The following extracts of items I have discovered on the Net in the past week or
so may be of interest. I apologise if some have these have been posted before.
Please note that most of these sites may not be accessible directly but may require
free registration at their home pages. I do not necessarily agree with any of these
items.
1. An critical look at Dawkins' `selfish gene' theory:
"It's not all in the genes. Richard Dawkins' famous book convinced us that our
'selfish genes' drive evolution; but most scientists now disagree. Robert
Matthews reveals how a clever don hijacked Darwin's big idea"
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=000920277651983&rtmo=flsssfws&atmo=
99999999&pg=/et/98/3/28/esgene28.html).
[This URL may not be accessible directly. Point to the Electronic Telegraph at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/, register for free, and search for "Dawkins"]
2. More evidence of the uniqueness of Homo sapiens: Homo erectus did not
use fire.
a) "Geological Analysis Damps Ancient Chinese Fires Studies of sediments at
Zhoukoudian, China--long considered the site of the first use of fire--suggest
that any flames there were not kindled by human hands. That means there's no
strong evidence of fire use until about 300,000 years ago and none definitively
associated with Homo erectus, the hominid that began to spread through Asia
and into cold northern latitudes starting about 1.8 million years ago.
Researchers must now consider that this colonization may have happened
without fire." (Science Vol. 281, No. 5374, 10 July 1998.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol281/issue5374/news-summaries.shtml)
b) "Study Could Extinguish Theory on When Fire Was First Tamed By Joby
Warrick Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, July 10, 1998; Page A03
Evidence from an ancient Chinese cave has cast doubt on prevailing theories
about the taming of fire by human ancestors, suggesting that the epochal
achievement occurred much later than scientists have long believed. The
findings, if confirmed, could rewrite 60 years of anthropology textbooks and
reshape the modern view of Homo erectus, the presumed ancestor of today's
humans who was believed to have used fire to sustain migration into the colder
regions of Europe and Asia." (http://washingtonpost.com/wp-
srv/WPlate/1998-07/10/086l-071098-idx.html)
c) Study Disputes Human's First Use of Fire AP 09-JUL-98 WASHINGTON
(AP) Peking Man may not have built campfires in his caves after all, according
to a new study. Archaeologists have believed for more than 50 years that a
cave in Zhoudoudian, China, contained the evidence that humans learned to
control and use fire about 500,000 years ago, the era when Homo erectus, also
known as Peking Man, was the dominant hominid. Now researchers analyzing
sediments from the cave say the specimens lack the telltale traces of wood ash
needed to prove the ancient human-like creatures used and controlled fire.
"If fire was used at this location in the site, it is difficult to account for the
absence of ... wood ash," the researchers reported in a study to be published
Friday in the journal Science."
http://customnews.cnn.com/cnews/pna.show_story?p_art_id=2728618&p_sect
ion_name=Sci-
Tech&p_art_type=433527&p_subcat=Archeology+%26+Paleontology&p_cat
egory=Sciences).
3. Early amphibian fossil found: "Creature from the Black Lagoon."
a) "JULY 02, 10:38 EDT Scientists Find `Lagoon' Fossils By MALCOLM
RITTER AP Science Writer NEW YORK (AP) - When British scientist
Jennifer Clack named a fossil creature ``Eucritta melanolimnetes'' in a paper
she submitted for publication, an editor asked if she was sure about that name.
She was. So in today's issue of the prestigious journal Nature, Clack introduces
the animal and its name, which loosely translates as ``creature from the black
lagoon.'' Her animal didn't look like the fish-human hybrid that starred in the
1954 horror movie. It was a lot smaller, and resembled a salamander with a big
head and feet. It lived near what is now Edinburgh, Scotland, some 333 million
years ago."
(http://wire.ap.org/APnews/center_story.html?FRONTID=SCIENCE&STOR
YID=APIS6MDPME80)
b) The above may actually be a problem for evolution:
"A newly described 334-million-year-old fossil of an amphibian will give
students of vertebrate evolution much to think about, for it has characters that
were previously ascribed to three different types of early four-legged creature.
Together with other examples, the fossil shows that during evolution new
features seem to have been 'cut and pasted' on different groups at different
times. Understanding such parallel evolution will require understanding the
molecular and developmental basis by which such features arise. Neil Shubin
Evolutionary cut and paste Nature 394, 12-13 (1998)"
(http://www.nature.com/Nature2/serve?SID=70829377&CAT=TOC&PG=19
980702/nvmain.html)
c) Here is the abstract of the article itself:
"A new Early Carboniferous tetrapod with a mlange of crown-group
characters Living (that is, crown-group) tetrapods represent the phylogenetic
end-points of two lineages which diverged from each other during the mid/late
Palaeozoic era. These two groups of tetrapods are the Amphibia (frogs,
salamanders and caecilians), with their roots among temnospondyls, and the
Amniota (mammals, turtles, crocodiles, birds, lizards and snakes), with their
roots among anthracosaurs. The earliest representatives of both lineages,
including a stem amniote, are known from the Visan of East Kirkton,
Scotland. Here the author describes a new taxon from this locality that not only
combines characters of each lineage, but also represents the basal member of a
third Palaeozoic group, the baphetids. The baphetids lie within the base of the
crown clade of tetrapods and the morphology of the new taxon, their most
primitive member, is a new benchmark for studying the polarity and evolution
of crown tetrapod characters. J A Clack A new Early Carboniferous tetrapod
with a mlange of crown-group characters (Letter to Nature) Nature 394, 66
(1998)"
(http://www.nature.com/Nature2/serve?SID=70829377&CAT=TOC&PG=19
980702/summaries.html)
4. More problems for the life on Mars theory:
a) "Report Raises Questions about Martian Rock 03-JUL-98 By R. Cowen
Two new studies chip away at--but do not entirely undermine--the case that a
meteorite from Mars contains fossils of ancient life from the Red Planet. The
studies indicate that much of the organic content of the 4.5-billion-year-old
rock did not come from Mars but is earthly material that contaminated the
meteorite after it landed in an Antarctic ice field 13,000 years ago. In 1996,
researchers announced that the meteorite ALH84001 might contain signs of
past life on the Red Planet (SN: 8/10/96, p. 84). The evidence included ovoid
features that the scientists suggested were microfossils of Martian bacteria.
The new findings do not directly refute the notion of Martian microfossils, but
they do raise the possibility that terrestrial organisms infiltrated the rock. One
team analyzed the structure and type of amino acids in a sample of the
meteorite. Although 20 amino acids are required to make all of the proteins on
Earth, trace amounts of only three--glycine, serine, and alanine--were found in
the rock. These are also the most common amino acids found in Antarctic
meltwater, and their relative abundances in the rock match those in the water,
notes Jeffrey L. Bada of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla,
Calif."
(http://customnews.cnn.com/cnews/pna.show_story?p_art_id=2709799&p_sec
tion_name=Sci-
Tech&p_art_type=433527&p_subcat=Comets,+Meteors+%26+Asteroids&p_
category=Space)
b) "Another Attack on Idea of Life in Mars Meteorite Reuters 06-JUL-98
WASHINGTON, July 6 (Reuters) - Scientists launched a fresh attack on
Monday against the idea that a Martian meteorite contained evidence of life.
The researchers, who have been disputing the NASA claims all along, say their
latest tests indicate that what look like tiny worm-like fossils are actually the
remnants of high-temperature processes. John Bradley of the Georgia Institute
of Technology, along with Hap McSween of the University of Tennessee in
Knoxville and Ralph Harvey of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland,
Ohio, say they have examined and reexamined their evidence, but still do not
think the meteorite, known as ALH84001, shows evidence of life."
(http://customnews.cnn.com/cnews/pna.show_story?p_art_id=2717318&p_sec
tion_name=Sci-
Tech&p_art_type=433527&p_subcat=Mars&p_category=Space).
5. More on the alleged dinosaur with feathers:
a) "Scientists: Fossils prove that birds evolved from dinosaurs June 24, 1998
Web posted at: 12:32 a.m. EDT (0432 GMT) Researchers believe the fossils
represent dinosaurs that are the immediate ancestors of the first birds
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Scientists say a new discovery means dinosaurs are
not extinct. An international team of scientists believes two Chinese fossils of
feathered dinosaurs -- animals with down-covered bodies, strong legs and
stubby arms -- are the strongest evidence yet that birds evolved from
dinosaurs...Alan Feduccia, an evolutionary biologist at the University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill, said the discoveries are "very interesting," but he said
they do not provide immediate and final proof that birds evolved from
dinosaurs. He said the new fossils are dated after those of the first bird,
suggesting that the fossils could be either feathered dinosaurs or primitive birds
that happened to resemble dinosaurs."
(http://cnn.com/TECH/science/9806/23/feathered.dinosaur/index.html)
b) "Dinosaur Fossils, in Fine Feather, Show Link to Birds Ann Gibbons
Following up on controversial reports from 2 years ago, a team of Chinese,
Canadian, and American paleontologists now claims that in rich fossil beds in
China they have finally discovered the real thing--dinosaurs with feathers. In
reports in this week's issue of Nature and the July issue of National
Geographic, they describe two species of turkey-sized theropod (meat-eating)
dinosaurs that have unmistakable feathers fanning out from their forearms and
tails. But doubters still contend that the ancestors of birds branched off from
the reptiles before dinosaurs appeared; they say the feathers only show that the
new finds are flightless birds, not dinosaurs." (Science News This Week Vol.
280, No. 5372, 26 June 1998.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol280/issue5372/news-summaries.shtml)
c) "Feathered Fossils Give Theory Wings Find called proof birds descended
from dinosaurs David Perlman, Chronicle Science Editor Wednesday, June 24,
1998 Two newly discovered fossil dinosaurs, their arms and tails adorned with
feathers and their bodies dappled with down, offer the strongest evidence yet
to settle the long argument over the evolution of modern birds, a team of
excited scientists said yesterday. Living more than 120 million years ago, the
turkey-sized creatures were clearly small meat-eating dinosaurs called
theropods, which ran swiftly over the ground, flapped their stubby wings and
shared many of their bony features with true flying birds. And although they
could not fly, they were clearly among the crucial ancestral forms that evolved
into the first true birds, according to the fossil experts who analyzed
them...Nor is the argument entirely settled today, for at least one
paleontologist, Alan Feduccia at the University of North Carolina, remains one
of a dwindling band of scientists who are unconvinced. ``This is a very
interesting find,'' Feduccia said yesterday in an interview, ``but these fossils
certainly look like flightless birds to me. I still believe that although birds and
dinosaurs may share a common ancestor, these fossils more closely resemble
many other feathered birds that later lost the ability to fly, like ostriches and
emus and kiwis. These fossils could well be secondary flightless birds, and they
certainly don't have to be dinosaurs.'' (San Francisco Chronicle, Wednesday,
June 24, 1998. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-
bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1998/06/24/MN26880.DTL)
6. Evidence that language is innate in Homo sapiens:
"Words from the Void Deaf children show the signs of how language
originates. Where does language come from? According to renowned linguist
Noam Chomsky, all human children are born with the innate ability to
understand and use language. There is plenty of evidence to back up his theory;
most significantly, young infants master language rapidly even though they
receive no formal instruction in the convoluted rules of grammar. Now,
Chomsky's theory has been bolstered by a study of deaf children who have
never been exposed to conventional language, either spoken or signed--yet
who develop their own complex language of gestures, complete with unique
grammatical rules. These rules are amazingly consistent across cultures:
virtually identical gesture patterns developed spontaneously among both
Chinese and American children."
(http://www.discover.com/science_news/behscience.html)
Steve
"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented."
--- Dr. William Provine, Professor of History and Biology, Cornell University.
http://fp.bio.utk.edu/darwin/1998/slides_view/Slide_7.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------