Top Evolution Stories Part 3

WHY IS THE WORLD SO OBSESSED WITH SEX?

Do you remember the night you went to sleep as a child and were rudely awakened in the middle of puberty? Amidst the inexorable changes Nature was forcing on your body, there was something flooding your body, making you rebellious and moody. Yes, the uncontrollable adolescent hormones were wrecking havoc with your psyche, and the most important change they made was to make you more aware of the one thing that all parents dread having to talk about – sex.

If we are to look at evolution with a single-minded point of view, and ask the question “What is the purpose of evolution?”, the answer is stark. Reproduction. From a Darwinian point of view, sex is more important than life itself. But why is it such a big deal? Why is it so important, and what is all the hullabaloo about?

At first glance, sex seems extremely cumbersome to be bothered with. There is the stress of having to find a mate, and it can be extremely time-consuming and exhausting. But A recent study by National Geographic Magazine found the reason for the hype (or at least one of them!). Sex has been found to lead to faster evolution. Using yeast as model organisms, this research proved without a doubt, that in times of stress, organisms that can reproduce sexually have a definite advantage over those who reproduce clonally. Why this happens is still unclear, though genetic variation has been cited the top contender for this debate.

PBS Houston has an incredible series on Evolution, and this is the preview to the episode themed “Why Sex?”

Today, two main theories remain as to why sexual reproduction is more advantageous than asexual reproduction, and why it exists at all.

 

First, the deleterious mutation hypothesis, proposed by Alexey Kondrashov, was the idea that sex exists to purge a species of damaging genetic mutations. The second was the Red Queen Hypothesis, proposed by Leigh Van Valen of the University of Chicago. The hypothesis is simple: sex is needed to fend off disease and keep healthy.

These questions lead to further, even more interesting, social ones. One that has been widely asked is if love is an evolutionary tactic as well. There has not been, and perhaps cannot be any research on the matter. In the same PBS series that I have mentioned above, here is an excerpt on the subject:

“Ask any peahen what she wants in a mate, and you're likely to get the same answer: eye-popping, elegant plumage. A peacock not equipped with a set of big, provocative tail feathers is doomed to a frustrating sex life. Peahens always pick well-endowed suitors over drab ones, and biologists see the evolutionary logic behind it -- healthy birds, with showy feathers, are likely to father healthy offspring.

But ask any person what she or he wants in a mate, and the range of answers is bewildering. "A kind heart." "Great legs." "Someone who loves kayaking." Yet some scientists in a field called evolutionary psychology propose that we all share instinctive preferences, and that what we humans find alluring in a mate is rooted in our evolutionary past.”

What are your thoughts on the this debate? I would like to end today’s session leaving you with this:

Top Evolution Stories: Part 2

DOES EVOLUTION EXPLAIN HUMAN NATURE?

This was a question asked of a number of scientists on the Big Questions Essay Series by the John Templeton Foundation. Francisco Ayala, Francis Collins, Eva Jablonka, Lynn Margulis, Geoffrey Miller, Simon Conway Morris, Martin Nowak, Joan Roughgarden, Jeffrey Schloss, Frans de Waal, David Sloan Wilson, and Robert Wright all shared their opinions in forms of essays, all of which can be found on the Templeton Website.

Corey S. Powell, Editor and Chief of Discover Magazine, Kenneth Miller, Professor of Biology at Brown University, Laurie Santos, Professor of Psychology Yale University, and David Sloan Wilson, SUNY Distinguished Professor of Biology and Anthropology at Binghampton University, discuss how we got to be the way we are.

Their conclusions were varied. From “obviously” to “not yet”, this distinguished panel of biologists and leading religious figures had fantastic arguments for  every range of answers. While some like Dr. de Waal and Dr Wright answered with a conclusive affirmative, some of the others seemed to believe that there are large areas of human nature that genetics and evolution alone cannot explain (Dr. Nowak, Dr. Collins and Dr. Ayala).

These essays centrally challenge the four major reasons why this theory is rejected in most circles. An evolutionary basis to human nature is supposed to a) discourage religious belief b) automatically assumes genetic determinism c) undermines humanity and d) defies the enigmas of existence.

A unifying theme in all their essays is their acceptance of the complexity of human nature in itself, and the role of cultural evolution (particularly through symbolism and communication) defining it. Many of the authors write about their dissatisfaction with genetic determinism alone explaining human behavior. But all of them accept that a proper theory to understanding human nature would lie in a complex interaction of both cultural evolution through “symbiogenesis” as Dr. Marguilis calls it, as well as genetic change.

At the same time, many of them talk about how religiosity plays an evolutionarily significant role in the development of human nature, by inhibiting behaviors detrimental to the social group and promoting altruism. Six of the authors (Ayala, Collins, Jablonka, Margulis, de Waal, Wilson, Wright) emphasize the importance of morality for human evolution. Although the capacity for human morality is rooted in human genetic evolution, the development of moral experience depends on human cultural evolution.

While an evolutionary perspective to human nature is said to diminish the wonder of human complexity, many authors (especially, Collins, Nowak, and Wright) write about how it magnifies our ignorance of the topic. Collins states: “We see science as the way to understand the awesome nature of God's creation and as a powerful method for answering the 'how' questions about the universe. But we also see that science is powerless to answer the fundamental 'why' questions, such as “Why is there something instead of nothing?”, “Why am I here?,” and “Why should good and evil matter?” ”. Nowak talks about "the mystery and purpose of life, which cannot be answered by natural science alone." And Wright talks about two "awe-inspiring mysteries" - the mystery of the cosmic First Cause and of consciousness.

In my opinion, all of these essays make powerful arguments. I cannot agree wholeheartedly with those that have a resounding “yes” to this complex question, simply because I begin to feel that Darwin’s theory of evolution then begins to gloss over the small discrepancies observed when talking about the evolutionary explanation to human nature. It becomes a circular argument, where any species that survives is explained by Darwin’s theory of natural selection and the theory is further consolidated by the fact that this particular species survived. This can be seen in Dr. Wright’s overview of Darwinist explanations of everything about human nature, from altruism to gossip.

 

Top Evolution Stories: Part 1

Newspapers don’t often write about science, unless it is some path-breaking new research that applies to the everyday life of the everyday man. But it is also because science news in itself is overwhelming. There are hundreds of discoveries being made every week, in every imaginable scientific field. If a newspaper was to attempt to keep up with research highlights, the science news alone would dwarf any other kind of news in the paper.

So it excited me immensely when I found out that Discover magazine publishes the 100 Top Science Stories every year. The stories are really fascinating! Science can truly explain everything – from why breakups are hard, to the origins of mankind.  However, while the topics of these studies range from clinical neurobiology to ecology to astronomy,  I am here to present to you the few best, most interesting discoveries related to evolution over the next couple of days. I perused many websites to hand-pick, just for you my delightful readers, stories that showcase first-hand, the sheer enigma that is evolution - and tell us, that with every step forward we take towards demystifying it, the more we realize how much further we are away from our goal.

Oh, and of course, there are obviously some funny, very relatable ones. Science is not entertaining at all unless it has a sense of humor. So hop on board, folks!

   

HUMAN EVOLUTION GRINDS TO A HALT?

Leading geneticist Steve Jones asked 'Is Human Evolution Over?' as part of the University of Edinburgh's Enlightenment Lecture Series.

Leading geneticist Steve Jones from University College of London shook up the scientific world by claiming that evolution no longer applies to modern homo sapiens, and that in fact, if we are to survive for another million years, our descendents are going to look exactly like us. His hypothesis revolves around three reasons. One, that with the advent of modern technological ease, natural selection due to competition has been erased. Two, since there are now fewer older fathers, and that men tends to copulate with fewer women as compared to earlier times, there will be less selection due to genetic mutations. Three, random change due to population isolation is dwindling due to better connectivity and lower inbreeding.

This theory is to some extent supported by the research conducted by University of Chicago Geneticist, Chung-I Wu. The study shows that while DNA sequences of primates seems to be experiencing rapid change, the sequences in the human brain remain surprisingly static. This could be because of the brain’s immense specificity and complexity, which leaves very little room for evolutionary tinkering, counters Dr. Wu. He says that even a little bit of change could render a part of the brain functionless.

There are many counter-arguments to Dr. Jones’s hypothesis, the most logical of which I found to be Dr. Hawkes’ s Weblog. Bloggers of Discover Magazine have taken it upon themselves to tear this theory down. The Guardian even published a debate about this contentious theory.

As for me, as much merit as Dr. Jones’s theory has, I lean more towards the second pool of opinions. To over-simplify, most people assume that humans will either evolve towards a super-species that is capable of incredible feats, or couch-potatoes, glued to their machines and incapable of independent thought and action. I think either of those theories is vastly radical. In my opinion, evolution will keep happening – not as radically as before because of the lack of cutthroat competition (and here, I am talking about industrialized countries – low-income countries will face their own isolated natural selection due to the high disease burden and extreme poverty). But overall, the very fact that there is lower inbreeding, greater social intermingling, less geographical division will lead to an evolution based not entirely on genetics, but also on social and cultural factors.

What else but evolution can explain this image, published on Time magazine’s cover, in 1993? It is startling, at least to me, than over 15 years later this face seems so eerily familiar.

Say Hello To Darwin!!

Well, first of all, Happy Thanksgiving, y’all! It is a wonderful day to be thankful about a lot of things, and I started this blog today as a tribute to my gratitude towards science. To science, for making my life that much more interesting, for giving my eyes the capability of being enthralled by the world around me, and making my brain that much more inquisitive about the little things in Nature.

I am an Ecology and Evolutionary Biology major, so this blog will be mostly dedicated to fascinating research in those fields (with maybe a digression ever now and then!). But for me to believe that you guys are down for the ride with me, heart, soul and brain, I need you to feel the same wonder that I do when I think about the slightly misunderstood, and widely debated theory of evolution.

“Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
                                - Evolutionary Biologist and Russian Orthodox Christian, Theodosius Dobzhansky

Charles Darwin, after years and years of meticulous research and study, wrote the Origin of Species in 1859. More than 150 years later, his revolutionary ideas have been rejected, vilified, accepted, rejected and accepted again. Natural selection at the group level is slowly gaining acceptance in the scientific circles by high-profile advocates like E.O. Wilson. Sexual selection was finally accepted only recently in the later 19^th century.  His notion of the evolution of human morality is finally being resurrected by animal behavioralists. 

Imagine having theories so incredibly advanced that the world needs almost two centuries of scientific advancement to come to terms with them. Ideas so revolutionary that the world is divided into two very distinct halves based on whether you accept them or not. Ideas so central to the laws of nature, that even without having the technology most scientists have today, they still effortlessly remain pivotal to nearly all biological discoveries made since then.

Darwin was only 22 years old when he set out on the Voyage of the Beagle, a journey that can be compared to Odysseus’ mythological journey back to Ithaca. Candy-floss history records state that the different beak shapes of finches and the different sizes of the tortoise shells that Darwin encountered in the Galapagos Islands inspired him to write the Origin of Species, the Bible for all evolutionists in history. The truth is only slightly more convincing than this idolatry of a superhuman Darwin who “veni, vidi, vici” the Islands and scribbled the Origin of Species on a mere whim. He was inspired by fossils of armadillos and sloths found on the northern Coast of Argentina, followed by the incident on the Galapagos islands some 400 pages later, and the final book followed nearly thirty years after the fateful journey.

Think about that when you think about Darwin.

This is not to say that Darwin has not been the subject of much debate, ridicule and controversy, even in scientific circles. Religion and politics aside, there are many scientists, geneticists and academes who resist Darwin’s omnipresence in the field. Most notable of these attempts is Phillip E. Johnson’s 1991 book, Darwin on Trial, based on the premise that evolution as a theory could be “tried” like a defendant in court. He refutes the theory of evolution by using molecular biology, paleontology records, fossils and scientific arguments about natural selection, stating that the basis of evolution is the assumption that natural selection is inherently true, and that creationism is inherently not. Amid general scientific outrage and popular media frenzy, Johnson coined the term “scientific creationist” and earned himself the title of the Father of the Intelligent Design Movement.

 A recent study published in Biology Letters also explores the possibility that Darwin may have been wrong in concluding that competition drives all natural selection. Instead, states the study, evolutionary patterns have been driven by favorable “land space”, i.e., animals have historically, according to land fossil records, migrated to place where food was more abundant and the weather more comfortable. But this study seems to have missed the link between land space and competition. Competition is the reason that animals migrate to more favorable “land space”, because other animals in the previous land space lead to deteriorating food situations.

Have I piqued your interest? Has your appetite been whet (Thanksgiving pun!)?This weekend, watch the amazing movie "Creation" - about Darwin, not the revolutionary scientist, but the father, the husband and the man of religion.

Creation

See you soon, my friends! We will journey together, henceforth, into this wondrous world which has no boundaries, and animals and forms meld and merge in time that treats billions of years like mere seconds.