The Greatest Show On Earth - A Book Summary In Many Parts

by cofty 81 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • cofty
    cofty

    Part 5

    Chapter 3 – The Primrose Path to Macro-Evolution

    In his “Origin of Species” Darwin first drew his readers attention to the dramatic variety that was possible through the artificial selection of domestic animals.

    This was the theme of chapter 2 of Dawkins book where he showed how humans, through selective breeding, have “sculpted and kneaded dog flesh to assume a bewildering variety of forms, colours, sizes and behaviour patterns.”

    In this third chapter he leads his readers through some intermediate stages on the path from artificial to natural selection, or as he calls it “a step by step seduction of the mind.”

    Probably every flower that are coloured anything but green and whose smell is anything more than just vaguely plant-like owes it’s form to generations of selection, but unlike the journey from wolf to Chihuahua the selector was not human but animal.

    In order to pass their genes on to the next generation flowers need to pollinate other specimens of the same species. Some achieve this by producing huge quantities of pollen that is randomly carried on the wind. Others are equipped to employ birds and insects to do the task more efficiently. By offering the reward of energy-rich nectar, bees, butterflies, hummingbirds and even bats can be bribed to transport pollen on behalf of the flower. These creatures have nervous systems capable of being attracted by particular colours shapes and patterns, which increases the chance that their load will reach its intended destination.

    Some flowers have simply evolved a general colour that is attractive to insects or birds. Flowers that may look plain to us often have spots or lines that are visible only to insects who see the ultra-violet end of the spectrum. Although the insect may then go and visit a number of other species the chances of the pollen reaching its intended destination is still greatly increased. A meadow full of flowers is like natures Times Square, a slow-motion neon sign that changes from week to week through the year.

    Other flowers have gone further and become totally dependant on one particular bird or bee to do it’s bidding. Both Darwin and Wallace commented on the amazing orchid Angraecum sesquipedale which has nectaries more than 11 inches long. In 1862 Darwin predicted that there must be an, as yet undiscovered, moth capable or exploiting this. It was not until after his death that a new species, Darwin’s Hawk Moth was discovered in Madagascar in 1903 with a proboscis that fulfilled his prediction.



    Insect pollination represents a huge advance in economy over the wasteful scattergun of wind pollination. To the insect the flower is a reliable source of nectar; to the flower the insect is like a well-paid Federal Express service. Each side could be said to have domesticated the other, selectively breeding them to do a better job than before. Human gardeners have simply taken the process a step further, selecting from existing specimens for colour and perfume.

    Animals also select traits in one another. Peacocks would escape predators better if they had drab feathers and small tails but generations of peahens have selected the gaudiest peacocks to mate with thus selecting genes for big bright tails to pass on to the next generation of males and the reference for the same onto the next generation of female. The same is true for fish (we will come to an astonishing example involving guppies in a later chapter) reptiles, amphibians and mammals.

    It is not only the eyes that have selected traits in flora and fauna; ears have played their part too. Generations of female canaries have selected males with the best voices to mate with. It is now known that the sound of the male call (even a tape recording) causes the females’ ovaries to swell and produces hormones that bring them into reproductive condition. Males are in effect giving female canaries a hormone injection when they sing. At the same time females are selectively breeding males who have the best voices; it is two sides of the same coin.

    Unlike female creatures who positively breed males for certain features some predators shape the populations of their prey buy avoiding certain features. There is a caterpillar whose butt looks exactly like a snake. Not surprisingly these caterpillars get left alone by birds. Generations of birds have unknowingly been selectively breeding caterpillars who most closely resemble the snake.

    Deep sea angler fish lure their prey in the almost total darkness of the deep with a spine that has become elongated and which has at it’s tip a receptacle that contains bacteria that is bioluminescent. Like little neon signs that say, “eat me” they attract unsuspecting prey. By being attracted to the most convincing lures the victims are selectively breeding anglerfish to become increasingly effective at their deception. Anglers with less attractive lures are more likely to starve to death and it’s the prey that is doing the selecting.



    At this point Dawkins provides a short summary of the path so far.

    1. Humans choose features of flowers and animals through ARTIFICIAL selection. This is powerful enough to turn wolves into Chihuahuas and stretch maize cobs from inches to feet in length.

    2. Many female birds and animals choose attractive mates for breeding in a process Darwin called sexual selection

    3. Small prey fish choose attractive anglerfish for survival by feeding the most attractive specimens with their own bodies, thereby inadvertently choosing them for survival and passing on their attractive genes to the next generation. This is NATURAL selection and was Darwin’s greatest discovery.

    4. Now without any kind of choosing agent, individuals who are “chosen” for survival by the fact that they happen to posses superior equipment to survive than their peers. They will then pass on their superior genes to the next generation and so every gene pool in every species tends to become filled with genes for making superior equipment for survival and reproduction.

    Artificial selection is then a special case of natural selection.

    The general case is the non-random survival of randomly varying hereditary equipment.

    The ultimate test for a scientific hypothesis is experiment and Dawkins book contains numerous examples where the power of selection has been illustrated in the lab. The chapter concludes with three such examples....

  • Knowsnothing
    Knowsnothing

    The domestication of the wolf to dog is most interesting. The fact remains, however, that wolves and dogs can reproduce. Also, a lot of the mutations present in dogs are actually harmful to their health; shorter legs comes to mind.

  • cofty
    cofty

    Knowsnothing - There is also some really interesting stuff coming soon about domestication of foxes that shows some really surprising side-effects.

    You may be right that a wolf could theoretically still breed with a domestic dog but we are describing a process. As two gene pools become more and more dissimilar there eventually comes a point where breeding is no longer possible. The genetic differences are just too great for syngamy to occur.

    The terms micro and macro evolution are not clearly defined in biology, they tend to be more used by creationists who allow one but not the other. In reality it is a false dichotomy.

    Of course you are right that the sort of extremes that have been imposed on dog breeds by humans often result in harm to the animals. Boxers who have difficulty breathing for example. All puppies have short snouts to allow them to suck from their mother. In boxers that characteristic is retained in the adult dog - its a phenomena called neogeny which we will look at again in connection with human evolution. In Boxers it has also had an effect on the genes that control the development of the palate.

    In natural selection there is a natural limit of the development of traits. Everything is a compromise between competing needs for survival and breeding.

    As the story develops we will look at lots of evidence for speciation. Thanks for your comments.

  • Heaven
    Heaven

    Peacocks would escape predators better if they had drab feathers and small tails but generations of peahens have selected the gaudiest peacocks to mate with thus selecting genes for big bright tails to pass on to the next generation of males and the reference for the same onto the next generation of female.

    I think she's on to him.

  • cofty
    cofty

    hahaha! that's funny.

    There is a sort of arms race going on between males and females in many animal species.

    Male peacocks pass on their genes to their sons for outlandish tail feathers while females pass on genes to their daughters that make them prefer suitably equipped males 1 .

    Males that lack genes for the most impressive plumage have less chance of breeding and so those genes become less common in the gene pool. Genes for tail feathers that are so extravagant that they actually reduce the chances of the bird successfully reaching adulthood and breeding are similarly selected against.

    The difference with artificial selection is that animals are protected from the negative effects of extreme features by their owners. In the wild an optimum is reached as a result of competing pressures.

    Bodies are complex collections of compromises.

    1 Of course we should say males and females both possess genes for large colourful tail feathers but they are only expressed in males. Similarly men have genes for breasts and and women have genes for male genitals.

  • cofty
    cofty

    Part 6

    Chapter 3 – The Primrose Path to Macro-Evolution continued

    Rats teeth – It was found through experiment that by selection in the lab it was possible to breed rats whose teeth were 5 times as resistant to tooth decay than the wild variety. So the question arises as to why wild rats do not already have super-teeth. The answer is instructive in that it applies to all living things. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Producing more calcium for teeth costs the rat and the energy must be found by compromising somewhere else. Every living thing is a patchwork of compromises. A cow can be bred for more milk and thus be better able to raise its young but it’s udder would be a hindrance in the wild and leave it more vulnerable to predation than its neighbours. A racehorse can be bred to run very fast and escape predators in the wild but is far more likely to suffer a fatal break.

    Dogs Again – This is a fascinating example that I cannot do justice to in this summary. Raymond Coppinger proposed the theory that the first stage of domestication of the wolf was self-domestication which humans later built on through further artificial selection. Wild animals have a natural “flight distance” in other words if they are scavenging near a human habitation how close will they allow humans to get before running away? Too close may be dangerous, but too soon and less chance for grabbing food. The Russian geneticist Dimitri Belyaev was employed to run a fur farm for in the 1950s. He began to select for breeding those animals that were the most naturally tame. After a mere six generations the foxes had changed so much he and his colleagues felt obliged to name a new category of fox. Within 35 generations the successors to his work reported that 70-80% of all the animals belonged to this new class. Although selection had always been for tameness alone and no other visible feature the physical changes were astounding. The foxes had become piebald black and white like Welsh collies. Their foxy ears had been replaced with floppy, doggy ones. Their tails turn up like a dog rather than down like a fox brush. The females came on heat every six months like a bitch rather than every year like a vixen. They even started to sound like domestic dogs.



    These features were side effects, a phenomenon called pleiotropy whereby genes have more than one effect. The doggy features were freeloading in the evolutionary genes for tameness. To understand it better we will need to look more closely at fascinating subject of embryology in a later chapter. And More Flowers – Dawkins concludes the chapter with amazing examples of co-evolution particularly in the world of orchids and the many ploys they use to attract and exploit the services of specific insects.

    Unlike flowers that simply dispense huge amounts of pollen in the hope of fertilising another flower, orchids have gone to the opposite extreme.

    There are orchids that resemble female insects closely enough to tempt males to attempt to copulate with them. The spider orchid resembles a spider sufficiently to fool a wasp into attempting to sting it, in the process it picks up pollen which it deposits on the next spider orchid it stings.

    The unique characteristics of bucket orchids and hammer orchids are also described. These plants have evolved the silver bullet when it comes to employing insect pollination.

    The point of these last two chapters is to illustrate the power of selection. A human breeder can turn a pye-dog into a Pekinese or a wild cabbage into a cauliflower within a few centuries. How much change is possible in the kind of timescales that natural selection has had to sculpt the genes of living things?

    Our planet is 46 million centuries old. Our fish ancestors crawled out onto land three and a half million centuries ago, the common ancestor of all modern mamals walked the earth two million centuries ago.

    But how do we know the age of a fossil or the age of the earth? That will be the theme of chapter four.

  • Hortensia
    Hortensia

    Thanks! Keep it coming, please.

  • LV101
    LV101

    ok --- I'm ordering the book so I'll have Cofty's review to follow along with.

  • cofty
    cofty

    Part 7

    Chapter 4 - Silence and Slow Time

    Dawkins opens chapter four in combative mood…

    If the history-deniers who doubt the fact of evolution are ignorant of biology, those who think the world began less than ten thousand years ago are worse than ignorant, they are deluded to the point of perversity. They are denying not only the facts of biology but those of physics, geology, cosmology, archaeology, history and chemistry as well.

    He likens the task of an evolutionary scientist to that of a murder detective who arrives late at the scene of the crime. One of their most urgent tasks is to establish the time of death, and a number of clever forensic techniques are available to achieve this. Similarly the scientist has a whole range of methods at his disposal to accurately date the pieces of evidence they have discovered.

    What is needed is a clock that can be reset or zeroed like a stopwatch but one that can measure the immense periods involved in evolution. Fortunately a variety of such clocks are available which makes it possible to check the accuracy of any particular clock against others. As they also operate at vastly different speeds, between them, they cover the whole span of the 7 or 8 orders of magnitude we are interested in.

    At the fast end of the spectrum of natural clocks we have tree rings or dendrochronology. Annual growth rings in trees reveal distinct patterns based on climate with certain fingerprint sequences of rings that can be recognised and dated exactly. By examining living trees and fossils it is possible to extend tree-ring dating back with certainty for 11,500 years. That is literally yesterday by evolutionary standards but it does pose an interesting quandary for young earthers. It is particularly useful in archaeology. On a similar time-scale sediment layers (varves) in glacial lakes lay down annual layers that can be dated with certainty, as can annual growth layers in coral reefs.



    The other dating methods that measure tens or hundreds of millions or even billions of years are mostly radioactive and are accurate to within an error range that is proportional to the timescale concerned. Typically around 1%

    Now for the chemistry lesson; Dawkins describes the classic Bohr model of the atom in what follows. In this model every atom is like a tiny solar system (in the real world it is not so simple but the model is still useful and valid) with a given number of protons clustered together in the nucleus. The exact number defines the element concerned, all atoms of copper always have 29 protons at the heart of every atom, hydrogen has 1, carbon has 6 and so on. Protons have measurable mass and a positive electrical charge.

    Whizzing around them like planets in orbit is exactly the same number of negatively charged electrons, which are so tiny as have a mass of zero for practical purposes. Now the clever bit; also in the nucleus and possessing a mass similar to protons and a neutral charge are neutrons. Unlike the protons, the number of neutrons found in the nucleus is not definitive of the element, usually it is slightly more than the number of protons but the number can vary. Elements can exist with different numbers of neutrons and these are called ”isotopes” of the element.

    For example carbon exists as 3 different isotopes. Carbon-12 has 6 protons and 6 neutrons in the nucleus of every atom. Carbon-13 must always have 6 protons (otherwise it would not be carbon) but it has 7 neutrons. Carbon-14 has 8 neutrons and we will come back to carbon-14 shortly.

    The final part of the science lesson is to grasp that some isotopes are stable; they are content to remain with the hand they were dealt, but others are unstable where the atoms decay into something else and crucially do so at a very precise and measurable rate. This change is what we call radioactivity.

    There are three main types of radioactive decay. In one kind of decay the extra neutrons turn into protons, this means that the mass stays the same but the number of protons goes up by one so that the atoms become a different element; for example sodium-24 decays to become magnesium-24.

    In another form of radioactivity the opposite happens, a proton becomes a neutron, so again the mass remains unchanged but the atoms turn into the element one place below in the periodic table.

    In the third kind of decay a neutron strikes the nucleus of another atom knocking out a proton and taking its place. The effect on the atom is the same as the example above.

    What is vital to understand is that every unstable radioactive isotope decays at its own characteristic rate, which is precisely known. The rate of decay is always “exponential” which means that a fixed proportion decays in a given time. The favoured unit of measurement is half-life. This is the time taken for half of the amount of an isotope in a sample to decay to another stable element.

    The half-life of carbon-14 is 5-6000 years, which makes it useful for specimens up to around 50-60,000 years. After that practically all the carbon-14 has decayed. Rubiduim-87 has a half-life of 49 billion years and fermium a mere 3.3 milliseconds.

    The point is there are a range of clocks available to cover all of evolutionary time and that they can be used to confirm and correct each other.

    If anybody is familair with the lunacy that are the incoherent rantings of Ken Ham they will have been exposed to all sorts of misinformation about radiometric dating. Ham and his ilk never take the time to properly understand the subject they are criticising and spend most of their efforts passing on lies they heard from other misinformed sources.

    Part 2 of this topic will hopefully clear up a few misconceptions but if you are having genuine doubts about the accuracy of radiometric dating I suggest having a read at the following article written by a scientist who is also a committed christian. I have copy-pasted the intro below. It is an excellent piece of work that I highly recommend even if you are already convinced of the basic honesty of science. A pdf version is available at the linked page.


    Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective by Dr Roger C. Wiens.

    Dr. Wiens has a PhD in Physics, with a minor in Geology. His PhD thesis was on isotope ratios in meteorites, including surface exposure dating. He was employed at Caltech's Division of Geological & Planetary Sciences at the time of writing the first edition. He is presently employed in the Space & Atmospheric Sciences Group at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

    First edition 1994; revised version 2002.

    Radiometric dating--the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements--has been in widespread use for over half a century. There are over forty such techniques, each using a different radioactive element or a different way of measuring them. It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which the Earth was created a very long time ago. Further evidence comes from the complete agreement between radiometric dates and other dating methods such as counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers. Many Christians have been led to distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent. Many are also unaware that Bible-believing Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating.

    This paper describes in relatively simple terms how a number of the dating techniques work, how accurately the half-lives of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known, and how dates are checked with one another. In the process the paper refutes a number of misconceptions prevalent among Christians today. This paper is available on the web via the American Scientific Affiliation and related sites to promote greater understanding and wisdom on this issue, particularly within the Christian community....... more

  • Hortensia
    Hortensia

    I never really understood this before, that the decay of an element means it changes to another element. That makes sense. I'll read the article you linked.

    Thanks for sharing -- keep it coming.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit