Common misconception of Evolution, Simplicity, and Primitiveness

Now, evolution is often understood as a ladder of progression – from simpler, basal organisms gradually becoming more complex and sophisticated.

This view of evolution is entirely incorrect. Species do not transform into other species. While "simpler" and more ancient lineages of organisms may indeed resemble their ancestors, they are nonetheless derived from common ancestors with their closest (and furthest) relatives. I.e. they do not represent members of a group which have transfigured into something more complex.

However, the below ad is very cool – despite the erroneous depiction of evolution. Let's face it, it's really about the pen being able to create and erase. Unwittingly, it does draw out a good point about evolution: throughout evolution, features (I'll say structures for the sake of simplicity, but there's a biiit more going on at the genetic level) are gained AND lost.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/this-might-be-the-best-advertisement-for-a-pen-tha

"Simpler" does not necessary mean more primitive. Many cave-dwelling organisms are colourless and blind, while their relatives in sunlit environments are colourful and may rely on vision. Fish are a good example, as cave fish have eyes, but cannot see. These apparently simpler fish are more derived from ancestors with functional eyes and are no less derived than their colourful counterparts.

And "primitive" doesn't mean less adequate. Primitive organisms are those which are older or resemble the basal ancestor of a group of organisms more closely. A primitive organism is usually just as well – or better – adapted to its environment than more derived or apparently complex species. Hell, if they've been around for so long, they must be doing something right!

PATENTS IN SCIENCE: THE PARADOX OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

In an age of forever branching scientific progress, medical research, and global communication, we are still far from ridding the world of pandemics, eradicating hunger, or making amends with a ravaged environment. Indeed, science has brought humanity unquestionable commodity (albeit unevenly) and control over the world, but this has also created new problems; an exponentially growing population stresses finite resources and the increasing life-expectancy makes way for late-onset diseases which could have never boasted such prevalence in a younger population.

Despite common concerns and apparent globalisation, the importance of patenting in ensuring economic benefits might seem to threaten a free flow of information within the scientific community and the public domain, thus delaying scientific progress and its potential benefits to society. Is this claim and control over progress justifiable when such sensitive issues such as human health are involved? Can science be owned?

MADAGASCAR'S LUCKY BREAK AND ENDEMIC INVADERS

Evolutionary consequences of Madagascar's isolation on extinct and extant vertebrate fauna

© O'Reilly, X. (2010)

Madagascar lies off the heal of the African continent. The world’s fourth largest island, on the map it is dwarfed by Africa’s shadow – but only in size.  Famous for the immense variety of weird and wonderful organisms it is home to, most of which are found nowhere else, Madagascar’s unique biological catalogue is the result of millions of years of evolution in isolation, as well as its dramatically varied relief. Its most famous inhabitants, by far, are the lemurs – a whole group of endemic primates that come in a variety of forms, each uniquely adapted to specific niches throughout island’s amazing range of habitats.

  But lemurs are thought to have arrived on the island after its split from Africa – what was living on Madagascar at the time of its birth? What proportion of its current terrestrial vertebrate fauna actually split away with the island and what proportion was to invade it after isolation? Certainly Madagascar received terrestrial migrants despite its geographical isolation – but how did they get there?

  Madagascar was ripped from Africa’s side some 165 million years ago (Rabinowitz et al., 1983), together with what 88 million years ago split off to charge into the Asian mainland and become India (Storey et al., 1995).

  For millions of years Madagascar has been cut off from any other land mass, giving natural selection full reign to explore and exploit the island’s staggering variety of habitats born from it’s massive geological diversity. Today it is home to an incredibly diverse array of organisms, most of which are endemic, such as the aforementioned lemurs.

"Life" in the USA

DVD cover of original version of the programme...

I was rather surprised when I came across this trailer, released some years ago in the US to advertise the BBC/Discovery Channel series Life: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_mBj09YEfk

DVD cover of USA version of the programme.

Despite the current shift occurring in the general format of documentaries, where often we seem to get more about the presenters or theoretical creators of the programmes than the intended subject matter itself, I was surprised just at how much they have needed to portray a documentary series as an action film to get viewings in the USA.

(Until I realised, the Americans aren't alone on this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMuUcoDySpU. Although this series isn't one of those "let's film the camera crew filming the animals for an hour", I feel obliged to point out how the public worldwide, Britain and the BBC's audience included, seems to need to get a movie out of a documentary: "we want pictures, not words").

But did you note the name of the narrator in the American trailer?

Cold-Blooded Monsters or Warm-Hearted Giants?

Predictions of Thermoregulation in Dinosaurs

When we think of reptiles, we think of scaly, cold-blooded creatures, usually relatively inactive between quick darts, often soaking up the sun. When we think of dinosaurs, we tend to think of huge, cold-blooded monsters, more likely feeding or fleeing, hunting or fighting. Dinosaurs were, of course, reptiles themselves; what should strike us about these stereotypic views, however, is perhaps not so much the different life-style we attribute to each, but something even less appreciable than a dinosaur’s habits: the widely shared assumption they were “cold-blooded”. Indeed, the reptiles from which they arose certainly must have been, but dinosaurs gave rise to a fully endothermic lineage – the birds.

So where do dinosaurs fit in? Were they cold-blooded reptiles – like today’s snakes and lizards – or warm-hearted pioneers, like their avian successors?   

Azafady conservation volunteer > http://azafady.us/blog/?p=299

(Verreaux's sifaka, Propithecus verreauxi)

Comments on the bizarre opposition to "unnatural" reproductive assistance

(Was for a short bioethics essay last year, September 2010)

During the last few decades we have witnessed exponential progress in scientific development and watched it grow, sprout new branches, and grow still further – although, in many cases, perhaps somewhat out of proportion.

Although there have been enormous advances in just about every field of scientific study, from botany to zoology, from engineering to medicine, ... few areas have caused as much controversy as that of reproductive engineering. Whether it be cloning or IVF treatment, it seems humanity is playing God, creating lives that couldn't have taken place in nature – and not everybody is happy about it. But are we really playing God, or should such progress not be seen as part of our evolutionary path? Could it not therefore be within our right as a species to try and survive and thrive as successfully as possible?

Genetically modified crops, cloned livestock, in vitro fertilisation; just a few of many controversial issues racking the minds of both scientists and members of the non-scientific community. Some have strong views for and against the individual issues, and others are uncertain where to stand on such unstable terrain. But behind all the scientific arguments lurks a very basic ethical question: Do we have the right to disrupt natural processes in this way?