Because another topic has veered into this area it occurred to me that I recalled a New Scientist article some years ago which may be worth reading:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... onceptions
there are various links to the sub-topics of which the two
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... adaptation
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... f-species/
may be particularly interesting
New Scientist is alleged to be a rationalist left of centre magazine but I could not possibly comment...
graham
I have no financial interest in New Scientist although I am a subscriber
Evolution - not unrelated to cactaceae
Forum rules
For the discussion of topics related to the conservation, cultivation, propagation, exhibition & science of cacti & other succulents only.
Please respect all forum members opinions and if you can't make a civil reply, don't reply!
For the discussion of topics related to the conservation, cultivation, propagation, exhibition & science of cacti & other succulents only.
Please respect all forum members opinions and if you can't make a civil reply, don't reply!
-
graham
- BCSS Member
- Posts: 444
- https://www.behance.net/kuchnie-warszawa
- Joined: 06 May 2010
- Branch: None
- Country: UK
Evolution - not unrelated to cactaceae
Last edited by graham on Fri Sep 11, 2015 10:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
IanW
- Registered Guest
- Posts: 3807
- Joined: 18 Nov 2007
- Branch: LEEDS
- Country: UK
- Role within the BCSS: Member
Re: Evolution - not unrealted to cactaceae
This thread really should be moved to off-topic, but until a mod comes along and decides, here goes:
If you follow blindly New Scientist's articles on evolution that probably explains why you have so many misconceptions over it, they don't exactly have a great track record, nor are they a peer reviewed publication:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009 ... he-bird-a/
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.co ... d-science/
The examples in the links you provides are good examples of really bad quality science writing. For example, the example of the male nipple for is perfectly adequately explained by the fact that females also exist alongside males and they also have nipples that exist for obvious beneficial reasons. To evolve a genetic trait that allows them to be turned off in males, also runs the risk that they will sometimes be turned off in females. Any such female ending up this way will be unable to feed and raise offspring, and so will become an evolutionary dead end, thus selecting for the members of the species who continue to grow them regardless of whether they are male or female - they are a species level evolutionary advantage. They may not benefit the individual, but they clearly do benefit the species, and to remove them would be of detriment to the species as it would result in some females unable to raise offspring.
So no, your references to a non-peer reviewed popular science magazine that has a history of getting it wrong on evolution do not prove your case I'm afraid.
If you follow blindly New Scientist's articles on evolution that probably explains why you have so many misconceptions over it, they don't exactly have a great track record, nor are they a peer reviewed publication:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009 ... he-bird-a/
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.co ... d-science/
The examples in the links you provides are good examples of really bad quality science writing. For example, the example of the male nipple for is perfectly adequately explained by the fact that females also exist alongside males and they also have nipples that exist for obvious beneficial reasons. To evolve a genetic trait that allows them to be turned off in males, also runs the risk that they will sometimes be turned off in females. Any such female ending up this way will be unable to feed and raise offspring, and so will become an evolutionary dead end, thus selecting for the members of the species who continue to grow them regardless of whether they are male or female - they are a species level evolutionary advantage. They may not benefit the individual, but they clearly do benefit the species, and to remove them would be of detriment to the species as it would result in some females unable to raise offspring.
So no, your references to a non-peer reviewed popular science magazine that has a history of getting it wrong on evolution do not prove your case I'm afraid.