The evolution of antievolution policies after Kitzmiller versus Dover

The adaptation of evolutionary thinking in its public circulation: the case of "Evolution: a Journal of Nature," 1927-1938

The teaching of evolution was the subject of intense controversy in the United States in the first decades of the twentieth century. Both the validity of the theory and its ethical, political and religious implications were in dispute. This article analyzes a magazine intended to popularize science in this context, Evolution: a Journal of Nature (1927-1938). The objective is to demonstrate that the dynamics of the public circulation of knowledge represented by the magazine cannot be reduced to a process of simplification, eliminating details and exceptions of little use to the general public, but rather consisted of a complete adaptation, creatively connecting scientific knowledge to questions of great importance in the public arena.

A dangerous balancing act: On matters of science, a well-meaning desire to present all views equally can be an Trojan horse for damaging falsehoods

Journalistic impartiality is a laudable aim, but overly rigid application of unbiased reporting may do more harm than good. The issue of false balance in science reporting has severe consequences for health and the environment.

Including autapomorphies is important for paleontological tip-dating with clocklike data, but not with non-clock data

Tip-dating, where fossils are included as dated terminal taxa in Bayesian dating inference, is an increasingly popular method. Data for these studies often come from morphological character matrices originally developed for non-dated, and usually parsimony, analyses. In parsimony, only shared derived characters (synapomorphies) provide grouping information, so many character matrices have an ascertainment bias: they omit autapomorphies (unique derived character states), which are considered uninformative. There has been no study of the effect of this ascertainment bias in tip-dating, but autapomorphies can be informative in model-based inference. We expected that excluding autapomorphies would shorten the morphological branchlengths of terminal branches, and thus bias downwards the time branchlengths inferred in tip-dating. We tested for this effect using a matrix for Carboniferous-Permian eureptiles where all autapomorphies had been deliberately coded. Surprisingly, date estimates are virtually unchanged when autapomorphies are excluded, although we find large changes in morphological rate estimates and small effects on topological and dating confidence. We hypothesized that the puzzling lack of effect on dating was caused by the non-clock nature of the eureptile data. We confirm this explanation by simulating strict clock and non-clock datasets, showing that autapomorphy exclusion biases dating only for the clocklike case. A theoretical solution to ascertainment bias is computing the ascertainment bias correction (Mk_parsinf), but we explore this correction in detail, and show that it is computationally impractical for typical datasets with many character states and taxa. Therefore we recommend that palaeontologists collect autapomorphies whenever possible when assembling character matrices.

Inferring node dates from tip dates in fossil Canidae: the importance of tree priors

Tip-dating methods are becoming popular alternatives to traditional node calibration approaches for building time-scaled phylogenetic trees, but questions remain about their application to empirical datasets. We compared the performance of the most popular methods against a dated tree of fossil Canidae derived from previously published monographs. Using a canid morphology dataset, we performed tip-dating using BEAST v. 2.1.3 and MrBayes v. 3.2.5. We find that for key nodes (Canis, approx. 3.2 Ma, Caninae approx. 11.7 Ma) a non-mechanistic model using a uniform tree prior produces estimates that are unrealistically old (27.5, 38.9 Ma). Mechanistic models (incorporating lineage birth, death and sampling rates) estimate ages that are closely in line with prior research. We provide a discussion of these two families of models (mechanistic versus non-mechanistic) and their applicability to fossil datasets.