The History Channel 'Evolves'...

Posted 1 August 2008 by Dave Thomas

Over the next few weeks, the History Channel is showing a fascinating series called "Evolve." Here is the synopsis of the first episode, titled "Eyes":

They are one of evolution's most useful and prevalent inventions. Ninety five percent of living species are equipped with eyes and they exist in many different forms. Learn how the ancestors of jellyfish may have been the first to evolve light-sensitive cells. Discover how dinosaur's evolved eyes that helped them become successful hunters. Finally, learn how primates evolved unique adaptations to their eyes that allowed them to better exploit their new habitat, and how the ability to see colors helped them find food. ...

While there were a few minor bio-gaffes, for the most part the show was excellent. There was no hand-wringing over offending creationists; instead, the show stayed right on the science. It pointed out that eyes have evolved from scratch numerous times in the animal kingdom, but also that just a few ancient genes were involved in these separate processes. The explanation of why predators need eyes with overlapping coverage toward the front - to better locate hapless prey - was done well. Conversely, the eyes of rabbits, which are almost on opposite sides of the head, serve to give that creature 360-degree vision, a sure benefit for avoiding predators. And finally, humans look forward also, but probably not for predation, but rather navigating in the tree limbs. A good explanation for why primates needed color vision was given, also: the primates' ability to see shades of red helped them find the red-orange nutritious young leaves in the tree canopy, thus avoiding wasting time on mature, green, and hard-to-digest leaves in the trees. "Eyes" will be repeated, and other episodes are on their way, including "Guts" and "Jaws." (check local schedules for air times): Friday, August 01: Eyes Saturday, August 02: Eyes Tuesday, August 05: Guts, Eyes Wednesday, August 06: Guts, Eyes Sunday, August 10: Eyes, Guts Monday, August 11: Guts Tuesday, August 12: Jaws Wednesday, August 13:Jaws After being depressed by the History Channel's apparent obsession with woo-woo topics like UFOs and Bigfoot, the new 'Evolve' series is an encouraging sign. Kudos, History Channel! Blogosphere Reaction: Daily Kos PZ Myers

74 Comments

Henry J · 1 August 2008

Conversely, the eyes of rabbits, which are almost on opposite sides of the head, serve to give that creature 360-degree vision, a sure benefit for avoiding predators.

It also helps them avoid pedestrians who just happen to walk by, without any intention of bothering the rabbit.

Dave Thomas · 1 August 2008

Henry J said:
Conversely, the eyes of rabbits, which are almost on opposite sides of the head, serve to give that creature 360-degree vision, a sure benefit for avoiding predators.
It also helps them avoid pedestrians who just happen to walk by, without any intention of bothering the rabbit.

Indeed! Reminds me of Casey Luskin's sensibilities. Cheers, Dave

iml8 · 1 August 2008

Dave Thomas said: Indeed! Reminds me of Casey Luskin's sensibilities.

Sniping about Mr. Luskin always feels a bit unsporting, it may be entirely deserved but it's just too easy. However, it requires no perceptiveness on my part to guarantee that within a few days, History Channel's EVOLVE will get the attention of EVOLUTION NEWS & VIEWS and the result will be yet another in the long series of tiresome and entirely predictable critical essays by Mr. Luskin. (I just checked and nothing yet.) Sort of reminds me of this house I walk past sometimes. There's a terrier that lives there, it dashes out in a frenzy from its doggie door and runs up to the fence to yap wildly at me. Did the show discuss the Nilsson-Pelger model? If it did we are certain to hear: IT WASN'T A COMPUTER SIMULATION! -- even if the show didn't say it was, and: IT DIDN'T DISCUSS THE EVOLUTION OF RODS & CONES! White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net

Jackelope King · 1 August 2008

iml8 said: Did the show discuss the Nilsson-Pelger model? If it did we are certain to hear: IT WASN'T A COMPUTER SIMULATION! -- even if the show didn't say it was, and: IT DIDN'T DISCUSS THE EVOLUTION OF RODS & CONES! White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net

I watched it last week. The show did not discuss the evolution of rods and cones. They started with light-sensing eye-spots on jellyfish, then jumped to the trilobite eye, and then onto the vertebrate eye (focusing on binocular vision as an advantage for predators, wide vision for prey-animals, color vision in primates, and night-vision in canines and felines). The program was mostly focused on talking about the very basics of "how the eye changed over the course of history". It was pretty well-done overall, though a little more accuracy and detail might've been nice.

iml8 · 1 August 2008

Jackelope King said: I watched it last week. The show did not discuss the evolution of rods and cones.

Ah-HAH! Of course EVOLUTION NEWS & VIEWS will proclaim that this is the "fatal flaw" in the History Channel's argument. Jackalopes? You're not from Wyoming, are you? I would suspect you've seen this -- second row, right image: http://www.vectorsite.net/gfxpxg_06.html White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

Open Threat · 1 August 2008

It was just the big, important bloggers who had an opinion of Evolved. Some of us inconsequential ones did too.

Alex · 1 August 2008

Tuesday August 05, Tuesday August 06, and Tuesday August 10, huh? Followed by Monday August 11. Something there looks a little fishy ....

Dave Thomas · 1 August 2008

Alex said: Tuesday August 05, Tuesday August 06, and Tuesday August 10, huh? Followed by Monday August 11. Something there looks a little fishy ....

Thanks! Fixed it. Cheers, Dave

JJ · 1 August 2008

I enjoyed watching last week's episode. I think it did a really good job in being able to reach the average viewer. It was solid science, interesting material, not overwhelming, of course those with in depth knowledge of evolution mechanisms, would want more detail. This would most likely be more knowledge than the average viewer has or would want.

stevaroni · 1 August 2008

After being depressed by the History Channel’s apparent obsession with woo-woo topics like UFOs and Bigfoot, the new ‘Evolve’ series is an encouraging sign.

Yay! I was an early fan of the History Channel, way back in the day, when the programming was all about good documentaries. I too have been terribly dismayed of late by the sagging quality of their programming, which sometimes seems to consist entirely of ice trucking reruns and different flavors of vacuous UFO conspiracies and "hauntings" investigations, most of which consists of jumpy people insisting they "felt something". (I spend a fair amount of time in a prototype shop where I have a TV in the background that I tune to the news channels, till I get discouraged with the quality of the programming, then switch to History and Discovery till I get discouraged by the quality of the programming, then switch back to news till....)

paul fcd · 1 August 2008

Eyes part one is merely a survey of eyes and vision. Not a convincing treatment of the evolution of vision.

We will see creationists jump all over this one in the usual way. They will claim "Evolution is the assumption scientists make." and "they are showing us no transitional forms". If I was an uninformed fundamentalist, this show would have not convinced me at all.

Pz had it right in his review. The DNA is the best evidence via Sean Carrol.

I was kind of hoping for something better, maybe the following shows will go into more depth.

paul

chuck · 1 August 2008

The History Channel has commercials.
Therefore there are gaps.
Therefore evolution is dis-proven. QED

Steve S · 2 August 2008

Sniping about Mr. Luskin always feels a bit unsporting, it may be entirely deserved but it's just too easy. However, it requires no perceptiveness on my part to guarantee that within a few days, History Channel's EVOLVE will get the attention of EVOLUTION NEWS & VIEWS and the result will be yet another in the long series of tiresome and entirely predictable critical essays by Mr. Luskin. (I just checked and nothing yet.)

Still nothing on EVOLVE, but poor Casey is continuing to attack Carl Zimmer, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/08/an_ulnare_and_an_intermedium_a.html Poor guy just won't learn from his mistakes.

Steve S · 2 August 2008

IT DIDN'T DISCUSS THE EVOLUTION OF RODS & CONES! White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net

RODS + CONES + PYGMIES + DWARVES? Sorry, I know that was off-topic. Couldn't resist.

Frank J · 2 August 2008

While there were a few minor bio-gaffes, for the most part the show was excellent. There was no hand-wringing over offending creationists; instead, the show stayed right on the science.
— Dave Thomas

I would not worry about offending creationists (which I define here as anti-evolution activists and their fans), but of giving the activists sound bites to take out of context. Things like "no designer would do it that way" or "X evolved and was not a result of intelligent design" are the obvious ones, but there are more subtle ones. Like it or not, everyone who writes about evolutionary biology must be on their toes expecting every word to be misrepresented by someone. BTW is it true that "Ninety five percent of living species are equipped with eyes," or do they just mean animal species?

iml8 · 2 August 2008

paul fcd said: If I was an uninformed fundamentalist, this show would have not convinced me at all.

Kind sir, I could demand proof that the Moon isn't made of green cheese, and blow off arguments until hell froze over. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

David Stanton · 2 August 2008

Frank J,

Once again I must agree with you. I watched a History Channel special on dinosaurs last night and I was shocked to hear the use of the word "designed" several times. Professional scientists really should know better. Is the word "adapted" really so hard to pronounce? Maybe we should get some words woth fewer syllables.

iml8 · 2 August 2008

David Stanton said: I watched a History Channel special on dinosaurs last night and I was shocked to hear the use of the word "designed" several times. Professional scientists really should know better. Is the word "adapted" really so hard to pronounce?

I tend to be relaxed on the semantics issues since the Darwin-bashers are going to take their cheap shots no matter what happens, but the use of terminology like "designs" instead of "adaptations" or "structures" does get exasperating. "Come on people, that's like saying HIT ME PLEASE!" White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

kc · 2 August 2008

Just a tiny nitpick (from a botanist, but representing microbiologists and mycologists, too)...

Ninety five percent of living species are equipped with eyes...

Maybe that should be "animal species".

Paul Burnett · 2 August 2008

Frank J said: BTW is it true that "Ninety five percent of living species are equipped with eyes," or do they just mean animal species?

Well over 95% of plant species don't have eyes. Well over 95% of single-celled species don't have eyes. Maybe the previous sentence put it in the context of "animals."

stevaroni · 2 August 2008

Ninety five percent of living species are equipped with eyes…

How many "species" are there anyway? I seem to recall numbers for non-microscopic flora and fauna species quoted in the 5 to 10 million range, and that the vast majority of animal species, something like 90%, are variations of tropical beetles - which mostly have (or at some point had) eyes So while I agree that the quotation might have been more specific and is likely meant to apply to macroscopic animals, ironically, depending on how many species of plants there are, it might not be totally out in left field. We might be talking half.

bornagain77 · 2 August 2008

The Cambrian Explosion - Darwin's Worst Nightmare

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=a60c60c2bbaa43da0427

Genetic Mutations and Molecular Information - Genetic Entropy

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=0797e77e1230fe8053e1

GuyeFaux · 2 August 2008

Bornagain is a classic Darwinist. Obsessing left and right about what was keeping his obsessions' idol up at night. Unfortunately for him, not many people care as deeply as he does about what Darwin feared.

So that's at least two commandments he's breaking, not to mention PT's comment integrity policies nos. 1 & 4.

David Fickett-Wilbar · 2 August 2008

bornagain77 said: The Cambrian Explosion - Darwin's Worst Nightmare http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=a60c60c2bbaa43da0427 Genetic Mutations and Molecular Information - Genetic Entropy http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=0797e77e1230fe8053e1

"The video owner has turned new comments off." What are you afraid of?

Stanton · 2 August 2008

To the Admins:

Can we flush this moronic "Spammer for Jesus" please? This is the exact same garbage he posted last time.

Stanton · 2 August 2008

David Fickett-Wilbar said:
bornagain77 spamming:
"The video owner has turned new comments off." What are you afraid of?

People with functioning brain cells that won't swallow pious gobbledegook in one gulp without looking, of course.

PvM · 2 August 2008

Two common creationist foolish notions of science... Thanks for sharing my confused Christian friend. Of course the Cambrian explosion is hardly a Darwinian nightmare, at best it is a Creationist pipe dream. As far as genetic entropy is concerned, this shows more nonsense where creationists with just enough ability to do math, use it to misrepresent science.

bornagain77 said: The Cambrian Explosion - Darwin's Worst Nightmare http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=a60c60c2bbaa43da0427 Genetic Mutations and Molecular Information - Genetic Entropy http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=0797e77e1230fe8053e1

Mike Elzinga · 3 August 2008

As far as genetic entropy is concerned, this shows more nonsense where creationists with just enough ability to do math, use it to misrepresent science.

This appears to be a new fad by the trolls here on Panda’s Thumb. I would suggest that none of them can define “genetic information” or “genetic entropy”. And I would also suggest that none of them can explain the “Law of Genetic Entropy” and why there is such a “law”. Nor can any of them explain what any of this has to do with science, evolution and the History Channel’s series.

Frank J · 3 August 2008

Of course the Cambrian explosion is hardly a Darwinian nightmare, at best it is a Creationist pipe dream.
— PvM

While I have read a lot about the "peer review" process involved in Stephen Meyer's 2004 publication., I have read relatively little of what I consider the key point of the whole fiasco. Here was a perfect opportunity for Meyer to propose a testable alternative for the origin of Cambrian phyla, and he completely avoids it. IIRC, he doesn't even unequivocally state whether those phyla were results of independent origin of life events, let alone propose a mechanism (hypothetical e.g. "the designer assembled numerous semi-living biochemical systems approximating eukaryotic cells in various parts of the oceans using existing organic compounds..."). Politically it's obvious why he didn't do that. For one, the focus would be on radical differences between that and Behe's proposal. The way I would portray this to nonscientists who are impressed by ID sound bites but not hopelessly fundamentalist or otherwise anti-science is this: You can believe all you want that life is intelligently designed, but here are the ID architects themselves putting their best foot forward and saying between every line "however incomplete the Darwinian explanation may be, it's still infinitely better than ours."

iml8 · 3 August 2008

Mike Elzinga said: And I would also suggest that none of them can explain the “Law of Genetic Entropy” and why there is such a “law”.

Of course they can. It's the classic "all mutations are bad" or "there ain't no such thing as a constructive mutation" argument dressed up in fancy clothes. Any creation scientist back to Henry Morris could belabor this for as long as one could stand to listen. It is true that, going back to the "research paper" on antibiotic resistance discussed here not long ago, the Darwin-bashers will admit that mutations can have positive effects ... BUT overall the mutation made for more incompetent bacteria. SO THERE. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

Frank J · 3 August 2008

It’s the classic “all mutations are bad” or “there ain’t no such thing as a constructive mutation” argument dressed up in fancy clothes. Any creation scientist back to Henry Morris could belabor this for as long as one could stand to listen.
— iml8

Given that, by definition, there had to have been "constructive ‘somethings’, mutations or otherwise" in order to produce current and past life, I think that it's well past overdue to replace some of the standard reply (You’re wrong, here are some constructive mutations…), which only gives them more facts to misrepresent, and reply this way: “Let’s assume for the moment that you’re right, and that all mutations are destructive, and that non-Darwinian ‘design actuation’ processes were necessary. Now take just one lineage, say the one leading up to H. sapiens. How many years ago did that lineage originate from nonliving matter. When did the non-Darwinian processes occur in this lineage? Was its origin from nonliving matter one of them? When was the last one? Did some, most or all of them occur in-vivo as ‘saltation’ events? If so, did any other lineages split off from it, and if so, when, and which extinct species did they produce?” Those are the tip of the iceberg among questions they need to answer. From what little they have offered in the past, there have been more than a few radically different answers, with mutually contradictory timelines, and hopeless confusion on even such basic questions as whether a certain fossil is the ape or human “kind.” Of course most anti-evolution activists will evade these questions, or give a pathetic non-answer. But we can’t leave it to “chance” that it will be noticed by those who are impressed with some anti-evolution sound bites but not hopeless. The more we ask, the more the activists squirm.

iml8 · 3 August 2008

Frank J said: Of course most anti-evolution activists will evade these questions, or give a pathetic non-answer. But we can’t leave it to “chance” that it will be noticed by those who are impressed with some anti-evolution sound bites but not hopeless. The more we ask, the more the activists squirm.

There's also the fact that the "all mutations are bad" ignores selection, which is the same trick used in the classic "monkeys and typewriters" criticism against Darwinian evolution. It is actually true that, in the absence of selection, genes are likely to break sooner or later. Half of our smell receptor genes are broken, because we don't really need them. Nocturnal animals tend to lose full color vision. But selection otherwise filters out the good from the bad. In any case, I would highlight that "genetic entropy" is just a hifalutin' camouflage for a very old, crude, and dilapidated Darwin-bashing argument. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

Stanton · 3 August 2008

Of course, this leads us back to the fact that all Darwinist-bashers have no intentions of actually doing any science to begin with. According to their actions and reactions, even learning is anathema to them. Yet, when they are accused of hating knowledge and science, they bristle. It's like a vampire going, "Me? Hate sunlight? Don't be ridiculous."

iml8 said:
Frank J said: Of course most anti-evolution activists will evade these questions, or give a pathetic non-answer. But we can’t leave it to “chance” that it will be noticed by those who are impressed with some anti-evolution sound bites but not hopeless. The more we ask, the more the activists squirm.
There's also the fact that the "all mutations are bad" ignores selection, which is the same trick used in the classic "monkeys and typewriters" criticism against Darwinian evolution. It is actually true that, in the absence of selection, genes are likely to break sooner or later. Half of our smell receptor genes are broken, because we don't really need them. Nocturnal animals tend to lose full color vision. But selection otherwise filters out the good from the bad. In any case, I would highlight that "genetic entropy" is just a hifalutin' camouflage for a very old, crude, and dilapidated Darwin-bashing argument. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

Mike Elzinga · 3 August 2008

iml8 said:
Frank J said: Of course most anti-evolution activists will evade these questions, or give a pathetic non-answer. But we can’t leave it to “chance” that it will be noticed by those who are impressed with some anti-evolution sound bites but not hopeless. The more we ask, the more the activists squirm.
There's also the fact that the "all mutations are bad" ignores selection, which is the same trick used in the classic "monkeys and typewriters" criticism against Darwinian evolution. It is actually true that, in the absence of selection, genes are likely to break sooner or later. Half of our smell receptor genes are broken, because we don't really need them. Nocturnal animals tend to lose full color vision. But selection otherwise filters out the good from the bad. In any case, I would highlight that "genetic entropy" is just a hifalutin' camouflage for a very old, crude, and dilapidated Darwin-bashing argument. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

I suspect it goes back to their fundamental terror of chaos, “things without form”, and “darkness”. These ideas are not only associated with their creation myth, but they are also associated with their concept of hell. The only way out of any of this dismal state, for the creationists, is to assert that their deity has to step in and make things go. The word entropy is connected with their misconceptions about thermodynamics. And even if they don’t say anything explicit about thermodynamics in connection with “genetic entropy”, the ideas are hanging out there that everything tends toward chaos without the intervention of their deity. Of course, the major misconceptions about thermodynamics and entropy are never discussed as misconceptions, but rather as “profound scientific insights that scientists constantly overlook” (this is almost a direct quote from some of their propaganda). I looked at that video that BA77 linked to. It is a whole series of non-sequiturs followed by a blatant assertion that “evolution can’t do that” (the speaker even scratched her nose nervously just before making that bald, unconnected assertion at 7:40 into the video). “Genetic information” is left undefined, but the impression that is left dangling is that whenever a mutation occurs, some of this “genetic information” is lost (in fact, genetic information is constantly being lost after “The Fall”). Then when the mutated organism is placed in competition with the non-mutated one, the mutated one can’t compete because it has lost “information”, (“there is always a price to pay for a mutation that allows survival in a particular environment”). As to the behaviors of inanimate matter, it is all supposed to be totally chaotic; just molecules and atoms whizzing around and banging into each other. Nowhere in the creationists’ pantheon of “scientific ideas” is there any comprehension of the basics of condensed matter and the rapidly emergent properties that come with it. Again, they use term like “chaos”, “irrational”, “mindless”, “purposeless”, “blind”, “meaningless”, “without information”, and other such terms that are simply assertions, yet assertions that link to some of their deepest fears about darkness, chaos, and no input from their deity. So it seems to be a workable shtick among their followers. It hits all the right buttons, makes use of some standard and well-ingrained misconceptions about science, and insures that there is enough residual terror left in the rubes that they are prevented from questioning and investigating whether or not anything they are told checks out.

John Kwok · 3 August 2008

Hi all,

I realize that this is off-topic, but am curious to see who here at Panda's Thumb can guess the correct answers. Only two who've seen this quiz got the answers right so far, and one of them was Nick Matzke (Am re-posting this from a science discussion forum I created over at Amazon.com.)

Regards,

John

Here's a fun quiz I've created and sent to several friends elsewhere online. Let's see if you can answer this question:

Which actor is a direct descendant of a famous British biologist?

This actor has appeared in either a popular television series or film (or both) and is a direct descendant of a famous British evolutionary biologist.

1) Who is this person?

a) Richard Attenborough
b) Helena Bonham Carter
c) Christopher Eccleston
d) Skandar Keynes
e) Lalla Ward

2) The actor's ancestor is:

a) David Beatty
b) Cuthbert Collingwood
c) Charles Darwin
d) Ronald Fisher
e) Thomas Henry Huxley

3) The actor's best known role is:

a) John Hammond in Jurassic Park
b) The Doctor in Doctor Who
c) Mrs. Lovett in Sweeney Todd
d) Romana in Doctor Who
e) Edmund Pevensie in The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

4) The actor's cousin is filmmaker and author (who is also a direct descendant of the same famous British biologist):

a) Sherman Alexie
b) David Attenborough
c) Paul Auster
d) Matthew Chapman
e) David Lean

5) The actor's famous ancestor is noted for:

a) Important contributions to population genetics and statistics
b) Co-developing the theory of evolution via natural selection
c) Coining the word Dinosaur
d) Discovering the very first Neandertal Man fossil
e) Recognizing the close kinship between birds and dinosaurs

This is a tricky trivia quiz. You'll have to read all the questions and try to answer each one via a process of elimination.

Good Luck.

Best regards,

John Kwok
(aka "Jekyll and Hyde of Paleobiology" courtesy of Uncommon Dissent IDiot Borg drone DaveScot Springer)

P. S. The first one to get all the questions correct will demonstrate that he/she possesses more "exceptional" intelligence than either my "buddy" Bill Dembski or his chief Uncommon Dissent acolyte, DaveScot Springer.

P. P. S. You may find clues by perusing some of my Amazon.com reviews devoted to films and books posted since February 2007.

Stacy S. · 3 August 2008

1. - Skandar Keynes
2. - Charles Darwin
3. - Edmund Pevensie
4. - Matthew Chapman
5. - Co-developing the theory of evolution via natural selection

Not that I kn ew any of these answers - but I do know how to "surf".

Do I win - even if I cheated???

Frank J · 3 August 2008

Do I win - even if I cheated???
— Stacy S.

I don't know, but if you cheat and get the wrong answer (classic creationism) or no answer (ID) you get "expelled".

hje · 3 August 2008

ba77: Are things so boring and repetitive over at UD that you feel obliged to come over here?

I mean it's absolutely predictable what Denyse is going to say in her posts. No big mystery there.

It must be refreshing to visit PT and hear something besides the party line propaganda.

Frank J · 4 August 2008

The only way out of any of this dismal state, for the creationists, is to assert that their deity has to step in and make things go.
— Mike Elzinga

Yes, but that's another issue that shows the stark difference between rank and file creationists and anti-evolution activists. For the former, anti-evolution sound bites understandably soothe their pain. Unlike the activists, they are mostly unaware that, among those who are well above average in both general science-literacy and knowledge of the evidence for evolution (including the ~4 billion year "tree of life"), the great majority have reconciled it all with (theistic) evolution. Only a small minority have found it more rewarding to misrepresent evolution and mislead the "masses". The scam generally starts out with any new audience by pretending that TE doesn't exist (as in "Expelled"), then resorts to "plan B" (TE's are just "compatibilists", etc.) when someone corrects them. Not unlike when they pretend that ID/creationism is science, then when corrected go with the "plan B" of "evolution is a religion too."

Eric · 4 August 2008

Mike, Interesting observation. Along the same lines, I always wondered how creos can claim mutation can't create new information yet accept that sexual reproduction does. Question for the biologists - do you use anything like 'entropy of mixing' to compare different developmental end states? I would think that it might be useful way to quantify the measure of probability of some end states over others, i.e. one end state that can be reached through multiple pathways vs another than requires unique genetic changes.

Mike Elzinga said: The word entropy is connected with their misconceptions about thermodynamics. And even if they don’t say anything explicit about thermodynamics in connection with “genetic entropy”, the ideas are hanging out there that everything tends toward chaos without the intervention of their deity.

Frank J · 4 August 2008

Interesting observation. Along the same lines, I always wondered how creos can claim mutation can’t create new information yet accept that sexual reproduction does.
— Eric

Wonder no more. They just switch definitions. Their target audience either doesn't notice, doesn't care, or both.

John Kwok · 4 August 2008

Hi Stacy, 'Tis great:

Stacy S. said: 1. - Skandar Keynes 2. - Charles Darwin 3. - Edmund Pevensie 4. - Matthew Chapman 5. - Co-developing the theory of evolution via natural selection Not that I kn ew any of these answers - but I do know how to "surf". Do I win - even if I cheated???

I think you're the fastest one who answered these correctly. Thanks, John

John Kwok · 4 August 2008

Dear Stacy, On second thought:

John Kwok said: Hi Stacy, 'Tis great:
Stacy S. said: 1. - Skandar Keynes 2. - Charles Darwin 3. - Edmund Pevensie 4. - Matthew Chapman 5. - Co-developing the theory of evolution via natural selection Not that I kn ew any of these answers - but I do know how to "surf". Do I win - even if I cheated???
I think you're the fastest one who answered these correctly. Thanks, John

Hope you didn't "peak" at the correct answers posted over at ERV and Amazon. John

Mike Elzinga · 4 August 2008

Question for the biologists - do you use anything like ‘entropy of mixing’ to compare different developmental end states? I would think that it might be useful way to quantify the measure of probability of some end states over others, i.e. one end state that can be reached through multiple pathways vs another than requires unique genetic changes.

Eric, I don’t know how biologists in general feel about such a use of the word “entropy”, but the word has a very specific meaning in thermodynamics; and it has nothing to do with spatial arrangements of matter. The misuses of this word have become so prevalent that many people associate it with chaos. It hasn’t helped that some legitimate disciplines have adopted this word for things that have nothing to do with the multiplicity of available energy states This kind of misuse prompts people to think that just because the word “entropy” is used, then all the power of the laws of thermodynamics (and especially the 2nd law) can be brought to bear on the ideas that are linked to this word. It just makes conversation and clear thinking about these issues far more difficult. And charlatans love that kind of confusion.

Eric Finn · 4 August 2008

I might add that the use of conditional probabilities seems to be a proper way to deal with multiple pathways. Regards Eric

Mike Elzinga said:
Question for the biologists - do you use anything like ‘entropy of mixing’ to compare different developmental end states? I would think that it might be useful way to quantify the measure of probability of some end states over others, i.e. one end state that can be reached through multiple pathways vs another than requires unique genetic changes.
Eric, I don’t know how biologists in general feel about such a use of the word “entropy”, but the word has a very specific meaning in thermodynamics; and it has nothing to do with spatial arrangements of matter. The misuses of this word have become so prevalent that many people associate it with chaos. It hasn’t helped that some legitimate disciplines have adopted this word for things that have nothing to do with the multiplicity of available energy states This kind of misuse prompts people to think that just because the word “entropy” is used, then all the power of the laws of thermodynamics (and especially the 2nd law) can be brought to bear on the ideas that are linked to this word. It just makes conversation and clear thinking about these issues far more difficult. And charlatans love that kind of confusion.

Eric · 4 August 2008

Mike Elzinga said: I don’t know how biologists in general feel about such a use of the word “entropy”, but the word has a very specific meaning in thermodynamics; and it has nothing to do with spatial arrangements of matter.

Yes...I was specifically asking about analogies to mixing, not heat entropy.

This kind of misuse prompts people to think that just because the word “entropy” is used, then all the power of the laws of thermodynamics (and especially the 2nd law) can be brought to bear on the ideas that are linked to this word. It just makes conversation and clear thinking about these issues far more difficult. And charlatans love that kind of confusion.

I totally agree on the last sentence. But I am still curious whether something like this (stress like, as in "analogous to") is used. If it makes you more comfortable, you can call X = constant*ln(fraction of states leading to equivalent development) a conditional probability, K, or LMNOP for all I care. What I was wondering is, is a measurement like this useful in biology for, say, comparing probabilities of occurrences of different developmental changes?

Stacy S. · 4 August 2008

John Kwok said: Dear Stacy, On second thought:
John Kwok said: Hi Stacy, 'Tis great:
Stacy S. said: 1. - Skandar Keynes 2. - Charles Darwin 3. - Edmund Pevensie 4. - Matthew Chapman 5. - Co-developing the theory of evolution via natural selection Not that I kn ew any of these answers - but I do know how to "surf". Do I win - even if I cheated???
I think you're the fastest one who answered these correctly. Thanks, John
Hope you didn't "peak" at the correct answers posted over at ERV and Amazon. John

Of course I peaked! You told us to go get some hints there! That's why I asked if it was OK? I'm not actually smart enough to know the ansers to those questions!LoL1 :-)

Stacy S. · 4 August 2008

Well, I wish I "peaked" but I actually just "peeked".

(lowers head and runs away in embarrassment)

Mike Elzinga · 4 August 2008

If it makes you more comfortable, you can call X = constant*ln(fraction of states leading to equivalent development) a conditional probability, K, or LMNOP for all I care. What I was wondering is, is a measurement like this useful in biology for, say, comparing probabilities of occurrences of different developmental changes?

Well, take away the logarithm and the constant and you have essentially what you want already, as Eric Finn pointed out. If it is a comparison of probabilities that you want, taking the logarithm simply inserts a layer of computation that is unnecessary unless the probabilities are so small that the negative logarithm of them gives numbers that are more manageable. And I’m not sure what is gained by having such probabilities expressed in a form that can be added rather than multiplied. Also, what would the multiplicative constant mean? What units would it have? I probably shouldn’t be speaking for the biologists, but from what has happened historically with the concept of entropy, I would steer away from this approach unless it had some other advantage I currently can’t fathom. P.S. I should mention that, in thermodynamics, taking the logarithm of the multiplicity of energy states has an added advantage of making entropy what is called an extensive parameter of the thermodynamic system, i.e., it scales with the size of the system. Multiplying by Boltzmann’s constant gives it the proper units that relate it to other thermodynamic concepts. Other parameters of a system, such as specific heat, density, that remain the same despite the size of the system are called intensive parameters of the system. So, here again, I am not sure what the reason for taking logarithms of probabilities and then multiplying by a constant would be. There has to be some larger context in which to fit such an idea, and I don’t know what that would be. Are there any lurking biologists who could comment here?

Mike Elzinga · 4 August 2008

Stacy S. said: Well, I wish I "peaked" but I actually just "peeked". (lowers head and runs away in embarrassment)

Look on the bright side; it means you aren’t “over the hill” yet. :-)

Mike Elzinga · 4 August 2008

“Let’s assume for the moment that you’re right, and that all mutations are destructive, and that non-Darwinian ‘design actuation’ processes were necessary. Now take just one lineage, say the one leading up to H. sapiens. How many years ago did that lineage originate from nonliving matter. When did the non-Darwinian processes occur in this lineage? Was its origin from nonliving matter one of them? When was the last one? Did some, most or all of them occur in-vivo as ‘saltation’ events? If so, did any other lineages split off from it, and if so, when, and which extinct species did they produce?”

Yeah; this is good. There are other questions that come up also. If this “genetic information” has been deteriorating since “The Fall”, why are all other plants and animals being given the same punishment for what Eve did in the Garden? Why did this creator who supposedly put all that “genetic information” into every plant and animal suddenly decide to let it all “go to hell” based on what one creature among millions(?) did? Of course, none of this explains why things in the Pre-Cambrian and Cambrian were simpler than what we see in later eras. Apparently “genetic entropy” can still deteriorate as the creatures themselves become more complex. It would be nice to hear what their explanation is.

hoary puccoon · 5 August 2008

Leaving aside how physicists define entropy, the fact is, one of the engines driving evolution is mutation-- which is simply random copying errors in DNA, hence an increase in disorder. (By random, I mean uncorrelated with what would be good for the gene line-- not random with respect to, say, radiation exposure.) It's actually developmental biology, not evolution, that's in conflict with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If we weren't continually receiving energy from the sun, there would be no life, and hence no evolution, on the planet.

The other main engine driving evolution is natural selection-- and that's the one where creationists' imaginations really fail. On the basis of mitochondrial DNA studies, Bryan Sykes estimates that 95% of the population of Europe is descended from just 7 women, the first of whom lived 45,000 years ago. So, it's theoretically possible that human females in Europe have enjoyed just seven beneficial mutations in 45,000 years. But practically everyone in Europe or descended from Europeans has one of those seven beneficial mutations, while millions of women were born with harmful mutations and left no descendants.

I think the idea that most lines die out, while rare beneficial mutations spread widely, is what creationists can't wrap their heads around.

Frank J · 5 August 2008

There are other questions that come up also. If this “genetic information” has been deteriorating since “The Fall”, why are all other plants and animals being given the same punishment for what Eve did in the Garden?
— Mike Elzinga

Good question, but only if one compares the range of answers and/or evasions from (1) professional classic creationists, (2) professional IDers and (3) rank and file creationists. Per his sketchy hypothesis in "Darwin's Black Box," Michael Behe seems to think that genetic information has been deteriorating since the first cell, ~4 billion years before the first modern H. sapiens. And he probably does not even take "The Fall" any more literally than Christian "evolutionists," i.e. possibly about souls, but not a physical thing. Note also that, keeping with the ID goal of having everything both ways, Behe in "Edge of Evolution" seems to suggest that "genetic information" does get "bumped up" every now and then. Though he conveniently omits speculating when, and in which lineages.

Eric · 5 August 2008

Mike Elzinga said: Well, take away the logarithm and the constant and you have essentially what you want already, as Eric Finn pointed out. If it is a comparison of probabilities that you want, taking the logarithm simply inserts a layer of computation that is unnecessary unless the probabilities are so small that the negative logarithm of them gives numbers that are more manageable.

Agreed...though I think you're quibbling. -1 is one possible constant, so your suggestion of using "negative logarithm" is just a subset of what I originally wrote, "constant*ln..."

And I’m not sure what is gained by having such probabilities expressed in a form that can be added rather than multiplied.

As you pointed out, logarithmic parameters have the advantage of scaling with the size of the system. So they're useful if the value you're interested in varies across several orders of magnitude. Is this the case here? Do the number of different types of mutations leading to the same developmental end state vary across many orders of magnitude? I don't know. That's why I was asking. I don't think we're really in any disagreement here, even over the abuse of various scientific terms/concepts by creos. Being sloppy with terms (mea culpa) is bad, but I wouldn't want to go to the other extreme and stop trying to apply concepts across disciplines (out of fear of creo abuse), either.

Eric · 5 August 2008

D'oh! My comment caused exactly the misunderstanding that Mike predicted it would! Hoary - you're incorrect, at least twice. (1) you state errors lead to disorder; consider a copying error that changes ctctccctctctct into ctctctctctctct. (2) development is not in "conflict" with the 2nd law any more than my refrigerator is.

hoary puccoon said: Leaving aside how physicists define entropy, the fact is, one of the engines driving evolution is mutation-- which is simply random copying errors in DNA, hence an increase in disorder. (By random, I mean uncorrelated with what would be good for the gene line-- not random with respect to, say, radiation exposure.) It's actually developmental biology, not evolution, that's in conflict with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If we weren't continually receiving energy from the sun, there would be no life, and hence no evolution, on the planet. The other main engine driving evolution is natural selection-- and that's the one where creationists' imaginations really fail. On the basis of mitochondrial DNA studies, Bryan Sykes estimates that 95% of the population of Europe is descended from just 7 women, the first of whom lived 45,000 years ago. So, it's theoretically possible that human females in Europe have enjoyed just seven beneficial mutations in 45,000 years. But practically everyone in Europe or descended from Europeans has one of those seven beneficial mutations, while millions of women were born with harmful mutations and left no descendants. I think the idea that most lines die out, while rare beneficial mutations spread widely, is what creationists can't wrap their heads around.

JJ · 5 August 2008

Stacy !!!

"Peaked" - have not heard that term since the 70's !!!!

fnxtr · 5 August 2008

So, genetic entropy means mom and dad were less deteriorated than me, and my kids would be more deteriorated? What a load. Deteriorated from what, anyway?

John Kwok · 5 August 2008

Hi Stacy,

Stacy S. said: Well, I wish I "peaked" but I actually just "peeked". (lowers head and runs away in embarrassment)

As long as you didn't stumble upon the Amazon.com discussion thread that was devoted exclusively to the quiz, then it's okay if you "peeked" by looking at my reviews. If that's what you did, then you answered the quizz honestly and fairly (unlike what passes for "Christian" behavior over at Uncommon Dissent, courtesy of my "buddy" Bill Dembski and his chief IDiot Borg drone DaveScot Springer). Cheers, John

hoary puccoon · 5 August 2008

Eric--
I was afraid of that. Obviously, nothing on earth or elsewhere in the known universe disproves the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The point I was trying to make (but apparently did not) is that the growth of a baby is far closer to an apparent violation of the second law than a mutation is.

And I did not say that a mutation "leads to" disorder. A mutation is a copying mistake. In that sense, it is an EXAMPLE rather than a violation of the 2nd law. The mutation can "lead to" disorder (including pre-natal death) if it messes up a vital function; it can be neutral, as in your example; or it can lead to an advantage for the organism and its descendants. It's the role of natural selection to determine whether a mutation "leads to" disorder. But even if a mutation is highly advantageous (e.g., the mutation that stopped some ancient Dane from turning off the ability to digest lactose when he or she reached adulthood, a mutation which is now found in most of the population of Denmark)the mutation is still a copying mistake. So calling it a violation of the 2nd law is ridiculous. That was my only point.

And as it's now time to make my annual transhumance from the South of France to the Caribbean, I'm out of here. I'm sorry if my ill-considered post upset Eric, or others. This should teach me not to post when I'm supposed to be packing. Ciao.

Mike Elzinga · 5 August 2008

Being sloppy with terms (mea culpa) is bad, but I wouldn’t want to go to the other extreme and stop trying to apply concepts across disciplines (out of fear of creo abuse), either.

Excellent point. We have certainly become sensitive to the abuses of the creos, and that is good. But before we got wise to their games, we even got sucked into going along with their misconceptions in the choreographed debates with them. Scientists need to get on with scientific development, adopt and define concepts and words that will do the best job for us, and not worry about how creationists will abuse them (they will do it no matter what we do). Good public education should help also.

Henry J · 5 August 2008

The point I was trying to make (but apparently did not) is that the growth of a baby is far closer to an apparent violation of the second law than a mutation is.

Yeah, that there mutation is just a side effect of the normal reproductive process - it doesn't use significantly more energy than making an accurate copy would have. Well, at least not for a point mutation; a copy or duplication might use slightly more than for an accurate copy. Henry

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 5 August 2008

Henry J said: Yeah, that there mutation is just a side effect of the normal reproductive process - it doesn't use significantly more energy than making an accurate copy would have. Well, at least not for a point mutation; a copy or duplication might use slightly more than for an accurate copy.

But now you are trying to consider entropy of the metabolism as opposed to - yes, what? The creationists won't tell us. A mutation can conceivably reduce energy consumption in metabolism, both when it occurs (failed DNA repair) and when it has an effect (say, stunted growth). And so also conceivably reduce entropy production compared to the normal process or non-mutated individual.

Henry J · 5 August 2008

I'd say that metabolism is going to produce entropy, whether it mutates or not. If a particular mutation produces more entropy than it would have otherwise, I suppose that would mean the organism (if it lives) would use slightly more energy?

Stacy S. · 5 August 2008

JJ said: Stacy !!! "Peaked" - have not heard that term since the 70's !!!!

I believe I have just "dated" myself! ;-)

Mike Elzinga · 5 August 2008

Henry J said: I'd say that metabolism is going to produce entropy, whether it mutates or not. If a particular mutation produces more entropy than it would have otherwise, I suppose that would mean the organism (if it lives) would use slightly more energy?

Indeed this is a more sensible way to look at it. Any living organism is going to use energy, and in the process, increase entropy both within its own system, but in particular, in its environment (don’t forget that thermodynamics and entropy refer to energy, not the order or “information” contained in arrangements of matter). And it is true that there are wide ranges of efficiencies in various animals. A number of years ago, Scientific American had an article entitled something like “The Efficiencies of Traveling Animals and Machines” (not the exact title, but close). It compared the number of kilocalories per kilogram per kilometer distance traveled among a variety of animals. Man-on-a-bicycle was by far the most efficient. Shrews, hummingbirds, and other high metabolism animals rated the lowest. The major summarizing graph in that article contained many animals and a few examples of machines and humans connected to machines (such as the bicycle). These days we are beginning to hear more about the “energy footprint” of humans (the amount of energy per person per unit of time). There are evidences that extreme wealth increases that footprint considerably, but extreme poverty also may be worse, since humans in extreme poverty have no means of increasing their efficiencies of using things and will tend to strip their environment bare because they have no choices. It raises some interesting philosophical questions about just how much advanced evolution, that results in complex beings like humans, actually contributes to greater entropy overall. Elephants, humans, pigs, and many other animals have no intrinsic feedback systems that lead them toward automatic self-limiting of their numbers and self regulating of their energy and resource needs. It is simply a game of increasing and exploiting until external events step in to impose the cruelest of checks and balances. It is another reminder of the fact that evolution is an unguided process of creativity leading to destruction unless the evolution of self-reflective intelligence finally begins to recognize how to do this efficiently and for the long haul (assuming that is “good”). And even then, it is questionable how much control over cataclysmic events such as meteors and super volcanoes such an evolved being would have.

Henry J · 5 August 2008

I believe I have just “dated” myself! ;-)

That can be cheaper than dating somebody else... ;)

Stacy S. · 5 August 2008

Henry J said:
I believe I have just “dated” myself! ;-)
That can be cheaper than dating somebody else... ;)

True! And I'm a cheap date too!! Back OT ... Don't forget to watch 'GUTS' tonight on the History Channel's 'Evolve' series.

Stanton · 5 August 2008

Stacy S. said:
JJ said: Stacy !!! "Peaked" - have not heard that term since the 70's !!!!
I believe I have just "dated" myself! ;-)

Trying to become your own grandpa the hard way?

Stacy S. · 5 August 2008

Stanton said:
Stacy S. said:
JJ said: Stacy !!! "Peaked" - have not heard that term since the 70's !!!!
I believe I have just "dated" myself! ;-)
Trying to become your own grandpa the hard way?

I'm having trouble wrapping my brain around that one Stanton! My brain hurts!!

Stacy S. · 5 August 2008

Stanton said: Trying to become your own grandpa the hard way?

My brain hurts!!

carola · 6 August 2008

I am SO happy to see both Jurassic Fight Club (a bit over the top..... but still cool) and Evolve (tres cool). I have to say, after annoying stuff like Ice Road Truckers and Axe Men or Axeman or whatever) it is really nice to see something about history again. Someone up top mentioned "woo woo" shows about UFOs and Monster Quest. I have seen only a little of it, but it beats the bejaggers out of Modern Marvels and that reality crap (Ice Road and Axe Guys). History = Before our time. Bring back the WWII stuff, even the Kennedy era stuff. Just enough with the tech and tough guys syndrom you've been indulging in lately. Good work on the dino stuff. Oh yeah..... Evolve could be termed a tech or science show, but evolution is history beyond history, so I'm good with that. Yay. I would'nt mind seeing more ancient history and prehistory. Good work guys.

stevaroni · 6 August 2008

...it is really nice to see something about history again.

Amen. I was reduced to yelling at my television the other day when I tuned to an episode of "Monster Quest" that purported to expose the phenomenon of giant "flying rods", every example of which was clearly a close, out of focus bug flying past the lens.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 6 August 2008

Henry J said: I'd say that metabolism is going to produce entropy, whether it mutates or not. If a particular mutation produces more entropy than it would have otherwise, I suppose that would mean the organism (if it lives) would use slightly more energy?

That is my thinking too.

Mike Elzinga said: These days we are beginning to hear more about the “energy footprint” of humans (the amount of energy per person per unit of time).

Sure thing. My local newspaper had a web calculator for carbon footprint (which in some respects is much the same, by way of entropy as the matter of fact), and I came out slightly above the global target average that we need to keep AGW below 2 Celsius. (And thus only knock off 10 - 50 % of all species.) It was my car "toy" that fouled it up. Imagine that.

Mike Elzinga said: Elephants, humans, pigs, and many other animals have no intrinsic feedback systems that lead them toward automatic self-limiting of their numbers and self regulating of their energy and resource needs.

Hmm. Ecology isn't often described on PT, but I assumed that social animals have just such limiting mechanisms like wolves, elephants, horses and some apes alpha male/female systems, or some herd ecologies would be more unbalanced than we observe. Btw, I believe at least plants have such limiters by way of messenger chemicals or, say, forests would be less orderly.

Dave Thomas · 8 August 2008

Thread is now Closed

And a fine thread it was! Aside from the spittle of a single drive-by troll, the discussion was illuminating!

Thanks, Dave