Mutations produce nothing new

This week, Dr. Brad Harrub demonstrates a shocking lack of understanding of the mechanisms by which evolution explores fitness space. I'll explain how actual biologists mentally think about the processes that lead to changes in fitness.



Evolution doesn't, as most people think, move like an arrow towards higher fitness. It's more like a drunk walk. It gets there in the end, but explores a lot of area looking for landmarks. This "random walk" effect is important to allow for exploration of new fitness peaks, even when getting there involves accepting a decrease in fitness.

This is the last of the pre-produced Harrub videos. It may be a few weeks before I can get around to producing another set.

--

Video and comments are made by C0nc0rdance

Haeckel's Embryo Fraud

Ernst Haeckel was an amazing scientist at a crucial time in the history of biology. The legend of his fraud is largely manufactured.

His work reflected a certain ignorance of comparative embryology, and he probably skewed his illustrations to demonstrate his own theory, the biogenic (or "biogenetic") law. There is no evidence he was every convicted of fraud, he was not "kicked out" of the University of Jena, and all of Dr. Brad Harrub's assertions are based on poor research and factually false claims made by creationist author Jonathan Wells in his book "Icons of Evolution".

Rebutting Brad Harrub: Haeckel's Embryo Fraud



So, let's be clear on something that is often confused.
1. Haeckel's illustrations were an attempt to prove his own biogenic law, not evolution.
2. Comparative embryology, the similarities between tissues during development, show the same branching pattern that is seen in phylogenetics. That is, closely related organisms show very similar stages of development. THIS is the actual evidence for evolution to be taken from pictures of embryos found in textbooks.

Evolution of development ("evo-devo") has been one of the most productive areas of biology of the last two decades. Arguing that Haeckel's failure to prove his biogenetic law somehow affects the value of comparative embryology to demonstrate evolutionary relatedness is just false.

My apologies for the bad camera work. This was mid-way through the talk, and the seats were very uncomfortable. The "jiggling" was me adjusting my position and having to move my phone hand to relieve the strain.

Charles Darwin was a racist. Rebutting Brad Harrub

This is the lowest and saddest argument yet. Here Dr. Brad Harrub attempts to poison the well by accusing Charles Darwin of being a racist, and of advocating for racism. While Charles Darwin was far from enlightened by modern standards, he was a passionate abolitionist.



Please think!

Kettlewell's Peppered Moths

The best analysis of Kettlewell's results and the creationist furor around them is at Dr. Jerry Coyne's non-blog website, "Why Evolution is True". Dr. Coyne is famously cited for his scientific criticisms of the peppered moth studies, but his real criticism has been misused to create the impression of scientific dishonesty.

Rebutting Brad Harrub: Kettlewell's Peppered Moths


Some links to Wikipedia to give some context:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettlewell%27s_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Kettlewell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_melanism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Majerus

A critical examination of the urban legend:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16240545
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16549216
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14737825
The only actual criticism that has borne scrutiny is that Kettlewell failed to test hypotheses OTHER THAN predation and there were some artificiality in his experiments that did not mimic nature well: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21452690

For example, he sometimes collected moths from other countries to supplement wild-caught moths. He released a very large number of moths, which could have artificially increased predation as the birds were presented with a bug buffet. That's why Majerus, using more careful methods, wanted to re-design and repeat the original experiments.

Finches never produce rhinos or ferns

Warning: Exposure to Brad Harrub's logic may cause headaches or pain in the forehead. If you begin bleeding from the ears or nose, please consult a physician. Prolonged exposure may result in loss of IQ points.



More about Dollo's Law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollo%27s_law_of_irreversibility
http://www.pnas.org/content/91/25/12283.full.pdf

In future videos, we will talk about the difference between cladogenesis (new species splitting off an existing one) and anagenesis (the formation of a new species by the transformation of an existing one). Most creationists assume evolution proceeds entirely by anagenesis, when it is almost entirely by cladogenesis.

AUTHOR'S NOTE:
I'm is often forced to use terms that are imprecise in order to convey scientific ideas. The idea of the ancestral lineage of animals becoming more "specialized" is in the sense of "more like their own species". This means that a "generalized" bird is one that represents the common ancestor of the "genus". Each new adaptation that is acquired along an ancestral line goes into the evolutionary history of that species, but this acquisition is one-sided, not an equilibrium of change.

If it helps, think of Dollo's law as the "arrow of time" for evolutionary change.

Rebutting Harrub: Argument from Historical Scientists

This is the second in C0nc0rdance's series on Dr. Brad Harrub's "Origins" talk in College Station, TX around August 9th, 2012.

In the section, C0nc0rdance address his argument from historical scientists. The key point: Many scientists throughout history have been religious, but it was not their religious beliefs that informed their science. The fact that Brad Harrub focuses on scientists who lived prior to Charles Darwin says a lot.



C0nc0rdance thought it might be interesting to explore the actual religious beliefs of the people being summoned to testify on Brad Harrub's behalf. Most of them were unorthodox by today's standards, and some of them can better testify to the negative; that religious or superstitious belief has hindered science and the progress of knowledge.

The context of the clip from Brad Harrub's talk is that he was addressing Bill Nye's comments that creationism can hold students back from understanding the actual science. This is true. When a person has a commitment to dogmatic doctrine that conflicts with truth or evidence, they face a difficult choice: either reject the truth, or reject the doctrine.

c0nc0rdance's wager:
Whenever a supernatural explanation competes with a natural explanation, so far in the history of science, the natural has always held up to more scrutiny.

Evolution is just a Theory - Rebutting Harrub

Evolution is just a Theory.

This point has been made many times before, but it never seems to sink in with creationists. Evolution is "just a theory" in the same sense that gravity is "just a theory" or cells are "just a theory" or atoms are "just a theory".



This will be an ongoing series. I've managed to make six videos already, and I'm barely a quarter of the way through the video. I don't take much pleasure in debunking creationist arguments, but it's an opportunity to explore some key ideas in biology. I'm not worried about convincing evolution denialists that they are wrong. Their psychological mechanisms prevent that. As Hitchens famously said: "You cannot reason someone out of a position they did not arrive at by reason"

Here's his publication (singular... he has only one, in spite of claiming "numerous publications"... hey, one *IS* a number)