Here’s a nicely focused blog: R. Ford Denison, of the UM Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, has a new blog titled This Week in Evolution, and he’s planning to put up one post each week summarizing a recently published paper in evolutionary biology. He has specific criteria:
Each week, I plan to discuss a scientific paper that meets the following criteria:
- published during the previous month;
- about some aspect of evolution;
- published after peer review in a journal with a citation impact of at least 1.0 (i.e., no third-tier journals);
- containing significant amounts of data, not just mathematical modeling or discussion.
It’s an excellent plan—check in each week!
PZ -Thanks for pointing us to This Week in Evolution. It is always exciting to find a new blog with interesting posts. This week’s “Teenage Chimps with Spears and Hammers” especially caught my interest.
I think this is awesome.
And it really does matter. A friend of mine recently blogged about his fundamentalist days and the reason he finally learned that much of the fundamentalist stance on evolution was wrong, or outright lies – and it was because of scientists that took the time to explain in plain english what was going on.
I’m a philosopher, and we’re at least as guilty of jargon as scientists, if not more – and I think we all need to speak as clearly as possible and make our work as accessible as possible or we run the risk of even more anti-intellectualism from the general public.
Thanks for posting the link!
Aside from wondering why a guy would retire from California to Minnesota (which has to say something about tropisms and counter-factuals), and why a guy who got his Ph.D. more than 10 years after I did is already an Emeritus when in fact he’s still a whipper snapper, I applaud Denison’s efforts, too.
“A friend of mine recently blogged about his fundamentalist days and the reason he finally learned that much of the fundamentalist stance on evolution was wrong, or outright lies – and it was because of scientists that took the time to explain in plain english what was going on.”
That happened to me personally, not a just a friend of mine. I was born into a fundamentalist Jewish sect (Orthodox), educated to believe in YEC, but read my way out with the help of the people who who showed me how we know evolution really is true. So a hearty cheer to theunderappreciated science writers who labor to write the books that make it all clear. (Of course, those books were contraband in my community but at least they existed.)
You need to have a talk with Schmuel.
This is a little tangential, but it’s been preying on my mind lately. I’ve been reading The Blind Watchmaker and was stopped dead in my tracks (well, in my bath) the other night when I got to the part where Dawkins discusses “natural selection” among clays and the possibility of self-replicating molecules having originated as a byproduct of clay-crystal replicators (Chapter 6, “Origins and Miracles”).
What, I mean WTF, is up with that? I’d never heard of such a thing before (I have no science background at all beyond a semester each of college chemistry and biology). Does this idea have legs? Is there something else I can read about it at an appropriate abiogenesis-for-dummies level? What’s the skinny on this Cairns-Smith fellow?
Thanks for any insight you well-informed biologist types can provide… my still-aching brain would be eternally grateful.
Thanks for the link, PZ, I got several comments already. Don’t forget to eat and sleep.
RedMolly: Some role for clay surfaces seems possible (e.g., holding prebiotic molecules in place in a way that increases the probability of otherwise rare reactions, but I don’t think Dawkins’ detailed scenario is at the top of anyone’s list of most-probable mechanisms, even his. It’s 10 years old and written for biologists, but The Major Transitions in Evolution has a good discussion of our current understanding (often limited) of some of the hard-to-understand steps in the evolution of life, including the origin of the first replicators.
It’s from Graham Cairns-Smith in his “Seven Clues to the Origin of Life”. While his specific ideas have little or no acceptance in the origin of life literature, the idea that clays may have served as physical templates and/or catalysts is alive and well. See the work of James Ferris for an example.
Hey, thanks for the next blog to add to my own. Love it. And I love that article about the chimps using spears. I saw that on National Geographic.
Ford, RBH–thanks. I was trying to explain the concept to my husband over dinner tonight and just kept having to stop and shake my head. I will have to check out the referenced works and see if they can clear things up a bit for me… thank you for the information!
(I wish I had a daughter so I could urge her to work toward a career in science.)
IMHO, this is exactly the kind of writing needed when discussing science generally and evolution specifically with “doubters”. Clear, to the point, content that makes people think for themselves rather than accept things on faith, and with opportunities to talk about the scientific method without necessarily diverging too far into the esoteric parts of the philosophy of science. (While that is interesting, I find it better to go there in a later stage since it only has a “Wow!” effect on the most intellectual…)
Another good example is today’s article in NYT about the co-evolution of lice and humans and what that can tell us about ourselves.
More – I want more!
Make sure that a copy of the weekly paper, with comments is forwarde to Vox Day, and any ot the other reality-deniers that are onvious.
You never know, it might percolate through, eventually …..
This is wonderful news.
I’d still like to see a newsletter pitched to high school teachers covering the week’s events in evolution, and perhaps tying them to the curriculum of the coming week.
This is a grand start. I only wish we could guarantee the Texas State Board of Education would read it weekly.
One will need to explain citation impact and why it matters …