Encyclopedia of Evolution.pdf - Online Reading Center

Recommendations

Info

existed in the immediate ancestors of modern humans (such as Homo ergaster; Homo Habilis). The moral sense evolved, along with all other human behaviors, feelings, and thought patterns, throughout that time. No individual or society can come along and invent a new kind of morality and expect it to work. Ethics, Shermer insists, must be based upon the behavior patterns that have proven successful over evolutionary time in the human species. Rather than doing what one thinks God told him or her to do, or whatever one wants, one should do what has worked for thousands of years in the human species. It has been popular among religious communities to claim that evolutionary beliefs lead to total immorality. Without God, they claim, humans behave like animals. Shermer disagrees. For one thing (as famously pointed out by author Mark Twain), most animals do not “behave like animals.” Despite the recent discovery of warfare among chimpanzees, humans still stand out as the species that is perhaps most cruel to its fellow members. Nonhuman animals may, indeed, “behave better” than humans. For another thing, natural selection has favored some types of morality. This is how it happened, according to Shermer. Some behavior patterns worked, and the individuals (and the societies in which they lived) prospered as a result. An example is honesty. A person might gain a temporary advantage by being dishonest, but eventually other members of society will detect a repeated pattern of dishonesty. People who are generally honest will prosper by the goodwill of others within a social network (see altruism). Natural selection also favors the ability to detect even the most subtle hints of dishonesty in other people. Therefore, natural selection has not only favored honest behavior but also a feeling of satisfaction that accompanies honest behavior. People who not only were honest, but also wanted to be honest, were most successful at gaining status, resources, and mates, allowing the production of children, who inherited their genes and learned honest behavior patterns from honest parents. (This discussion omits situations in which ethical dilemmas arise.) The same argument would apply to stealing, murder, and adultery as to dishonesty. What does one get when one adds all of this together? The result is the evolution of conscience. The result is what traditional religion calls The Golden Rule (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you) and philosophers call the Categorical Imperative (Do those things that, if everybody did them, would result in the kind of world you would like to live in). This explains why it feels good to be good; to be moral, Shermer says, is as human as to be hungry or horny. This would also explain the negative side of the issue: why humans feel shame for immorality. Although the specific behaviors that elicit feelings of shame and guilt may differ from one society to another, the feelings themselves are universal. Evolutionary ethics explains why, as Shermer says, most people are good most of the time. Likewise, an evolutionary approach explains why human morality is different from the behavior patterns of other animal species. There is no selective advantage of honesty among birds, for example, because they are not smart enough to recognize and remember which individual birds are honest and which are not. The ability to recognize and remember which individual is a friend and which is not may be the principal evolutionary ethics force behind the evolution of our higher mental characteristics (see intelligence, evolution of; language, evolution of) and even the human moral sense. As the product of evolution and environment, the human moral sense has both universal truths and situational variations. One major difference between evolutionary ethics and traditional religious ethics, says Shermer, is that traditional ethics identifies some things as 100 percent right, others as 100 percent wrong. Shermer claims that it is necessary to replace this absolutist logic with what mathematicians call fuzzy logic. A behavior pattern may be wrong most of the time, but beneficial under rare circumstances; it might, therefore, be 10 percent right. Another behavior pattern might be good most of the time but detrimental under rare circumstances and be 90 percent right. The human legal system and common sense already recognize this (for instance, by distinguishing murder from manslaughter), and it is time that human ethical systems incorporate it also. Ethical principles can be 100 percent right or wrong only if they are transcendental, which, Shermer insists, they are not. Many scholars believe that evolutionary ethics cannot lead to a completely satisfactory society or personal life. Although many of the behavior patterns that worked during prehistoric times, during which time almost all human evolution occurred, will work today, many will not. Throughout human prehistory, natural selection may have favored morality within societies, but did not favor friendliness between competing societies. Perhaps the human tendency to go to war has a genetic basis, but even if it does not, human antipathy toward outsiders definitely does seem ineradicably genetic. Nearly everybody agrees that the time has long passed for humans to use war as a solution to problems. In light of this, it is difficult to surpass the judgment that a close friend of Charles Darwin (see Huxley, Thomas Henry) placed upon evolutionary ethics. Instead of deriving morality from evolution, said Huxley, a human’s duty consists of resisting natural impulses: “Let us understand, once for all, that the ethical process of society depends, not on imitating the cosmic process, still less in running away from it, but in combating it.” Huxley primarily intended his statement to be against the simplistic political application of “survival of the fittest” (see eugenics), but it could also apply today at least in part to evolutionary ethics. Other philosophers and evolutionary scientists have emphasized the fact that evolution need not produce violent competition. Evolution can lead to mutualism as readily as to antagonism (see coevolution; symbiogenesis). Thomas Henry Huxley said that evolutionary ethics consisted of resisting the violence of evolution; his grandson (see Huxley, Julian S.) said that evolutionary ethics consisted of embracing the cooperation that evolution produces. Russian philosopher Petr Kropotkin derived evolutionary ethics from mutualism in his 1902 book Mutual Aid. Many scientists, including evolutionary scientists, are religious (see essay, “Can an Evolutionary Scientist be Religious?”). To these scientists, the empirical evolutionary basis of ethics is not enough. They admit the evolutionary origin of ethics, morality, altruism, and the behavior patterns of religion. Their desire to believe in transcendental truths, they admit, is beyond scientific proof or disproof.
evolutionary ethics Can an Evolutionary Scientist Be Religious? Yes. As philosopher Michael Ruse points out, one might conclude that it is impossible for an evolutionary scientist to be religious, but one should not begin with this as an assumption. The compatibility of belief in God and acceptance of evolutionary science in human origins appears to be, according to a 2004 Gallup poll, the view of 38 percent of the American population. About 13 percent of Americans accept only evolution, while 45 percent accept only creationism. Almost all scientists answer the question posed in the title in the affirmative, for both personal and scientific reasons. The personal reason is that many scientists are religious individuals, although fewer scientists are religious (about 40 percent believe in a personal God) compared to the general American population (over 90 percent). For example, some of the most famous evolutionary scientists have been openly religious (see fisher, r. a.; dobzhansky, theodosius). The scientific reason is that the scientific method does not require an assumption that a supreme being (God) does not exist. What science does require is that, for the phenomena being investigated, this supreme being, or other supernatural beings, have not caused the results that are observed. Geneticist Richard Lewontin (see lewontin, richard) points out that science cannot coexist with belief in a deity that might intervene at any moment. A biologist must assume that no angel, demon, or God makes biological phenomena occur as they do today; and an evolutionist must assume that no supernatural being brought biological phenomena into existence in the first place. If it should happen that supernatural processes or beings did or do influence the operation of natural phenomena, then the scientific explanation will fail. It is not necessary to assume that supernaturally caused events never occur. A scientist need not deny miracles, but just not try to study them, or to use scientific credentials to try to get other people to believe them. Scientific investigation excludes a consideration of miracles, whether or not they occur. Therefore, science in general, and evolution in particular, do not prohibit religious belief. Just because religious belief is permissible does not mean that it is a good idea. While evolutionary science and religious belief can mix, there may be so many points of contradiction in the minds of individuals that this mixture is unreasonable. This criticism comes from two directions. Adherents of creationism insist that evolutionary science contradicts what they consider to be true and correct religion; the kind of religion that is compatible with evolutionary science is, to them, a waste of time or worse. Many atheists insist that any scientist who maintains religious beliefs is not really thinking rigorously through the issues. Some (see dawkins, richard) believe that scientists who have religious beliefs are retaining mutually contradictory thoughts for reasons of personal satisfaction. For instance, many scientists who are Christians believe that “God is love” but that God has used natural selection, which is a painfully unfair process (see below), as God’s method of creation. Dawkins considers this a “delicious irony.” From this viewpoint, the capacity for religion may be a product of evolution and may have played an important role during human prehistory (see religion, evolution of), but religion is something that humans should now get rid of. Especially in the post–September 11 world, Dawkins says, one should see that religion (such as fundamentalist terrorism, of which all major religions have provided examples) does more harm than good. Flexible human minds should learn how to get along without it as much as possible, according to this viewpoint. In particular, one problem that creates difficulty for the peaceful coexistence of science and religion (in particular, evolutionary science and monotheistic religion) is the problem of evil. This is not a problem that was noticed just since the beginning of evolutionary science. A whole field of theological inquiry, called theodicy, addresses how a good God can allow evil to occur. Some of the earliest Christian theologians, such as Augustine, wrote extensively about theodicy, as did non-Christian philosophers such as Plotinus. Jewish and Christian theologians have found elements of this issue as far back as the story of Abraham, who is said to have confronted God himself and questioned God about God’s plans to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. The Old Testament prophets, New Testament apostles, and theologians of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have given many different answers to why an all-powerful God permits evil events to occur, but none has gained widespread acceptance. Among the speculations of theodicy are: • Suffering is punishment for sin. The fact that suffering afflicts so many innocent people (especially infants and children) discredits this explanation. • Suffering strengthens the righteousness of character. The fact that suffering vastly exceeds what is necessary for promoting the growth of character discredits this explanation. A victim of genocide, along with his or her millions of fellow victims, is dead, without opportunity for subsequent growth of character. • Everything that happens is part of the ultimate good. This was the viewpoint of Dr. Pangloss that the writer Voltaire lampooned in Candide. • God permits random suffering but shares it vicariously, through God’s spiritual presence in each human. This is an unprovable statement of faith even if it is true. • God cannot create a world in which there is no possibility of suffering. To prevent pain, God would have to make fire no longer burn; but then it would not be fire. Although this sounds like a denial that God is all-powerful, it actually is an admission of inescapable logic. One of the most famous Christian writers, Clive Staples Lewis, noted that one cannot make nonsense into sense by sticking the words “God can” in front of it. • Suffering is caused by demons, but as God permits these demons to run about, the problem of theodicy remains. Deists, who believe in a God who is disconnected from the world (and perhaps not even a person), have little problem with the abundance of suffering; but how could the God of Love, to whom Jesus and Christian writers so abundantly testified, permit it? How can a supreme being who has all power permit such incredible sufferings as have bloodied the pages of history, and which seem totally unconnected to whether the victims were good or evil? Among those who despaired of finding an answer to theodicy was the writer of the biblical book of Ecclesiastes. Evolutionary science has only sharpened the problem of evil. The process of natural selection practically ensures the suffering of great masses of organisms. Malthus (see malthus, thomas) first noted a principle that Darwin (see darwin, charles) applied to evo
Page 2:
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF Evolution
Page 5 and 6:
Encyclopedia of Evolution Copyright
Page 8 and 9:
Contents Foreword ix Acknowledgment
Page 10:
Foreword The theory and facts of ev
Page 14 and 15:
IntroduCtIon What you do not know a
Page 16:
other issues coming along with it.
Page 20 and 21:
adaptation Adaptation is the fit of
Page 22 and 23:
from the allometric patterns of gro
Page 24 and 25:
considered as an example. (The taxo
Page 26 and 27:
English) were a resounding success,
Page 28 and 29:
Some Centers of the Evolution of Ag
Page 30 and 31:
helps the DNA insert into the host
Page 32 and 33:
Even within a single patient, HIV e
Page 34 and 35:
then into the insect body; carbon d
Page 36 and 37:
chromosomes (they are diploid) whil
Page 38 and 39:
genetic basis. About 35,000 years a
Page 40 and 41:
emained dormant and sprouted after
Page 42 and 43:
Further Reading Wise, Steven M. Rat
Page 44 and 45:
Because the DNA of many archaebacte
Page 46 and 47:
Koi and goldfish have been bred tha
Page 48 and 49:
Barringer Crater, Arizona, was form
Page 50 and 51:
y a silent wall of darkness advanci
Page 52 and 53:
Skeleton of “Lucy,” the Austral
Page 54:
Further Reading Alemseged, Zerxenay
Page 57 and 58:
acteria, evolution of Examples of t
Page 59 and 60:
0 Bates, Henry Walter advantage. Th
Page 61 and 62:
ehavior, evolution of In another sp
Page 63 and 64:
ig bang make nests with horizontal
Page 65 and 66:
iodiversity How Much Do Genes Contr
Page 67 and 68:
iodiversity Biodiversity (as indica
Page 69 and 70:
0 biogeography Another problem with
Page 71 and 72:
iogeography Biogeography of Selecte
Page 73 and 74:
iogeography their species through d
Page 75 and 76:
iology design) or adaptation to the
Page 77 and 78:
iology D. Response to environment.
Page 79 and 80:
0 birds, evolution of • The foot.
Page 81 and 82:
irds, evolution of • doves and pi
Page 83 and 84:
Burgess shale early career. By heat
Page 85 and 86:
Burgess shale jointed legs, Anomalo
Page 87 and 88:
Cambrian period occurred when anima
Page 89 and 90:
0 Cenozoic era opens the way to an
Page 91 and 92:
Chicxulub Pritchard, J., and Dolph
Page 93 and 94:
cladistics The above examples used
Page 95 and 96:
coevolution descent, and that scien
Page 97 and 98:
coevolution Coevolution of Organism
Page 99 and 100:
0 coevolution What Are the “Ghost
Page 101 and 102:
coevolution What Are the “Ghosts
Page 103 and 104:
commensalism Wilson, Michael. Micro
Page 105 and 106:
continental drift was an animal tha
Page 107 and 108:
continental drift During geological
Page 109 and 110:
0 convergence bee-pollinated flower
Page 111 and 112:
convergence Both birds and bats hav
Page 113 and 114:
creationism explained these observa
Page 115 and 116:
creationism used to justify militar
Page 117 and 118:
creationism • In the early 21st c
Page 119 and 120:
00 Cretaceous period however, other
Page 121 and 122: 0 Cro-Magnon evolution had occurred
Page 123 and 124: 0 Cro-Magnon areas, perforated shel
Page 125 and 126: 0 Cuvier, Georges Cuvier held stron
Page 127 and 128: 0 Darwin Awards Darwin Awards “Th
Page 129 and 130: 0 Darwin, Charles forever. It would
Page 131 and 132: Darwin, Charles and animals did hav
Page 133 and 134: Darwin’s finches has its own uniq
Page 135 and 136: Dawkins, Richard ate the pulp. More
Page 137 and 138: developmental evolution Part II. In
Page 139 and 140: 0 Devonian period gene from an inve
Page 141 and 142: dinosaurs what DeVries thought were
Page 143 and 144: diseases, evolution of • Thyreoph
Page 145 and 146: disjunct species have happened? Som
Page 147 and 148: DNA (evidence for evolution) genes,
Page 149 and 150: 0 DNA (evidence for evolution) seco
Page 151 and 152: DNA (raw material of evolution) DNA
Page 153 and 154: DNA (raw material of evolution) The
Page 155 and 156: Dobzhansky, Theodosius Mice have tw
Page 157 and 158: duplication, gene prominent brow ri
Page 159 and 160: 0 ecology Second, organisms can con
Page 161 and 162: Eldredge, Niles they possess no str
Page 163 and 164: eugenics grieving, or experiencing
Page 165 and 166: eugenics because government officia
Page 167 and 168: eukaryotes, evolution of of the sor
Page 169 and 170: 0 Eve, mitochondrial within cells,
Page 171: evolutionary ethics the ability to
Page 175 and 176: evolutionary medicine Can an Evolut
Page 177 and 178: evolutionary medicine variable in t
Page 179 and 180: 0 extinction past (a genetic bottle
Page 181 and 182: fishes, evolution of his obvious vi
Page 183 and 184: Flores Island people Christopher St
Page 185 and 186: fossils and fossilization The grain
Page 187 and 188: founder effect Further Reading Fort
Page 189 and 190: 0 Gaia hypothesis nitrogen oxide (N
Page 191 and 192: Galton, Francis constituted a premi
Page 193 and 194: gene pool Cocos Island is too small
Page 195 and 196: Gould, Stephen Jay animals, and the
Page 197 and 198: Gray, Asa he had long accepted Lyel
Page 199 and 200: 0 group selection used the carbon t
Page 201 and 202: gymnosperms, evolution of began per
Page 204 and 205: Haeckel, Ernst (1834-1919) German E
Page 206 and 207: The initial divergence between homi
Page 208 and 209: Although Homo ergaster, the presume
Page 210 and 211: tions were spreading through Africa
Page 212 and 213: Selected Examples of Homo heidelber
Page 214 and 215: sunlight of tropical regions, and t
Page 216 and 217: win, Hooker could not pay his own w
Page 218 and 219: gene transfer from a bacterium, per
Page 220 and 221: to evolutionary science. He also ap
Page 222 and 223:
Examples of Intergeneric Crosses Re
Page 224 and 225:
ice ages The term ice ages usually
Page 226 and 227:
America had not been connected sinc
Page 228 and 229:
migrated into Europe and displaced
Page 230 and 231:
ence their intelligence. There is a
Page 232 and 233:
This does not mean that all of the
Page 234 and 235:
e exactly the right ones. Bovine in
Page 236 and 237:
Van Till, Howard J. “E. coli at t
Page 238 and 239:
food particles with whiplike struct
Page 240 and 241:
would readily interbreed and produc
Page 242 and 243:
ased, to eat small plankton near th
Page 244 and 245:
isotopes When evaporation from the
Page 246:
Java man See Homo erectus. Johanson
Page 249 and 250:
0 Kenyanthropus chemist Henri Becqu
Page 251 and 252:
language, evolution of is not consi
Page 253 and 254:
language, evolution of Italian, Por
Page 255 and 256:
Lascaux caves Some of the original
Page 257 and 258:
Leakey, Richard Richard Leakey, in
Page 259 and 260:
0 life history, evolution of it inv
Page 261 and 262:
life history, evolution of is: sele
Page 263 and 264:
life history, evolution of Why Do H
Page 265 and 266:
life history, evolution of Why Do H
Page 267 and 268:
Linnaean system The tree of life us
Page 269 and 270:
0 living fossils admired. The genus
Page 271 and 272:
Lysenkoism about evolution. When Da
Page 273 and 274:
Malthus, Thomas intelligent design)
Page 275 and 276:
mammals, evolution of the reptilian
Page 277 and 278:
markers another precocious and crea
Page 279 and 280:
0 Mars, life on • The spacecraft
Page 281 and 282:
Maynard Smith, John producing a 200
Page 283 and 284:
meiosis Zoology. He became director
Page 285 and 286:
Mendel, Gregor of the fertilized eg
Page 287 and 288:
Mendelian genetics an American gene
Page 289 and 290:
0 Mendelian genetics the environmen
Page 291 and 292:
microevolution Stanley Miller did o
Page 293 and 294:
missing links Batesian mimicry. Nam
Page 295 and 296:
mitochondrial DNA Hominin skulls ha
Page 297 and 298:
molecular clock these scientists di
Page 299 and 300:
0 mutualism function of the protein
Page 301 and 302:
natural selection Fact 1. Populatio
Page 303 and 304:
natural selection Three types of na
Page 305 and 306:
natural theology different kinds of
Page 307 and 308:
Neandertals different species of hu
Page 309 and 310:
0 Neolithic Neandertals lived short
Page 311 and 312:
new synthesis In contrast to progen
Page 313 and 314:
noncoding DNA Some regulatory molec
Page 315 and 316:
origin of life they refer to life t
Page 317 and 318:
origin of life Are Humans Alone in
Page 319 and 320:
00 origin of life It is often said
Page 321 and 322:
0 Origin of Species (book) ribose);
Page 323 and 324:
0 Orrorin ———. On the Origin
Page 325 and 326:
0 Paley, William in the Chordata) e
Page 327 and 328:
0 peppered moths There remained som
Page 329 and 330:
0 Permian extinction produced in la
Page 331 and 332:
Permian period upon the exploitatio
Page 333 and 334:
Piltdown man found in slightly diff
Page 335 and 336:
plate tectonics The Earth’s surfa
Page 337 and 338:
population Percent of Mammal Genera
Page 339 and 340:
0 population genetics Vandermeer, J
Page 341 and 342:
population genetics If allele A is
Page 343 and 344:
Precambrian time at least some gene
Page 345 and 346:
progress, concept of arboreal prima
Page 347 and 348:
promoter Each chromosome contains t
Page 349 and 350:
0 punctuated equilibria and persist
Page 351 and 352:
punctuated equilibria Gradualism wa
Page 353 and 354:
Quaternary period epoch of the Quat
Page 355 and 356:
ecapitulation would cause some of t
Page 357 and 358:
eligion, evolution of pathogens nev
Page 359 and 360:
0 reproductive systems Catkins of m
Page 361 and 362:
eproductive systems Scobell has inv
Page 363 and 364:
eproductive systems fact, there is
Page 365 and 366:
eptiles, evolution of Blanckenhorn,
Page 367 and 368:
esistance, evolution of ineffective
Page 369 and 370:
0 respiration, evolution of There i
Page 372 and 373:
Sagan, Carl (1934-1996) American As
Page 374 and 375:
tain features are universally recog
Page 376 and 377:
The testing of hypotheses accumulat
Page 378 and 379:
the results are sufficiently intere
Page 380 and 381:
een wrong: His hypothesis of the co
Page 382 and 383:
Comparison of Inherit the Wind with
Page 384 and 385:
and others form more complex struct
Page 386 and 387:
endonuclease gene is then used as a
Page 388 and 389:
e able to do the same thing. Second
Page 390 and 391:
mosomes come in groups of five rath
Page 392 and 393:
eliminated—that is, if sexual rec
Page 394 and 395:
one, free of parasites, is likely t
Page 396 and 397:
nesses of resource acquisition and
Page 398 and 399:
Zahavi, Amotz. The Handicap Princip
Page 400 and 401:
and it is not happening extensively
Page 402 and 403:
this, too, is a genetically based u
Page 404 and 405:
monkeyflowers of the genus Mimulus)
Page 406 and 407:
Further Reading Abrahamson, Warren
Page 408 and 409:
comes from the unfertilized egg, ra
Page 410:
of the bacteriophages. Therefore, h
Page 413 and 414:
technology Technological and Cultur
Page 415 and 416:
thermodynamics • Plants. The flow
Page 417 and 418:
thermodynamics return to their orig
Page 419 and 420:
00 Triassic period more resulting l
Page 422 and 423:
unconformity An unconformity is a g
Page 424 and 425:
sissippi River is getting shorter e
Page 426:
ago. This was the birth of the Sun.
Page 429 and 430:
0 vestigial characteristics algae.
Page 432 and 433:
Wallace, Alfred Russel (1823-1913)
Page 434 and 435:
genetic inferiority of the lower cl
Page 436 and 437:
that point onward he questioned the
Page 438 and 439:
Carl R. Woese pioneered the use of
Page 440 and 441:
Darwin’s “One LOng argument”:
Page 442 and 443:
the young seedlings must compete wi
Page 444 and 445:
Traits can reappear after even hund
Page 446 and 447:
ated: It has been an advantage in o
Page 448 and 449:
chapter 10. On the imperfection of
Page 450 and 451:
out in competition with the species
Page 452 and 453:
languages. Linguists classify all R
Page 454:
My theory has been much maligned. T
Page 458 and 459:
Index Note: Boldface page numbers i
Page 460 and 461:
asexual propagation 370-371 Ashfall
Page 462 and 463:
Bryan, William Jennings creationism
Page 464 and 465:
ird evolution 62-63 cladistics 72-7
Page 466 and 467:
divergence molecular clock 278-279
Page 468 and 469:
extinction 159-160. See also mass e
Page 470 and 471:
Gondwana (Gondwanaland) 68, 84, 86,
Page 472 and 473:
Huxley, Julian S. 200 eugenics 146
Page 474 and 475:
Mendelian genetics and 268 Spencer,
Page 476 and 477:
Origin of Species (Darwin) 433-434
Page 478 and 479:
ocean currents 179, 207 Oceanian re
Page 480 and 481:
polar cells 368 Polkinghorne, John
Page 482 and 483:
Sanger, Frederick 55 Sanger, Margar
Page 484 and 485:
spores 264, 370 spotted hyena (Croc
Page 486 and 487:
useless characteristics 409 Ussher,
show all

Encyclopedia of Evolution.pdf - Online Reading Center

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?