Chimpanzee plans for the future

Santino is a thirty year old male chimpanzee at Furuvik Zoo in Sweden. For the last decade he has been collecting stones before the zoo opens, stashing them in around his enclosure, and then when the visitors arrive, has been throwing the rocks at them - though, thankfully, he apparently has poor aim.

The significance of this, as Mathias Osvath details in an article in Biology Direct, is the observation of other species than humans planning for the future. Vainly, I would say, we go around thinking that this is something that only humans do, and while there has been a few anecdotal reports of such observed behavior, this is a first thorough study of its kind.

Since the initial findings, caretakers have removed hundreds of caches. The gathering of stones has been observed on at least 50 distinct occasions, and the manufacturing of the concrete discs has been directly observed at least 18 times. However, concrete pieces were regularly present in the caches or individually along the shore.

For a behavior to signal planning for a future state, the predominant mental state during the planning must be different from the one mental state in the situation that is planned for. Santino prepared his caches of stones hours in advance of throwing them, and was calm while he collected them, while he was in an agitated state when he took his revenge on the people responsible for his captivity committed his foul deeds.

The striking thing about these behaviors is how they suggest a parallel between pre-human and chimpanzee cognitive abilities:

similar forms of stone manipulation constitute the most ancient signs of culture. Finds as old as 2.6 million years suggest that hominins carried and accumulated stone artefacts on certain sites, presumably a case of future need planning.

Give the chimps 3 million years in the right environment, and I wouldn't be surprised if they invented language and quantum physics. A little surprised, but not so much that I couldn't muster a 'told you so'.


The male [Santino] displays with a stone in his left hand. The forceful bipedal
locomotion and the pilo-erection (hair on end) are signs of agitation.


A pile of Santino's stones. Good thing his aims sucks. Imagine being hit by one of these.

Also in the news: Study: Belligerent chimp proves animals make plans

Reference:
Mathias Osvath (2009). Spontaneous planning for future stone throwing by a male chimpanzee Current Biology, 19 (5) DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2009.01.010

Let's do it, kids

This book is from 1991. Serious gaffe at the publishers. Or not?



This should go on failblog.

Why do we feel guilty when we don't tip?

Consider this scenario:

You walk alone into a restaurant in some place where you know for a fact that you will never return to. The people working there are strangers to you, and you know you will never see any of them again. You have your meal, and it was alright. You get the bill and, this being America, you know you are expected to pay a tip (15-20% of the bill is commonly expected - this is why math is taught in school). As you are about to leave a tip, you wonder why you would. It strictly speaking isn't required. If you don't pay the bill the restaurant could call the police on you. But not if you don't leave a tip (did you know that TIP stands does not stand for 'to ensure promptness'?). So why would you?

The idea here is that we leave it because we otherwise somehow feel bad about not doing so. We feel that it's wrong not to tip. But why is that? Why not, in the above scenario, rationally arrive at the conclusion that there is no reason to, since whether you do or not will never affect you personally. You won't even be served by the same staff, so they can't punish you if aren't going to be nice. We do so because our morals tells us that we should, and if we act against that, then we feel guilty. Or, we feel guilty if we don't, so we do. But why do we feel guilty?

Recall that you are alone, and so there is no one with you that you can gain from making a good impression on. If you don't pay a tip, no one that will ever meet you again, or who will communicate with anyone you will ever meet again, will know the difference. So, evolutionarily speaking, what's the advantage of leaving a tip, and why do we have a sense of guilt when we don't tip?

One explanation is that we evolved under conditions where breaking the moral codes were always punished, even if just in a minor way, when the cheater was found out. Humans, or pre-humans, or however far back one thinks we have to go, lived in groups where everyone knew each other, and so the risk of meeting whoever we didn't 'tip' again was always present. Our feelings of guilt thus did not have to take into account that we might one day meet someone whom we would never ever meet again. Only in present day society does this ever happen to us, as when we travel coast to coast and pass by Guymon, Oklahoma and stop at a local diner. In other words, we can think rationally that there is no reason we should feel bad for ourselves when not leaving a tip, but we do so anyway, because guilt is a feeling we don't arrive at rationally, and our emotions don't know that we will never come back to Guymon and propose to that waitress.

Another explanation is more down to Earth. We feel guilty about not tipping because such guilt ensures that we do tip, and therefore stand a better chance at having sex with the waitress, or not getting into a deadly fight with the waiter. Both of these are very important things to consider in evolution, as in daily life. I call this explanation more down to Earth because it doesn't need to invoke the somewhat questionable evolutionary psychology kind of reasoning, like "this evolved at the dawn of humanity", the way the previous explanation does. Also, both of these have happened to me: I didn't pay a tip, and the waiter followed me into the street and gave me a good lecture in the middle of the sidewalk in front of everybody. I also have tipped a waitress more than 20 percent, and while I didn't get to have sex with her, I'm sure my chances were better than if I had tipped her just 15 percent.

It is also possible to argue that we feel guilty when we don't tip because we have learned that we must. In this way guilt is based on culture, and not on genes. Obviously, there is no genes for feeling bad when not tipping. I grew up in Denmark where people don't have to tip, and when they do it is as good as never in the 15-20 percent range. Still, when I moved to New York I quickly learned how to tip, and to feel bad when I didn't. In the middle of the sidewalk I defended myself saying that the food was a catastrophe, but the waiter was right that I could just have told him so, and he would have taken the food back to the kitchen, and I would not have been billed. But the point here is that even if one argues that feeling guilt in this situation is learned, as I learned it, the fact that we feel guilt when we err is not learned, but is an instinct that evolved because it serves a purpose. This third explanation then isn't really contrary to either of the first two, and I mention it only because everything comes in threes.

More from the Vatican conference

It seems like the take home message from the conference in the Vatican that I wrote about yesterday is that evolution does not prove there is no God:

The Vatican has rejected the claim by Richard Dawkins, the biologist and campaigning atheist, that evolutionary theory proves that God does not exist, proclaiming that on the contrary Darwinian evolution and the account of Creation in Genesis are "perfectly compatible".

Why, pray tell, didn't the Catholic Church proclaim years before Darwin that Genesis 1 is not to be read literally? Since the Pope is God's hand on Earth, why didn't the theory of evolution come from the Vatican many, many years before Darwin?

Obviously evolutionary theory does not prove the non-existence of God. What it does prove is that a literal reading of the Bible is not merely an exercise in reconciling inconsistencies (e.g. Jesus' genealogies: Matthew 1:2-16 vs. Luke 3:23-38), but also utterly at odds with science. That the Catholic Church is willing to preserve what they have by not flat out denying evolution is the most sensible thing to do, if not even commendable. But, as people have asked before me, how is that they know which parts to take literally and which to read as allegory? And, again, why do they wait for science to tell them, and not the other way around?

Calling all philanthropists

Top of my (material) wish list is now Kindle 2.
Preferably preloaded with a library of non-fiction.

Vatican conference proves worthless

Robert J. Russell, founder and director of the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences in Berkeley, CA had a few things to say at the end of the Vatican conference at the Pontifical Gregorian University (that I really wanted to go to, but they told me they did not have funds to cover my travel costs).

He defends evolution, but attacks scientism - the use of science beyond its proper sphere of investigating physical nature. I do wonder what he thinks the proper sphere of science is. Anything that scripture does not address? Because lots of scripture deals with the 'physical nature'.

He's taking the stand - like catholics mostly do these days - that both creationists who attack science (especially evolution), and atheists who attack religion using evolution are both wrong in thinking that there is any overlap between the respective spheres.

Unfortunately, he aid, intelligent design and creationist proponents are not addressing the real problem evolution poses, which is how to explain the existence of suffering, disease, death and extinction before the historical event of the creation and fall of man. (...) But evolution demonstrates that suffering and death are not the consequence of the fall, but were part of life "far before humanity came onto the scene and is in fact a part of how we got here," he said.

Right. I do agree that science, and not just evolution, poses a great deal of questions that must be explained to continue to believe in scripture. Cdesign proponensists don't do that, he says, but then who does? The Catholics? Here's what he says about that:

How to account for the problem of why God would allow all his creatures to suffer is "the really hard challenge of evolution," he said.

One response is that pain and suffering are a consequence of freedom, he said.

But while the father of a child lets her be free to run, fall and scrape her knee, if she were to pick up a gun and start playing with it, "I'd take that gun away," he said.

How then does the heavenly Father allow the extent and horrendousness of suffering seen throughout the world and in history? he asked.

No answer to this is given. And, if they do give an answer, it will have nothing to do with evolution. They needn't invite scientists to answer such questions. They needed the scientists for publicity.

It really should come as no surprise whatsoever that the conference would never contribute anything of worth. Nothing was learned by anyone, I trust. I can't say that with certainty, but I'd love to hear from anyone who has contrary evidence. Seems like a total waste of money, though a waste that I would have enjoyed taking part of.

Daniel Dennett decidedly disappoints

Daniel Dennett, professor of philosophy at Tufts University, gave a lecture at UW Madison two days ago, and some people wishes he would have given a better performance. First off, as this article details, two random (?) listeners were disappointed:

University of Wisconsin freshman Sam Bolstad said he was disappointed by Dennett’s lecture.

“He argues for evolution, but he didn’t argue against intelligent design. He didn’t demonstrate how evolution knocked intelligent design out of the ranks, and I thought he would,” Bolstad said.

UW freshman Alex Plunkett agreed the lecture was a disappointment and said he expected more from the speaker.

Okay, so they had their expectations, and they weren't met. Another person not quite satisfied was... me. Not that I was there, but no need (I can be judgmental from a distance). Here's what he said:

Dennett added he believes humans have a purpose on earth made evident by our ability to use language, have culture and be able to reflect on our purpose.

He continued by telling students human beings “wield a paintbrush” because of our unique capacity to understand the significance of our future and ability to represent it.

Dennett also discussed the trickle-down theory of evolution, explaining “big fancy smart things [make] less smart things” in contrast to the bubble up theory of creation that argues things are created from the bottom up.

And evident purpose? Wield a paintbrush? Trickle-down theory?

Sigh. What a load of hogwash.

He is free to have any belief that he chooses, but advocating that humans have purpose, basing such belief on the existence of language, culture, and our ability to reflect is just too silly to take seriously. However, Dennett is a staunch atheist and prominent advocate of evolution (e.g. watch The Four Horsemen on YouTube, or read Darwin's Dangerous Idea), and it is sort of expected that what he says then makes some sort of sense. In the light of science, the notion that humans have a purpose isn't supported. I'm sure he would counter that that's not what he meant, but that's the quote, nonetheless.

"Wielding a paintbrush" means... what? Something, I'm sure, but what of it? Bah! No comment.

And then this trickle-down theory of evolution. I'm seriously considering if the reporter misquotes Dennett here, because it really should be exactly the other way around. But then, why would he name it the trickle-down theory? Evolution generally makes things from the bottom up (there are exceptions), and these become more complex as time goes on. Bubble-up theory of creation? That would make more sense if put on its head, too, since the idea is that the creator, from above (also in terms of complexity), made every creature, big and small.

As for the term 'Brights', I predict it's not going to catch on.

A noted atheist and advocate for the Brights movement, a term coined in 2003 to put atheist philosophers and their followers in a positive light,

One commenter to the article put it perfectly:

"Brights, a term coined to put atheist[s]in a positive light."

Ya, that should do it. "I'm a bright and you're not." Good plan.

And good night.

Why not engineer babies?

Where do our feelings against genetically engineering our children's looks come from? Many people would and do strongly object to parents choosing how their babies should look (eye and hair color, height, etc.), and I myself have this knee-jerk feeling when I consider it. But I find it really hard to argue why it should be wrong. Why?

Dr. Jeffrey Steinberg helps parents to choose the gender of their babies, and is going to offer the service of choosing other traits (dansk) as well within the next six months!

"I can't say with 100 percent certainty that parents will be able to choose something like eye color -- more like 80 percent certainty," Steinberg said.

We are already choosing the looks of our future offspring by the looks of our partner. And once they grow up, we know that many are unhappy about their imperfections, and that many of those who can will spend money of plastic surgery, so why not do it genetically? Perhaps just because we are choosing for them, as opposed to letting them make any decision in that regard by themselves? Or is that just a cop-out?

Some say they are afraid of what humanity will become if we all do this. Suppose that would even be the case, then is it really such a slippery slope? If all babies ended up 'pretty', then why is it that we think that's bad? Just because it's not natural? Then, can anyone tell me what it matters that these things be kept natural?

Because I don't think anyone can argue that it would have any detrimental effect on the human population. Genetically it would be a small fraction of genes that would be touched, but that could of course change in the future. But we aren't talking about that for now. Just are few traits only. And if the doctors promise that's all they'll ever do, then apart from disbelieving them, what objection do we have?

I'm at a loss myself. I really can't answer any of these questions. I can just say that I would never do it. But then that's easy for me to say, because I already have kids and they are fucking gorgeous!

Refuting the fine-tuning argument

Excellent article in eSkeptic refuting the fine-tuning of the universe argument. It doesn't completely dismantle it beyond repair, but attacks the premise that the physical constants should be independent.

To recapitulate, the fine-tuning argument holds that if the constants of nature (e.g. gravitational constant, cosmological constant, Planck's constant, permeability of free space, etc.) weren't exactly what they are, then life could not exist. Stars, planets, molecules, and life as we know it would never have been in the first place. Then, calculating that the probability of the constants being exactly what they are, it is concluded that it is no accident that they take those values, or that were are here to argue about it.

Some, including Hugh Ross, then further argues that this is proof of a creator. That Ross finds him in the Bible, as the author remarks, does not logically follow: the deduced creator need not be not synonymous with the one in the Bible.

But beyond that, I have never understood how these probabilities can be calculated - what is the range of possible values of each of the constants? G is 6.67428(67)×10⁻¹¹ m³·kg⁻¹·s⁻², but how small or large is it possible for it to be? Could it be zero? Negative? One? A billion? Is the range even finite? If it's infinite we can dispense with the calculation, because then the probability that it takes the value it does would then be zero.

Additionally, and this is the author's argument, could it not be that the constants are coupled? If they are not independent, the calculating the probability that they take the values they do by multiplying the probability of each is wrong. We don't know anything about this, so it could just as well be that given that the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s in vacuum, the values of all the other constants are constrained to the exact values that they really take.

The article then goes a little deeper and spoils the argument from analogy that things that look complex like those created by humans must always have been purposefully created by an intelligent designer:

Almost all arguments for the existence of God are based on analogies to human performance. For ancient humans the analogy was this: Humans move objects, objects in nature move, and so these objects must be moved by an invisible intelligence or designer. For the 19th century theologian William Paley, the analogy was this: Humans make watches which are complex, objects in nature are complex, and so objects in nature must have been made by an invisible intelligence or designer. For Ross the analogy is this: Humans fine-tune their machines for a purpose, values of the universe’s physical constants are extremely improbable but consistent with the existence of human life, therefore the universe must have been finely-tuned by a hidden super intelligent agent for the purpose of producing humans.

The fine-tuning argument is in a sense the most serious one the creationists have in their very large bag of goodies, because it is the hardest one to refute. This is because it concerns an aspect of nature that we don't really have the slightest grasp of, namely the question of the origin of the physical laws and constants. All other God of the gaps types of arguments can ultimately be explained by these laws (though here I am not advancing the conjecture that all science can be reduced to physics). The origin of life is going to be explained in terms of physics and chemistry, the complexity of life in terms of biology, and so on.

We may not ever reach an understanding of why the physical laws and constants are as they are, but the point here is that that isn't proof of anything, except that we don't know. Yet.

If God disappeared

Edward Current is my favorite theist without comparison. He just lays out the truth for all to see. I thank him. Thank you, Edward. Thanks for making it all perfectly clear.



I am reminded of this question that I saw on a religion exam:

You are a Starfleet Federation explorer in the process of cataloging two newly discovered planets. The majority of the inhabitants of each planet believe in a deity, but they are two different deities. Deity "X" is said to be not only all-powerful, all-loving, and all-knowing, but the designer of a marvelously complex and ordered world. Deity "Y" is said to be indifferent, absent, unconcerned with the affairs of his planet, and some even say evil. Which god rules over which planet?

Planet A: Has apparently achieved a state of advanced benign equilibrium in which there are no viruses or diseases, and only a very small number of natural disasters, which, when they do strike, always eliminate only the sinful and evil. The inhabitants, both plant and animal, have learned to maintain their existence through photosynthesis, and thus do not have to kill and eat each other in order to survive. There are no "birth defects;" every inhabitant comes into existence perfectly formed and equipped for a long and productive life.
Deity X_____
Deity Y_____

Planet B: Adorned with many examples of beauty and order, it is also constantly beset by hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, volcanoes, lightning bolts, viruses, disfiguring diseases, parasites, leeches, flies, crop-destroying pests and many other phenomena which afflict both the innocent and the evil. Every life form on the planet can only sustain its existence through the destruction and consumption of other life forms. Some of the inhabitants are born with a crippling condition called a "birth defect", which condemns them to living extremely limited, short, or painful lives.
Deity X_____
Deity Y_____

Creation to be scientifically tested

The Christian Examiner brings us an article about how creation science is poised to become a regular respectable science: Creation will be viable science as believers develop testable models. It's written by none other than Hugh Ross, whom I have met before.

Apparently Ross and his coworkers have developed a method that will convince scientists of the reality of creation.

The boldness of my proposal springs not from naïve wishful thinking but rather from personal experience—as a scientist and as an evangelist. For more than 20 years, my colleagues and I have been developing a radically different tactic to counter barriers to belief in creation. This strategy is not new. We simply returned to the biblically derived scientific method, the same one that sparked the scientific revolution.

Fascinating! What is the method?

Applying that method to the rapidly emerging discoveries in both the physical and life sciences has brought forth an astounding weight of evidence in favor of biblical creation. In an open and free competition of ideas, that evidence—and the model that it informs—makes an impact even in the context of major secular universities. We have been allowed to present it and have received valuable feedback in the process.

Okay, that's great. Lots of evidence. But how? Tell us about the method.

Any creation model must explain in as detailed a manner as possible the origin and entire history of the universe, Earth, and Earth’s life. Recognizing that evolutionists will not abandon one model until they see a more useful one, we endeavor to show how biblical creation indeed provides a better explanation, one that’s more detailed and comprehensive in elucidating the record of nature and in forecasting future research findings.

Got it! Now, tell me how, pleeeeease! Sugar on top.

The process of model building is ongoing, but as my friends and I have discovered, by actively exposing our biblically based creation-model-in-progress to the comment and critique of non-theistic and agnostic science professors, we have earned their respect and provoked their interest. Future experiments and observations will further test our models—or any models—conclusions and predictions, either confirming them or denying them. But no Christian ever needs to be afraid of the truth found in nature.

You sure don't look like you're afraid of the truth, even if it should not support creation, no sir! But wait, what is that model again? Here's the last paragraph:

By displaying a fearless yet humble commitment to follow the truth wherever it leads, Christians can open conversations that lead, ultimately, to conversions. At the very least we can win the respect of those who oppose our views, and that’s one way we can honor our Lord Jesus Christ.

Hold on! Did I miss the part where he explains what the model is? Actually, perhaps I did. I am not really sure. Could anyone please help me out?

Perhaps this is it, from a paragraph prior to the ones I just quoted:

When creationists propose specific details of what took place “in the beginning,” creation can be scientifically tested. By providing the means to either verify or falsify (through observations and experiments) creation, we can effectively demonstrate that “creation is science.”

If I am right, then the model is to make predictions based on the Bible that can be tested. That does really qualify as science. That would be great! I do wonder if Ross et al. would be as willing as he says to accept the conclusion that creation is false. I can't wait to see what happens...

History of life in 60 Seconds

Seed Magazine has a short video online condensing life on Earth into 60 seconds: The Evolution of Life in 60 Seconds. If nothing else, it gives a revealing sense of the temporal order of the major evolutionary events leading up to the present. I can't wait for the sequel.


[Note: sound is an important part of the experience, so turn it up.]

Thanks to Jasper for directing me there.

Jindal commits political suicide

Bobby Jindal*, Governor of Louisiana, gave the Republican reeponse to Obama's State of the Union address. The buzz is that he sounded like Kenneth the Page in 30 Rock. To me he sounded more like Hank from King of the Hill. You can see Jindal's performance on CBS (longest 12 minutes ever, I swear).

All across the political spectrum people totally hated it. Everyone but conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh, that is. These are weird times.

Then there were three. Palin, Romney, and Huckabee. Which ticket do we like best for 2012? Palin/Huckabee? Palin/Romney? Are there any other viable combinations?

Incidentally, Rush Limbaugh did very well at the Conservative Political Action Conference. The transcript is here, and includes this wonderful joke to demonstrate how he is not pompous:

Larry King passed away, goes to heaven. He's greeted by Saint Peter at the gates. Saint Peter says, "Welcome, Mr. King, it's great to have you here. I want to show you around, give you an idea of what's here, maybe you can pick a place that you'd like to reside." King says, "I just have one question: Is Rush Limbaugh here?" "No, he's got a lot of time yet, Mr. King." So Saint Peter begins the tour. Larry King sees the various places and it's beyond anything we can imagine in terms of beauty. Finally, he gets to the biggest room of all, with this giant throne. And over the throne is a flashing beautiful angelic neon sign that says "Rush Limbaugh."

[Laughter] And Larry King looks at Saint Peter and says: "I thought you said he wasn't here." "He said, he's not, he's not. This is God's room. He just thinks he's Rush Limbaugh."

Wouldn't it be hilarious if Limbaugh ends up on the 2012 ticket?

Limbaugh/Jindal?

* Make that Piyush "Bobby" Jindal. Wouldn't it be great with a republican candidate with a name conservative America also can't pronounce?

Scandinavian nonbelievers needs to read their Bible

I wrote about Phil Zuckerman's newest book, Society Without God, last year when it was reviewed in Salon. Now a New York Times article revisits Phil's experiences in Denmark and Sweden where he interviewed people about religion: Scandanavian Nonbelievers, Which Is Not to Say Atheists

The essence of the article is that while Denmark and Sweden are among the World's most secular, least religious countries, people still think of themselves as Christian. They don't really have much to say about the matter, which I find is a symptom of a dimwitted ignorance, but I must admit that I am not sure if it doesn't matter in terms of building a fucntioning secular society.

Regardless, I am shocked to the core by this observation:

Beyond reticence, Mr. Zuckerman found what he terms “benign indifference” and even “utter obliviousness.” The key word in his description of their benign indifference is “nice.” Religion, in their view, is “nice.” Jesus “was a nice man who taught some nice things.” The Bible “is full of nice stories and good morals, isn’t it?”

Say it's what? Full of what, now? Nice stories and good morals? If by 'nice' you mean 'entertaining in a morbid sort of way', and by god morals you mean... not good morals, then sure. Otherwise it seems to me that Danes and Swedes have never really read anything from the Old Testament, which is full is horror stories and God's wrath. It's nice that they can take away something positive from the Bible, but I trust that's because they really haven't read the whole thing, only know the New Testament material.

I was going to conclude that I'd like the Danes and Swedes to read the darn book, but I don't really think that would be such a good use of their time. Shakespeare has more of everything compared, anyway.

Cloud nine for evolutionites

Irridiatus' Carnival of Evolution has a new edition over at Moneduloides.

The crow put a lot of work into it, so go check it out.



Sample:

(...) Breaking Eve over at Anna’s Bones, where the author takes us on an beautifully written journey, detailing the beauty and horror of human parturition:

If there was ever an original sin, it wasn’t reaching for the apple; it was reaching for it on two feet.

Women may not watch wrestling in Iran

Today in Politiken, my favorite Danish newspaper, you can read (though you may not understand) that a Danish female coworker of the Danish Wrestling Union (?) was expelled from the spectator seats (carpets, really) at a wrestling tournament in Qom, Iran. She was first allowed to enter the premises duly wearing all black with a scarf, but after 20 minutes was very politely asked to leave. They organizers were very sorry, treated her very well, offering refreshments in a nearby VIP lounge. No harm was done, but she was not allowed inside again to watch her countrymen wrestle.

Why the hell not?

Not because anyone present really cared, Muslims or otherwise. Not because she was behaving in an inappropriate manner. Nothing like that.

They were afraid that the religious leaders would hear of it. And the point here is that that was most likely the only reason at all. I'm not saying that because of prejudice, but because Iranians I have met here in California have told me how life sort of revolves around - evades, really - the religious leaders. Iranians are not all the crazy fundamental Muslims that we often hear about. Rather, I have been shocked to learn that people drink alcohol, watch western television, and (!) arrange sexual orgies, all behind closed doors. An Iranian professor at a college in Claremont told me how she went back to Tehran to study this phenomena, and got herself invited to several of these orgies (just to study them, she assured me). She couldn't even begin to tell me the things she saw, much to my disappointment, of course.

So it would seem that life in Tehran is not much different from life in the West in terms of depravity, except behind closed doors. And except I have never been invited to any orgies. Sigh.

I'm thinking Iran might do very well with tourism if they could just get rid of their leaders.

A religious experience

Now I finally know what it means.



Via Black Nerd Comedy.

Krugman on Stephen Jay Gould

Paul Krugman, professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton, gave a talk in 1996 to the European Association for Evolutionary Political Economy by the title What Economists Can Learn From Evolutionary Theorists. I know next to nothing about economics (read the horror story of my personal finances), but the relationship between economics and evolution is intriguing.

I mention this here because he gives a acidic outside view of one of the most famous American evolutionary biologists (okay, the most famous), Stephen Jay Gould:

I am not sure how well this is known. I have tried, in preparation for this talk, to read some evolutionary economics, and was particularly curious about what biologists people reference. What I encountered were quite a few references to Stephen Jay Gould, hardly any to other evolutionary theorists. Now it is not very hard to find out, if you spend a little while reading in evolution, that Gould is the John Kenneth Galbraith of his subject. That is, he is a wonderful writer who is bevolved [sic] by literary intellectuals and lionized by the media because he does not use algebra or difficult jargon. Unfortunately, it appears that he avoids these sins not because he has transcended his colleagues but because he does does not seem to understand what they have to say; and his own descriptions of what the field is about - not just the answers, but even the questions - are consistently misleading. His impressive literary and historical erudition makes his work seem profound to most readers, but informed readers eventually conclude that there's no there there.

Ouch!

Gould died in 2002, so he must surely have been aware of Krugman's talk and criticism. Personally I love reading Gould, but it is true that the more one reads him, the clearer it becomes that he was consistently ignoring genetics and molecular biology, and that since these are hugely important for understanding evolution, he was sorely missing out on a lot of the fun stuff in his own field.

Gould and Eldredge's theory of punctuated equilibrium, however, does continue to have appeal. In my own work (which I will blog about only once I have something published), as well as other recent discoveries (experiments with Croatian lizards, E. coli, and green algae), it is becoming clear that very rapid evolution is indeed reality, and that stasis (which is what is the equilibrium that's punctuated) really is what needs an explanation.

While he may not have been right about everything he touched upon, we still owe Gould a lot of credit first and foremost for popularizing evolution for the masses - something which is sorely missing at the moment - but also for introducing terms such as terminal addition, spandrels, and exaptation into the evolutionary vocabulary, in addition to the theory of punctuated equilibrium.

Creationism in Europe is also bad

An article in Nature this week details how Creationist Beliefs Persist in Europe (subscription required - email me for a copy).

Two surprising examples of how dismal the evolution/creationism situation is in Europe, and one unsurprising.

In the United Kingdom

Creationists have adopted the attitude that if you get to children young and early, you can indoctrinate them before they even start talking about evolution in schools." Williams cited a December 2008 Ipsos Mori poll of 923 primary and secondary school-teachers in England and Wales: 37% of the respondents agreed that creationism should be taught in schools alongside evolution. Even among biology and science teachers, the number was 30%.

Biology teachers?! Apparently understanding science really isn't a prerequisite for teaching it. Boggles the mind.

In Germany

a survey of 1228 German students planning to become teachers [] evaluated their knowledge of and attitudes toward evolution. The results of the 108-question study--part survey, part quiz--revealed surprising gaps. Twenty percent of those studying to teach biology, for example, thought that evolution could be explained in part by Lamarckism, or the idea that traits acquired during a parent organism's life can be passed on to his or her offspring. And less than a third were able to answer basic questions about the role of reproductive fitness in evolution.

Lamarckism? Use and disuse? If you pull out my teeth, then my children will be born without teeth? How can they teach with such dismal comprehension of evolution?

The call it creationist America, but England's just as bad. Germany's worse, and Turkey's also sad.

More than 75% rejected the theory of evolution. "There's a minimal understanding of evolution in Turkey," Soran says. "The more religious people are, the more they forget about evolution."

Okay, so Turkey is the pits, really. A muslim society with secular aspirations (though one wonders if the profitable prospect of an EU membership is the sole reason for the secular tendiencies). And then they have Adnan Oktar, eminent exhibitor of fishing lures.

There is a strong correlation between a belief in creationism and understanding of evolution, and that doesn't really seem surprising:

The survey also probed the students' belief in creationism, and Graf reported that the most likely predictor of creationist thinking wasn't religious belief but a lack of confidence in science, followed closely by a poor understanding of scientific principles. "What surprised me wasn't that religion correlated with antievolutionist thinking but that the correlation between a failure to understand science and not believing in evolution was very strong," Graf says.

If you don't understand a theory, then you are likely to have misconceptions about it, and thus reject it on those false premises. It would be fantastic if someone actually did a survey to rigorously document this, say comparing people who believe in evolution with those who do not. Such a survey just might rock the boat a bit, don't you think?

They call it stormy Monday, but Tuesday's just as bad
They call it stormy Monday, but Tuesday's just as bad
Wednesday's worse, and Thursday's also sad

Yes the eagle flies on Friday, and Saturday I go out to play
Eagle flies on Friday, and Saturday I go out to play
Sunday I go to church, then I kneel down and pray

Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy on me
Lord have mercy, my heart's in misery
Crazy about my baby, yes, send her back to me

Did Jesus Christ really exist?

Exceptionally, I include here a long quote from an article in eSkeptic, The Greatest Story Ever Garbled. It is a rebuttal of Zeitgeist, a conspiracy movie of which part one is about the historical reality of Jesus. Never mind the movie, though. Here, Tim Callahan explains - in a factual and detached manner - what the evidence says about whether Jesus of Nazareth was a real person or one of fiction.

        Was there a real Jesus? While the historical evidence is meager, it does exist. In his Antiquities of the Jews, book 20, chapter 9, item 1, referring to the execution of James, Josephus refers to him as the brother of “Jesus, who was called the Christ.” It is quite plain that Josephus didn’t see Jesus as the Christ (Christos, the Greek word meaning “anointed”), he merely recorded that James’ brother was the Jesus who had been called or was alleged to be the Christ.
        Beyond this scrap, valuable though it is, we can imply the existence of a historical Jesus from the criteria of embarrassment and difficulty. The criterion of embarrassment says that people do not make up embarrassing details about someone they wish to revere. So, if they say such things about the person, they are probably true. Now let’s apply this to what the Roman historian Tacitus had to say about Jesus early in the second century. Concerning rumors that had spread that Nero had deliberately set fire to the city of Rome, Tacitus says (The Annals of Imperial Rome, Book 1, Chapter 15):

To suppress this rumor, Nero fabricated scapegoats — and punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved Christians (as they were called). Their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius’ reign by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilatus. But in spite of this temporary setback the deadly superstition had broken out afresh, not only in Judea (where the mischief had started) but even in Rome. All degraded and shameful practices collect and flourish in the capitol.

        That Tacitus is obviously a hostile witness makes it much more likely that he accepted Jesus as a real person. Had he reason to suspect he was nothing more than a fabrication, Tacitus would certainly have said so. That author’s claim that Jesus had been executed by Pontius Pilate could only have come from one of two possible sources: Either Tacitus knew this to be true from extant imperial records or he was repeating what Christians themselves had said of Jesus. Were Jesus a mythical character they had invented, they certainly wouldn’t have gone out of their way to invent his being a criminal who had been executed.
        In like manner, people do not go out of their way to invent difficulties for a character they have invented. It is clear from the Nativity narratives of the gospels of Matthew and Luke that they were faced with having to explain why Jesus grew up in Galilee if he was born in Bethlehem. Both gospels had to invent rather convoluted means to get Jesus born in Bethlehem in accordance with the messianic prophecy in Micah 5:2, then get him moved to Nazareth. Clearly they were stuck with a real person known to have come from Galilee, when he should have come from Bethlehem. Had they been making Jesus up out of whole cloth, they would simply have said he came from Bethlehem: end of story, no complications. So the evidence for Jesus as a real, historical personage, though meager, is solid.