The team found that we have inherited a far greater proportion of disease-related genes from organisms that evolved early on than from our closer relatives, such as rodents or other primates, although they don't yet know why. For example, while a massive 40 per cent of our genes come from bacteria, the proportion of disease genes that come from bacteria is even larger, at 60 per cent.

So, if there is an intelligent designer involved, we have to conclude that he, she, or it, wants us to suffer, and has been working on this for a long time.

No, seriouslty, this might result in some good changes on how research is done, as it would indicate that it's possible to do research on species that are further from our species than previously thought. Currently, mice is often the species of choice, but instead species like zebrafish, or perhaps even bacteria, can be used.

The study is published in Molecular Biology and Evolution as An ancient evolutionary origin of genes associated with human genetic diseases by Tomislav Domazet-Loso and Diethard Tautz, and is accessible for download.

Can graffiti be art?

Like many other people I am not happy about most of the graffiti that is painted everywhere in larger cities. However, once in a while, it's possible to come across a piece of graffiti that's truly a piece of art.

An example of this, is a 1999 piece of graffiti in Copenhagen's Sydhavn, called "Evolution", which I saw for the first time today. I came across a reference to it a couple of days ago, and decided to go out and take a look at it.

I should probably add, that this is a completely legal piece of graffiti, and that there is talk about listing it, so it can be saved for future generations. I doubt it will happen though, and it's very likely the wall it's on will be torn down sometime in the next couple of years.



It's 170m long, and illustration evolution, starting with the big bang.

Due to the length of the piece, I took 31 pictures of it, to get the full piece. They can be found at my flickr account here.

Lucky dinosaurs

ScienceDaily has an intriguing article titled Good Luck, Not Superiority, Gave Dinosaurs Their Edge, Study Of Crocodile Cousins Reveals

Back when dinosaurs first started to evolve to the types we have hear about (or have seen in Jurassic Park), there were several competing groups of animals that might evolve to the dominant species. Among those were the ancestors to the modern day crocodiles, the crurotarsan archosaurs, which together with dinosaurs formed the Archosauria group (which now consists of the crocodiles and the decedents of the dinosaurs - the birds).

It has been assumed that dinosaurs had some kind of edge over the other groups, including their cousins, the proto-crocodiles. The research mentioned in the ScienceDaily article, however shows otherwise.

The researchers examined the evolutionary pattern of dinosaurs and crurotarsans in the Late Triassic. Using a very large dataset of anatomical characters – nearly 500 features of the skeleton – and a new family tree of the entire archosaur group, they measured evolutionary rates and morphological disparity (a measurement of the range of different body plans and lifestyles that a group has).

They found no difference in the rates at which dinosaurs and crurotarsans were evolving. This was surprising as, if dinosaurs were truly 'superior' or 'out-competing' crurotarsans in the Triassic, they should be expected to evolve faster. Instead, crurotarsans were keeping pace.

The results for the second measure, morphological disparity, were even more remarkable. Crurotarsans had a much higher disparity than dinosaurs in the Triassic. In other words, crurotarsans were exploring a larger range of body types, diets, and lifestyles. This greatly contrasts with the classic image of dinosaur superiority since their greatest competitors, the crurotarsans, were doing so much more.

To these surprising results can be added two other, previously known, findings: crurotarsans were more abundant (more individuals, more fossils, more species) than dinosaurs in many Triassic ecosystems, and crurotarsans were in some cases more diverse (greater number of species). Putting all this together, it is very difficult to argue that dinosaurs were 'superior' to crurotarsans, or that they were out-competing crurotarsans.

So, it's debatable if dinosaurs actually were the dominant species when looking at the period as a whole. Why then the impression that they were? Well, first of all, it's not easy to tell fossils from the two subgroups apart, so in the past many crurotarsan fossils were considered dinosaur fossils. Second of all, dinosaurs won out in the end, continuing after the crurotarsans died in great numbers. This is also explained in the ScienceDaily article

Steve Brusatte, who conducted the research while an MSc student in Bristol University's Department of Earth Sciences, said: "If we were standing in the Late Triassic, 210 million years ago or so, and had to bet on which group would eventually dominate ecosystems, all reasonable gamblers would go with the crurotarsans. There was no sign that dinosaurs were eventually going to succeed so why did they? The answer is two mass extinction events: the dinosaurs not only got lucky, but they got lucky twice.

"They first weathered the storm during the Carnian-Norian event 228 million years ago, but so did the crurotarsans. In contrast, many other potential competitor groups went extinct. Then dinosaurs weathered a second, much bigger, storm 200 million years ago. This was the end Triassic extinction event, which was a sudden and catastrophic extinction caused by rapid climate change, possibly facilitated by an asteroid impact. Strangely, and suddenly, all crurotarsans except for a few lineages of crocodiles went extinct. On the other hand, the dinosaurs did not. They survived and then radiated in the Early Jurassic, and very quickly established themselves as the dominant vertebrate group on land across the world.

"Why did crurotarsans go extinct and not dinosaurs? We don't know the answer to that, but we suspect that it was nothing more than luck, plain and simple."

When we talk about randomness in evolution, this is the sort of things we mean. It's a typical case of a major impact occurrence which for some reason affected the one group of animals more than the other.

The Science article by Brusatte et al is behind a paywall, but can be found here: Superiority, Competition, and Opportunism in the Evolutionary Radiation of Dinosaurs

Evolution - it works!

One of my friends was kind enough to send me a link to the following article, thinking it would be of interest to me. He was quite right.

Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab

A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.

And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.

Simply put, 20 years ago, a scientist started an experiment, where he created 12 populations of Escherichia coli, all cultivated from a single bacterium. After more than 30 thousand generations, they have evolved some new and interesting traits.

I could write more about it, but instead I would suggest that you go read PZ's post about it.

Fossil linking frogs and salamanders might have been found

National Geographic News brings this interesting piece of news: "Frog-amander" Fossil May Be Amphibian Missing Link

It's an interesting find because it seems to be evidence that salamanders and frogs have ancestors in the same fossil group - this is not revolutionary news, since this was expected, but it's still nice to have such things verified.

The fossil is also interesting because it's pretty advanced considering how old it is.

A side note about the discovery of the find, is that the fossil was actually found back in the mid-90s, but were not really looked into until 2004.

According to the article, the study of the fossil should be in this week's Nature, but unfortunately I haven't been able to locate it, so I can't link to it.

Evolution, devolution....

One of my friends was kind enough to send me a link to this article, and I thought I'd share it with the rest of you.

Researchers document rapid, dramatic 'reverse evolution' in the threespine stickleback fish

Adaptation coincides with the '60s cleanup of toxic pollution in Seattle's Lake Washington

It's an interesting case of evolution reverting itself, when living conditions changes.

Peichel and colleagues turned their gaze to the sticklebacks that live in Lake Washington, the largest of three major lakes in the Seattle area. Five decades ago, the lake was, quite literally, a cesspool, murky with an overgrowth of blue-green algae that thrived on the 20 million gallons of phosphorus-rich sewage pumped into its waters each day. Thanks to a $140 million cleanup effort in the mid-'60s — at the time considered the most costly pollution-control effort in the nation — today the lake and its waterfront are a pristine playground for boaters and billionaires.

It's precisely that cleanup effort that sparked the reverse evolution, Peichel and colleagues surmise. Back when the lake was polluted, the transparency of its water was low, affording a range of vision only about 30 inches deep. The tainted, mucky water provided the sticklebacks with an opaque blanket of security against predators such as cutthroat trout, and so the fish needed little bony armor to keep them from being eaten by the trout.

In 1968, after the cleanup was complete, the lake's transparency reached a depth of 10 feet. Today, the water's clarity approaches 25 feet. Lacking the cover of darkness they once enjoyed, over the past 40 years about half of Lake Washington sticklebacks have evolved to become fully armored, with bony plates protecting their bodies from head to tail. For example, in the late '60s, only 6 percent of sticklebacks in Lake Washington were completely plated. Today, 49 percent are fully plated and 35 percent are partially plated, with about half of their bodies shielded in bony armor. This rapid, dramatic adaptation is actually an example of evolution in reverse, because the normal evolutionary tendency for freshwater sticklebacks runs toward less armor plating, not more.

Of course, it's somewhat wrong to talk about reverse evolution, since the sticklebacks have undergone a evolutionary process - it's just that nature started to select for different aspects than it did when conditions were differently.

The findings have been published in Current Biology under the title Reverse Evolution of Armor Plates in the Threespine Stickleback by Kitano et al.

Development of the human species' mathematical ability

PLoS biology has an incredible interesting article up on the study of the Evolutionary and Developmental Foundations of Mathematics by Michael J. Beran.

Understanding the evolutionary precursors of human mathematical ability is a highly active area of research in psychology and biology with a rich and interesting history. At one time, numerical abilities, like language, tool use, and culture, were thought to be uniquely human. However, at the turn of the 20th century, scientists showed more interest in the numerical abilities of animals. The earliest research was focused on whether animals could count in any way that approximated the counting skills of humans [1,2], though many early studies lacked the necessary scientific controls to truly prove numerical abilities in animals. In addition, both the public and many in the scientific community too readily accepted cases of “genius” animals, including those that performed amazing mathematical feats. One such animal still lends its name to the phenomenon of inadvertent cuing of animals by humans: Clever Hans. Hans was a horse that seemed to calculate solutions to all types of numerical problems. In reality, the horse was highly attuned to the subtle and inadvertent bodily movements that people would make when Hans had reached the correct answer (by tapping his hoof) and should have stopped responding [3]. One consequence of this embarrassing realization was a backlash for the better part of the 20th century against the idea that animals could grasp numerical concepts. The second, more positive consequence, however, was that future researchers would include appropriate controls to account for such cues.

Beran goes on to explain how the current research shows that animals operate on approximations, rather than concrete numbers, much the same way that humans do when prevented from counting while comparing two sets of items. What's more interesting, in my opinion, is how much our symbolic representation of numbers actually mean for our math ability. Not only on the grand scale, but also on smaller problems.

Human mathematical abilities, of course, are highly dependent on symbolic representations of number. A recent paper by Diester and Nieder published in PLoS Biology shows that brain areas critical to processing symbolic and analogue numerosities in humans also support numerical processing in monkeys [38]. After monkeys learned to associate Arabic numerals with specific numbers of items, the researchers recorded from single neurons in the PFC and IPS when monkeys judged whether two successive analog arrays were the same in number or whether an analog array matched a numeral in a pairing. PFC neurons were selectively responsive to given numerical values, presented in either analog or symbolic formats. In other words, the PFC in monkeys seems to be involved in the association between symbols and numerical concepts, and it builds upon the capacities of the IPS to encode approximate numerical information early in quantity processing. By four years of age, the IPS in human children is already responsive to changes in the numerosity of visual arrays [39], but the parietal cortex shows a more protracted developmental trajectory for the representation of symbolic numbers. Specifically, children who have not yet become proficient with numerals show elevated PFC activity in response to numerals, whereas parietal areas seemingly take over as proficiency with symbols emerges [40,41]. In adult humans, representation of numerical information across many formats (numerals, analog stimuli, number words) relies substantially on parietal areas [42].

So while our brains are hardwired to math, we can only utilize it fully when using symbolic representations.

Evolution is not random

We all know that a lot of people misunderstand the concept of evolution, and believes it to be random ("pure chance"), but this is not what the theory states at all.

Now, a new international study shows that the theory is right, and evolution is not random.

Via ScienceDaily:
New Findings Confirm Darwin's Theory: Evolution Not Random

According to Darwin’s theory of evolution, individuals in a species pass successful traits onto their offspring through a process called “deterministic inheritance.” Over multiple generations, advantageous developmental trends – such as the lengthening of the giraffe’s neck – occur.

An opposing theory says evolution takes place through randomly inherited and not necessarily advantageous changes. Using the giraffe example, there would not be a common neck-lengthening trend; some would develop long necks, while others would develop short ones.

Now, the findings of an international team of biologists demonstrate that evolution is not a random process, but rather occurs through the natural selection of successful traits. The collaborative study by researchers at the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology in Israel, the U.S, France and Germany is published in the November 2007 issue of Current Biology (vol. 17, pp. 1925-1937).

To settle the question about whether evolution is deterministic or random, the researchers used various tools – including DNA strand analysis and electronic microscopy – to study female sexual organ development in 51 species of nematode, a type of worm commonly used to better understand evolutionary processes.

The findings showed similar development in the species, which falsifies the idea that the development is random.

The Current Biology article about the study, can be found here:
Trends, Stasis, and Drift in the Evolution of Nematode Vulva Development. It's quite technical, and much of it went over my head. Still, it's worth taking a look at.

Altruism in wasps tied to maternal behavior

ScienceDaily reports on an interesting study of wasps, where to researchers took a look at the genes of the different types of wasps, and saw if there was any connection to their genes.

Altruism Evolved From Maternal Behavior, Wasp Genetics Study Suggests

Researchers at the University of Illinois have used an innovative approach to reveal the molecular basis of altruistic behavior in wasps. The research team focused on the expression of behavior-related genes in Polistes metricus paper wasps, a species for which little genetic data was available when the study was begun.

Like honey bee workers, wasp workers give up their reproductive capabilities and focus entirely on nurturing their larval siblings, a practice that seems to defy the Darwinian prediction that a successful organism strives, above all else, to reproduce itself. Such behaviors are indicative of a eusocial society, in which some individuals lose, or sacrifice, their reproductive functions and instead work to benefit the larger group.

I don't get the use of 'Darwinian' unless it refers to some predictions made by Darwin. Even if it does, the reference to the prediction seems a bit weird, as it has long been known that evolution works on the species level, so it's not important if one particular individual reproduces, but rather that the species on the whole, reproduces in the most efficient way possible. For some species that apparently involves "a eusocial society" (an expression I've never heard before).

The researchers found that the pattern of behavior-related genes expressed in the brains of worker wasps was most similar to that seen in foundresses, the female wasps who alone build new colonies and devote much of their early lives to maternal tasks.

"These wasps start out as single moms," said postdoctoral researcher Amy Toth. "They don't have any workers to help them, so they're responsible for laying all the eggs and provisioning the developing larvae which then turn into workers."

The researchers selected this species because it appears to represent an evolutionary transition. Once a foundress has raised a first generation of workers, she turns over the task of nurturing the larvae to the workers and devotes herself entirely to her "queenly" reproductive function.

At this point, the researchers discovered, behavioral gene expression in her brain changes, becoming distinct from that seen during her maternal period.

Toth noted that the P. metricus wasps represent a kind of intermediate stage in the evolution of eusocial behavior. The honey bee colony, in which queens never perform maternal tasks, is considered a more developed form of eusociality.

So, queens have a different behavioral gene expression than foundresses, who are more similar to workers in their expression than queens and gynes (future queens in existing colonies). So, in other words, worker wasps (bees, etc.) are more maternal even though they are unable to sexually reproduce.

That's quite interesting.

It does not follow that all observed altruistic behavior have roots in maternal (or paternal) behaviour, but it would follow from what we generally know about evolution.

The study can be found here (behind a paywall)

Did the Tasmanian Tiger loose to the Dingos?

Via a comment to one of PZ's posts over at Pharyngula, I came across this piece of news. Unfortunately I can't find the comment where the link was posted, so I can't give proper credit to the orginal poster.

Tasmanian tiger's weaker bite gave dingoes the edge

The Tasmanian tiger probably died out because of competition from the dingo, whose stronger head and neck could better handle the stresses of tackling bigger prey, according to research on the animals’ skulls. The new study challenges the theory that humans were mainly to blame.

First of all, I dislike the mis-use of the word "theory" here. It was at best a hypothesis, which was considered as one possible explanaition (the other hypothesis was that the extinction was caused by the Dingos). So the findings are not quite as revolutionary as the lead paragraph makes it sound.

What I find quite interesting about this study, is that it's based upon some computer models, where the scientists modelled the skulls of Dingos and Tasmanian Tigers.

Using a series of CT scans of the skulls, they created sophisticated computer models of the animals' heads. They then studied the stresses on the skull, jaw, teeth, and muscles around the skulls while they simulated the biting, tearing and shaking of prey.

They found that as the size of a struggling prey animal got bigger, so too did stresses at the back of both the skulls. But differences in skull geometry, and the amount of muscle that would have been attached to the back, meant that these stresses were relatively much higher in the thylacine.

So, in other words, Dingos could hunt larger animals than Tasmanian Tigers. Combined with the later's larger size (according to the article, they were 70% heavier than dingos), and there is a distinct evolutionary advantage to the Dingos.

The study can be found behind a pay-wall at the Proceedings of the Royal Society, though a abstract can be read here

Someone just doesn't get it

I came across
this ignorant post a couple of days ago at a blog called Otherwise Known As Kevin Miller (XI), which just made me have to comment on it. Unfortunately I've been busy, so I haven't had time to do so before now.

Well, on to the post, and my comments to it.

While I'm excitied to see so many people discussing Expelled, what disappoints me is how utterly predictable it all is so far. The Darwinists are tearing their clothes and sprinkling ashes on their heads on their blogs, while the Intelligent Design advocates are crowing about finally being able to stick it to the Darwinian establishment on their blogs. Two solitudes that have been going on ad nauseum.

Right from the onset it's clear that we are dealing with a Creationist or a neo-Creationist, since he refers to people as "Darwinists". Here I suppose that he is refering to the reality based community which understand that there is overwhelming evidence for the Theory of Evolution.

I don't know which blogs he is reading, but the blogs I've read have had a few posts about the movie, most on course on Pharyngula, but that's hardly surprising, given the fact that PZ was tricked into appearing in the movie on false premises.

Frankly, I haven't paid much attention to the movie, and the talk about it, but except from people commenting on it's flawed premise, the distasteful actions of the producer, and generally making fun of Ben Stein, I haven't seen any great attention from the pro-science people. Randy Olson (or someone using his handle) did make a comment over at Pharyngula where he made clear that there were clearly some movie behind the movie, and thus it couldn't be dismissed lightly. Hardly "tearing their clothes and sprinkling ashes on their heads".

I wouldn't know what the neo-Creationist crowd has been up to, since I've been too busy lately to pay any attention to them and their sillyness.

My hope for this film has always been that it will help us to overcome our entrenchment regarding the topic of evoution and finally engage in some rational discussion about it. Unfortunately, instead of helping us bridge the gap, so far the film seems to merely have driven the entrenchment even further.

Well, if that was your hope, then you would have been better of not basing those hopes on a film that's entirely based on a false premise.
Expelled is entirely based upon some kind of conspiracy keeping neo-Creationist scientists out, to protect their Darwinistic doctrine. Never mind that there is no such thing and that science is a surprisingly democratic venture - everyone can get heard, as long as they conduct proper science/research and present it in a scientific matter.

The neo-Creationis movement is supported by the Discovery Institute, while the Creationists are supported by organizations like Answers in Genisis, yet none of them seem to be conducting any science. As a matter of fact, when it comes to neo-Creationists, we can't get them to present us with even their hypothesis of Intelligent Design. Instead they keep talking about flaws in the theory of evolution, while demonstrating a profound lack of understanding of the subject.

On a more positive note, the comments area on Ben Stein's Blog has served as that rare forum where Darwinists, ID advocates, and Creationists actually meet face to face. But even there, it's usually just so they can trash the opposing point of view or vehemently defend their own position. I see very few people asking questions. Everyone seems to have the answers already. Once again, no surprise there.

Pro-science people and neo-Creationists/Creationsists can meet face to face in a number of forums, including the ScienceBlogs, Panda's Thumb and TalkOrigins. Unlike neo-Creationist sites like Uncommon Descent people don't get banned there just for disagreeing.

Of course, people who are somewhat based in reality, get tired of hearing the same lies, half-truths, misunderstandings, mined quotes, and other regular neo-Creationist/Creationist debate points, and tend to get a little dismissive of people who can't be bothered to do even a bit of basic research on the subject they are debating (and even trying to prove wrong). On the other hand, if neo-Creationists or Creationists comes and show a genuine interest in learning something (or even just show the willingness to read up on the subject of evolution), people at science blogs are quite patient. Unfortunately, we don't see many such people.

Pro-science people argue against Creationists/neo-Creationists by showing how their arguments are wrong (as was seen in the many negative book reviews of Behe's latest piece of junk), by providing evidence for evolution, or even by trying to educate the people they argue with about the basic facts they are talking about.

Making the two sides equivalent shows that you either have a very little understanding of the subject being debated (almost a given, considering we are talking about a neo-Creationist/Creationist) or that you are trying to appeal to a false equivalence ("see both sides are equal, since they both argue each other - teach the controversy").

Something that has surprised me, however, is the ratio of comments between the two camps. If you check out PZ Myers' blog, you'll see hundreds of negative comments on virtually every post about the film. But in the ID camp, readers usually limit themselves to a few dozen, if that. I would have thought that seeing as the majority of Americans believe in some sort of Intelligent Design they would have come out in droves in support of the film. But I guess that's just human nature. If we haven't got anything good to say, that's about the time we muster up the energy to post something. Sort of like what I'm doing right now.

We are talking about a film that lies, distorts, and almost certainly quote-mine. Obviously people are going to react to that. People who agree with the premises of the film, are not going to outright attack it, but perhaps some of them have the decency to feel bad about such things? [Who am I kidding?]

That said, if Darwinists and IDers really want to move this debate forward--if they're truly interested in the truth as opposed to posturing and silly name calling--how about trying to listen to each other once in a while rather than simply dismissing the opposition's argument out of hand? After all, although our human tendency is to focus on the things that divide, from my perspective, the two sides have a lot more in common than they think.

If Kevin Miller really want to move this debate forward, maybe he should try to actually look at the evidence, and see the truth instead of trying to imply a false equality between the two sides? One side is supported by 150 years of science, all of which supports the theory of evolution, while the other side is supported by nothing at all. Thousands of years of dogma, and nothing to show for it. One side make bold predictions, and apply them to fields like medicine, the other side claims to have found holes in the other side's theory, but is both unable to understand the science involved, or to explain how those "problems" would validate their own pseudo-theory.

There is not two sides to this debate. Not when you look at the science. Then there is only one. The theory of evolution is the fundament upon which we base our understanding of biology, and it's only in the light of evolution that our observations in nature and in the labs make sense.

As I said, this was the sort of blogpost I just had to comment on, but reading the comments to it made me speechless. Salvador Cordova shows that if irony is not dead, he will do whatever is in his power to kill it.

I'd say what's happening at Stein's blog is that ID proponents just don't feel like wasting time there. We feel confident in our case, and we are in the majority. The opposition are clamoring for attention. That's at least how I see it. I'm not eager to argue with those who refuse to be swayed (except maybe for the benefit of the audience).

"Clamoring for attention"? "[R]efuse to be swayed"? Oh, and notice the appeal to popularity ("we are in the majority").

ERV takes on Behe

Abbie, who writes the great blog Endogenousretrovirus, and comments under the handle ERV or SA Smith, has written a great post in which she explains how woefully wrong Michael Behe is in his newest book.

Michael Behe, please allow me to introduce myself...

In short, Abbie's post demolishes the whole premise for Behe's book.

The post will go up on The Panda's Thumb as well, so it will reach the wide audience it deserves.

But how was its dance moves?

While reading one of the many free daily newspapers in Denmark, I noticed a small notice of the discovery of a penguin fossil in Peru. The fossil showed that there had been giant penguins in Peru in the past. The penguins, Icadyptes salasi, reached 1.5m in height – the current largest breed of penguins, only reaches 1m.

This small notice made me look at ScienceDaily to see if they covered this discovery, and I was not disappointed.

March Of The Giant Penguins: Prehistoric Equatorial Penguins Reached 5 Feet In Height

The article tells us that it’s not just one, but two pre-historic penguin species that have been uncovered in Peru.

The first of the new species, Icadyptes salasi, stood 5 feet tall and lived about 36 million years ago. The second new species, Perudyptes devriesi, lived about 42 million years ago, was approximately the same size as a living King Penguin (2 ½ to 3 feet tall) and represents a very early part of penguin evolutionary history. Both of these species lived on the southern coast of Peru.

The new finds changes how and when scientists think penguins spread.

These new penguin fossils are among the most complete yet recovered and call into question hypotheses about the timing and pattern of penguin evolution and expansion. Previous theories held that penguins probably evolved in high latitudes (Antarctica and New Zealand) and then moved into lower latitudes that are closer to the equator about 10 million years ago -- long after significant global cooling that occurred about 34 million years ago.

Perhaps the idea of penguins in Peru seems far-fetched to many, but there are actually still a living species of penguins there, though much smaller than the pre-historic species.

"We tend to think of penguins as being cold-adapted species," Clarke says, "even the small penguins in equatorial regions today, but the new fossils date back to one of the warmest periods in the last 65 million years of Earth's history. The evidence indicates that penguins reached low latitude regions more than 30 million years prior to our previous estimates."

Quite interesting.

BBC also writes about the story.

Apparently the find was reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, but I’m unable to located anything online.

Two interesting articles from PNAS

While looking for the article about the early panda mentioned in my last post, I came across a couple of interesting articles at Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that were open access.

One of them is about how geographic range affects the risk of extinction.

Wide geographic range is generally thought to buffer taxa against extinction, but the strength of this effect has not been investigated for the great majority of the fossil record. Although the majority of genus extinctions have occurred between major mass extinctions, little is known about extinction selectivity regimes during these "background" intervals. Consequently, the question of whether selectivity regimes differ between background and mass extinctions is largely unresolved. Using logistic regression, we evaluated the selectivity of genus survivorship with respect to geographic range by using a global database of fossil benthic marine invertebrates spanning the Cambrian through the Neogene periods, an interval of {approx}500 My. Our results show that wide geographic range has been significantly and positively associated with survivorship for the great majority of Phanerozoic time. Moreover, the significant association between geographic range and survivorship remains after controlling for differences in species richness and abundance among genera. However, mass extinctions and several second-order extinction events exhibit less geographic range selectivity than predicted by range alone. Widespread environmental disturbance can explain the reduced association between geographic range and extinction risk by simultaneously affecting genera with similar ecological and physiological characteristics on global scales. Although factors other than geographic range have certainly affected extinction risk during many intervals, geographic range is likely the most consistently significant predictor of extinction risk in the marine fossil record.

So, in other words, animals that live in large geographical range are less likely to become extinct than animals that live in a narrow geographical range. This is less notable during mass extinction (i.e. times where large numbers of species go extinct), but even then it can be measured.

This is something that was expected, but undocumented until now.

The other article, is also something that follows quite logically from what we know. It shows that resources have an influence on biodiversity

I probably explained the findings incorrectly, and would love to see any of the real biologist out there (e.g. Coturnix or PZ Myers) explain these papers to the rest of us.

I wonder if Amanda has any comments....

I could help thinking of Pandagon when I saw this bit of news on ScienceDaily

Remains Of Earliest Giant Panda Discovered

Although it may sound like an oxymoron, a University of Iowa anthropologist and his colleagues report the first discovery of a skull from a "pygmy-sized" giant panda -- the earliest-known ancestor of the giant panda -- that lived in south China some two million years ago.

The remains were found 18 months ago, and shows that pandas have remained relatively unchanged through the last couple of million years, both in regards to anatomy and to diet.

"Pandas are very unique bears --- the only bear species that is known to exist wholly on a vegetarian diet," says Ciochon. "The evolution of this unique dietary specialization probably took millions of years to refine. Our new discovery shows the great time depth of this unique bamboo-eating specialization in pandas. Thus, pandas have been 'uniquely pandas' for many millions of years says Ciochon."

Ciochon says that the find further helps establish conditions that existed in the region during the varying climatic conditions of the Pliocene and Pleistocene epochs, stretching back some three millions years before the present. The pygmy giant panda lived in lowland tropical bamboo forests. It is often found associated with the extinct elephant-like creature, Stegodon, and the giant extinct ape, Gigantopithecus. Today's giant panda is isolated in mountainous upland bamboo forests, partly due to the pressure of modern civilization.

The article was brought in the June 18-22 online issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, but unfortunately it's behind a paywall.

Brownback on evolution

I'm sure we've all been dying to hear Senator, and potential GOP presidential candidate, Sam Brownback's informed take on evolution. Luckily we have the chance, since NY Times brought an op-ed by him a couple of days ago.

What I Think About Evolution

IN our sound-bite political culture, it is unrealistic to expect that every complicated issue will be addressed with the nuance or subtlety it deserves. So I suppose I should not have been surprised earlier this month when, during the first Republican presidential debate, the candidates on stage were asked to raise their hands if they did not “believe” in evolution. As one of those who raised his hand, I think it would be helpful to discuss the issue in a bit more detail and with the seriousness it demands.

Actually, the question gave the subject at hand every nuance or subtlety it needed. It was pretty straight-forward, and could be answered either as a 'yes' or 'no', and there was no need for any nuances at all. Much like questions about peoples' "belief" in a spheric Earth or a heliocentric solar system don't need any nuances.

Sure, there might be different opinions about the details involved when you answer 'yes' or 'no', but the overall concepts are pretty straightforward.

The premise behind the question seems to be that if one does not unhesitatingly assert belief in evolution, then one must necessarily believe that God created the world and everything in it in six 24-hour days. But limiting this question to a stark choice between evolution and creationism does a disservice to the complexity of the interaction between science, faith and reason.

No, the premise behind the question is wether you believe in a well-documentated, well-explained biological process, that explains how life on Earth has evovled to it's current state.
In other words, do you accept the scientific evidence and process that leads to conclude that evolution happens? Yes, or no?

No God, or other deity, is involved in that question at all.

It's true that most Americans who reject biology tend to be Creationists/neo-Creationists, but that's besides the point.

You, senator Brownback, was asked a specific question, in your role as a potential presidential candidate, and you aswered it in a way, that shows us that you reject evidence if it doesn't suit you, and indeed the entire scientific process.

The heart of the issue is that we cannot drive a wedge between faith and reason. I believe wholeheartedly that there cannot be any contradiction between the two. The scientific method, based on reason, seeks to discover truths about the nature of the created order and how it operates, whereas faith deals with spiritual truths. The truths of science and faith are complementary: they deal with very different questions, but they do not contradict each other because the spiritual order and the material order were created by the same God.

It's nice that you think that there cannot be any contradiction between faith and reason, and you are certainly not alone in feeling this, yet when asked to affirm your belief in reason, you rejected it.

There are numerous places where religious scriptures goes against science, and reasonable religious people understand that then the scriptures must be rejected. Yet, you, Senator Brownback, has not shown us that you are willing to do that - instead you claim that faith doesn't contradict reason, while at the same time rejecting reason. Not a good sign.

People of faith should be rational, using the gift of reason that God has given us. At the same time, reason itself cannot answer every question. Faith seeks to purify reason so that we might be able to see more clearly, not less. Faith supplements the scientific method by providing an understanding of values, meaning and purpose. More than that, faith — not science — can help us understand the breadth of human suffering or the depth of human love. Faith and science should go together, not be driven apart.

Faith does not help us understand neither the "breadth of human suffering" nor the "depth of human love". If it did, religious people wouldn't commit the attrocities, in the name of religion, that they some times do. What helps us understand these things, is empathy. A quality several species show.

The question of evolution goes to the heart of this issue. If belief in evolution means simply assenting to microevolution, small changes over time within a species, I am happy to say, as I have in the past, that I believe it to be true. If, on the other hand, it means assenting to an exclusively materialistic, deterministic vision of the world that holds no place for a guiding intelligence, then I reject it.

Evolution means neither of those things. The focus on the destinction between micro- and macroevolution is a creationist contruct, and doesn't have anything to do with the theory of evolution. Instead, it's an attempt to explain away the many observed cases of evolution in daily life, such as the continiously evolution of the flu virus. However, there are also several observed cases of speciation.

Evolution, as a scientific theory, does not hold any place for a guiding intelligence, but it certainly does so as a process. As a matter of fact, humankind have through the ages often used, and guided, the evolutionary process. Yesterday, I heard that a company had located a cow that produces low fat milk - this cow will presumably be used for breeding more such cows.

There is no one single theory of evolution, as proponents of punctuated equilibrium and classical Darwinism continue to feud today. Many questions raised by evolutionary theory — like whether man has a unique place in the world or is merely the chance product of random mutations — go beyond empirical science and are better addressed in the realm of philosophy or theology.

There is a overall theory of evolution, which is just about universally accepted by biologists world-wide. Then there are some debate about the exact mechanisms, and the importance of them, in the bigger picture, but that's like debating how commas should be used in sentences, when all other grammatical rules have been laid down.

The question of how Homo Sapiens evolved to it's current evolutionary stage, and to the uniqueness of that particular species' place in the world, in a biological sense, is not something that's better addressed in the realm of philosophy or theology. Those questions are easily answered by the fossil evidence and the understanding of evolution we have, and should be answered by these things. To claim that these things should be answered by theology ("the study of God") or philosophy, is on par with claiming that the relative movement of the Earth and the Sun should be answered by those two disciplines - a claim that has a historical precedence, but which would, rightfully, be rejected by anyone of a sound mind.

The most passionate advocates of evolutionary theory offer a vision of man as a kind of historical accident. That being the case, many believers — myself included — reject arguments for evolution that dismiss the possibility of divine causality.

Once again, evolution is a observed fact and a scientific theory. None of these two things have anything to do with "the possibility of divine causality". Instead they deal with the physical world. Now, if you want to dismiss the real world, that's up to you, but don't claim that it's the facts that reject your belief.

Ultimately, on the question of the origins of the universe, I am happy to let the facts speak for themselves. There are aspects of evolutionary biology that reveal a great deal about the nature of the world, like the small changes that take place within a species. Yet I believe, as do many biologists and people of faith, that the process of creation — and indeed life today — is sustained by the hand of God in a manner known fully only to him. It does not strike me as anti-science or anti-reason to question the philosophical presuppositions behind theories offered by scientists who, in excluding the possibility of design or purpose, venture far beyond their realm of empirical science.

Yet, even though you are willing to let the facts speak for themselves, you still reject them. And don't think we didn't notice that you only focus on intra-species evolution, and seem to ignore, or reject, inter-species evolution.

Personally I find it quite amusing that anyone would claim that rejecting things with no empirical evidence, indeed things that by its very nature cannot have any such evidence, is stepping outside the real of empirical science. What the senator doesn't seem to understand, is that empirical science, indeed all science, only deals with falsible things. That's the very nature of how science is conducted!

Biologists will have their debates about man’s origins, but people of faith can also bring a great deal to the table. For this reason, I oppose the exclusion of either faith or reason from the discussion. An attempt by either to seek a monopoly on these questions would be wrong-headed. As science continues to explore the details of man’s origin, faith can do its part as well. The fundamental question for me is how these theories affect our understanding of the human person.

Many religious people have brought a lot of things to the table - Mendel would be a very logical example. However, they can only do so, if they are actually willing to put aside their preconceived notions, and go where the evidence takes them. When we are in the realms of science, faith can take us no-where, which is something that every scientist (religious or otherwise) knows. Evidence, reason and the scientific process can, on the other hand, take us everywhere.

The unique and special place of each and every person in creation is a fundamental truth that must be safeguarded. I am wary of any theory that seeks to undermine man’s essential dignity and unique and intended place in the cosmos. I firmly believe that each human person, regardless of circumstance, was willed into being and made for a purpose.

I think you misunderstand the meaning of the worth "truth". It means that something is based upon facts. Not on faith.

The theory of evolution doesn't seek to undermine anything. Instead, it explains the observable process of evolution to the best of our udnerstanding. It has hold remarkable well since Darwin first explained it, and though there are minor changes, the general concept still stands as it did when he first explained it.

While no stone should be left unturned in seeking to discover the nature of man’s origins, we can say with conviction that we know with certainty at least part of the outcome. Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order. Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science.

We could say that, and in your case, it is probably with conviction. But remember the part about being willing to go where the evidence leads us? Seems like you don't really understand what that actually means. It means, that we don't know for certainty anything.

Without hesitation, I am happy to raise my hand to that.

Yet again demonstrating that you reject science, reason, the scientific process, evidence, and indeed any claim to be grounded in reality.

So, after this long and "nuanced" explanation, we reach the same conclusion about you.

Are chimps more advanced than humans?

Well, yes, if you are talking about which species that has gone through most positive selection on genes, according to a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and reported on by ScienceDaily.

Put a human and a chimpanzee side by side, and it seems obvious which lineage has changed the most since the two diverged from a common ancestor millions of years ago. Such apparent physical differences, along with human speech, language and brainpower, have led many people to believe that natural selection has acted in a positive manner on more genes in humans than in chimps.

But new research at the University of Michigan challenges that human-centered view. "We often think that we're unique and superior to other species, so there must be a lot of Darwinian selection behind our origin," said Jianzhi (George) Zhang, associate professor of ecology and evolutionary biology. "However, we found that more genes have undergone positive selection in chimpanzee evolution than in human evolution."

When looking at species and their development, it is natural to hold an anthropocentric view, where you regard your own species as the pinnacle of evolution. However, this view is unfounded, since you cannot consider any evolutionary process better than the other, as long as it result in the survival of a species. The is no doubt that Homo sapiens is among the most adaptive and succesful species on our planet, but so you could say about Rattus rattus (the black rat) or cockroaches.

This research shows that humankind can be considered less advanced, evolution wise, than chimpanzees. Something that quite a few people will probably have some problems accepting, even if they accept evolution. Such problems doesn't not change the facts though, and it might lead to a more healthy understanding of our species' role in the greater scheme of things. A more humble view on ourselves if you will.

An abstract of the study can be found here.