Tag Archives: Darwin

Scientia Pro Publica #14

Welcome to the 14th Edition of Scientia Pro Publica (Science For The People). This blog carnival collects together the best non-technical science writing that has appeared around the blogosphere in the last few months, to promote and celebrate science, nature or medicine blogs written for the public.

In this edition, we have a glut of posts related to climate change, and an equally large group of posts about the interaction of science and society. Along the way, we will also cover some basic science posts from physics and biology.
Continue reading

On Lamarck and Trees

Over at Genetic Future, Daniel MacArthur quotes Joel Parker berating as ‘embarrassing’ biologists who claim that it was Darwin, and not Lamarck, who came up with the idea of an evolutionary tree:

I have noticed many evolutionary biologists making an embarrassing mistake of falsely attributing the first use of the tree analogy to Darwin. This has occurred in numerous documentaries and on websites which I will pass on naming here. Ironically, the earliest use of the tree analogy diagram to depict evolution was published in the year of Darwin’s birth (1809) by Lamarck in his book Philosophie Zoologique (see pg 463, http://tinyurl.com/knt7vr). Lamarck even uses botanical terms (branches and rameaux) to describe the origin of animals with respect to this figure. The figure that is usually cited from Darwin’s notebook is from 1837 (http://tinyurl.com/6hs5uv), a full 8 years after Lamarck’s death. Even with our high admiration for Darwin, we should at least give credit where credit is due, and not forget that much of evolution was becoming understood before Darwin. Explaining the mechanism of natural selection was Darwin’s great contribution.

This is actually largely correct; Lamarck did have a view of evolution that involved what we would now call evolutionary branching, though it was very different from what we now know to be the case. Lamarck deserves to be read and understood as one of the first people to put together a coherent view of evolution.

However, the statement is very wrong in a number of ways. It is far from a mistake to refer to Darwin as the originator of the evolutionary tree, and those of us who do so do so not out of ignorance.
Continue reading

On Becoming The Man You Want To Be

In my strictly rationed free time, I liked to visit Natural History Museums, and it being Darwin Year and all, I have in the last month or so visited two Darwin-themed exhibits. [I do realise that the preceding statement may be one of the least surprising revelations that has ever been divulged in the long history of this blog.] I feel that I am starting to get a general feeling for the man, and what drove him. One thing that I find interesting is how he never intended to revolutionize biology, and paradoxically why that made him the perfect man to do so.
Continue reading

On Darwin Day and the Cosmic Web

Good Morning, reader (if it is not morning, due to laziness or the inevitable passing of time, then Good Day). More importantly, Happy Darwin Day. Today is the 200th Anniversary of Darwin’s birth, and various events are taking place today and throughout this year, notably the Natural History Museum’s special exhibition. Nature has put on a special issue to mark the occasion, as well as a free podcast. I am also looking forward to the Endless Forms exhibition at the Fitzwilliam Museum here in Cambridge, about the connections between Darwin and visual art. And, as I know you love words as much as I, Ben Zimmer (brother to Carl Zimmer, one of my favourite science writers) has a blog post about Darwin’s influence of language.

On an unrelated note, my astrophysicist friend Olaf Davis, co-author of our game Biology or Physics (as featured on German TV!), has started up a blog. It is called Cosmic Web, and he intends to talk about astronomy and more general science communication. Olaf is a pretty awesome writer, and good at explaining complex ideas in simple ways, so the blog should we well worth checking out.

On Eugenics

I hope that you will tolerate this post, as it is mostly me thinking out loud. Thinking out-loud, whats more, about a potentially distressing subject, namely that of the relationship between the history of biology, genetics and statistics (which are, after all, tied tightly together) and eugenics - the project of increasing the fitness of the human gene pool, by controlling the breeding or death rates of various parts of the population.

The problem I have is that many people that I would call my heroes, or at least people along whose intellectual footpaths I wander (Ronald Fisher, Francis Galton, Karl Pearson, John Maynard Keynes) supported the eugenics movement. Am I to assume that all these people, while intellectual giants, were monsters or fools? Can we (you and I, for by embarking on this journey with me you too, kind reader, must shoulder my burden) find where these people went wrong, and what can we learn by looking at those people who shunned eugenics?

Continue reading