Both robust and evolvable

When the environment is stable, it's good to be robust against mutations. This is because all mutations in an adapted organism will be deleterious or neutral.

When the environment changes, being robust against mutations means that it is more difficult to adapt, so being robust is not good. This is because robust organisms have a hard time finding the mutations that lead to phenotypic change.

These two truisms are the basis for the suspicion that organisms that are mutational robust are less adaptable.

I an recent paper in Nature, Mutational robustness can facilitate adaptation, authors Draghi, Parsons, Wagner, and Plotkin demonstrate how this is not always true, contrary to the simple expectation. Being robust sometimes leads to higher evolvability.

Evolvability [wiki] Evolvability is one of these relatively new notions is evolutionary biology. The idea is that different populations (at any level) have an unequal ability to evolve. Some will be better able to respond to the changes in the environment that necessitate phenotypic change. The better able a population is to generate new, beneficial, heritable phenotypic change, the more evolvable it is. Note that Günter Wagner is sort of the godfather of evolvability, which by default makes you pay attention. (Don't confuse with Andreas Wagner, no relation, except Andreas was a student of Günter, and works on similar things.)

They investigate this problem using a very straightforward computational simulation, and compare the results with a not so straightforward mathematical model developed for the purpose. I will explain the former, and ignore the latter, except to say they find perfect agreement between the two.

Their model has just five easy parameters:

N - number of individuals in the population P - number of possible phenotypes K - number of phenotypes accessible by a single mutation from a given genotype q - the probability that a mutation is neutral μ - the probability that an offspring will have a new genotype (aka mutation rate)

P, K and μ describes the mutational neighborhood of each individual. If K=5 and q=0.4, then part of the network of genotypes could look like this:



The nodes represent different genotypes, and the colors are different phenotypes. If you are a red phenotype, there is a 40% chance that a mutation will produce a different genotype with the same phenotype. Under one of the assumptions made in the paper, all other phenotypes are lethal, meaning that if your offspring is blue, purple or green in the figure, then they don't survive. Life's hard, if you even get the chance.

They let the population evolve under the Moran model, which just means that every time-step one individual is chosen at random to have a offspring that then replaces one individual chosen at random (may be the parent). First they let the simulation run until the population has equilibrated on the neutral network of viable genotypes. The population thus spreads out over the network of different genotypes but identical phenotypes.

Once this equilibrium has been reached, they randomly choose just one other phenotype not on the neutral network to be the goal of adaptation (i.e. one non-red color), and then let the simulation go until an offspring finds this genotype. The adaptation time, the time from creating the goal genotype until it is found, τ_Δ, is their ad hoc measure of evolvability. Shorter time means higher evolvability.

The first expectation is that the more robust organisms are, the harder it will be for them to find the new genotype. In this experiment we would thus expect τ_Δ to be larger for more robust organisms, i.e. the larger q is.

However, what they find is that adaptation time is only a monotonic function of q when K=P, i.e. when the mutational neighborhood of each genotype is all possible phenotypes. In this case the goal phenotype can be reached with one mutation from any genotype. Thus, the more of the genotypes that are neutral (same phenotype), the higher the chance that a mutation will not find the goal phenotype with each mutation. In the figure below, this is the red curve, showing that adaptation time increases the more robust the organisms are, and that organisms with no robustness (q=0) are most evolvable.



But, when K is smaller than P, so each genotype is connected to fewer of the total number of phenotypes, then the shortest adaptation times are for q>0, or an intermediate amount of robustness. The smaller K/P is, the larger the optimal amount of robustness is (the minimum adaptation time shifts to the right as K/P decreases).

What they don't discuss in the article is how for any level of robustness, the most evolvable organisms are those with a higher K/P ratio. In other words, whatever q is, the larger the fraction of the total number of phenotypes that are accessible by a single mutation, the shorter the average adaptation time will be. I then wonder if the K/P ratio is something that organisms can evolve to optimize as well. Obviously K=P is highly unrealistic - expecting all phenotypes to be one mutation away would be idiotic, but perhaps it is a variable that selection could act on?

Comments
This is a very nice result, neatly delivered, and very nice to know. But...

Why is it in Nature, is what I want to ask? The abstract begins this way:

Robustness seems to be the opposite of evolvability. If phenotypes are robust against mutation, we might expect that a population will have difficulty adapting to an environmental change, as several studies have suggested[1, 2, 3, 4]. However, other studies contend that robust organisms are more adaptable[5, 6, 7, 8].

That is, while four studies have suggested the naïve expectation, four others contend that robustness does not need to mean less evolvable. This study then makes it clear that... well, what I just said, but given all the trouble that researchers have getting their manuscripts accepted in Nature, it seems odd that they would publish this one. For example, one paper from 2007 by Andreas Wagner, Robustness and evolvability: a paradox resolved, who writes this in the abstract:

I here resolve this tension [between robustness and evolvability] using RNA genotypes and their secondary structure phenotypes as a study system.

(...)

A consequence is that finite populations of sequences with a robust phenotype can access large amounts of phenotypic variation while spreading through a neutral network.

Sounds exactly the same to me.

But, I am thrilled whenever I see studies on evolutionary simulations published in Nature, because I hope to have something published there one day myself. Even if I have to do the math.


Reference
Draghi JA, Parsons TL, Wagner GP, & Plotkin JB (2010). Mutational robustness can facilitate adaptation. Nature, 463 (7279), 353-5 PMID: 20090752

Allergies you wouldn't have predicted

Looking over the submissions to Carnival of Evolution, I notice quite a few entries that aren't about evolution, typically about online universities. They won't make it into the carnival (hosted this coming Monday on Skeptic Wonder), but some of them are quite delightful reads nonetheless.

Like this one that lists twenty more or less weird allergies, like water, vibrations, underwear, sex, pressure, sweat. By far the weirdest and worst allergy is:

20. Every food and drink except water

A condition so rare medical science has yet to apply a name to it, much media attention has been dedicated to children so hypersensitive to the world around them that water remains one of the only things incapable of instigating an allergic reaction. Kaleb Bussenschutt is one such case. His diet consists of water, ice, and one specific brand of lemonade, and he must receive the proper nutrients necessary to live through a tube that feeds directly into his stomach. Eating anything else results in agonizing stomach pain and cramps. Bussenschutt gets along physically as a result of 20 hours a day on the feeding tube (it stows away in a backpack so he may move about and be active, but due to extreme rarity of his disorder and the subsequent lack of available research subjects, no cure has yet to surface.

Imagine that. No freaking food for your entire life. How sad is that?

Why I will not read Darwin

The NCSE emailed its supporters with a reminder that Darwin Day 2010 is just two weeks away.

Are you recovered from 2009's celebrations of the bicentennial of Darwin's birth and the sesquicentennial of the publication of On the Origin of Species? Good, because less than a month remains before Darwin Day 2010!

(...) on or around February 12, in honor of the life and work of Charles Darwin. These events provide a marvelous opportunity not only to celebrate Darwin's birthday but also to engage in public outreach about science, evolution, and the importance of evolution education.

I think it's great to celebrate Darwin. Let's.

I don't know what's happening in my area around February 12th, but on the 7th I'm going to this:

Eric Scott, Curator of Paleontology at the San Bernardino County Museum, will be speaking on "Darwin and Design" at 2:00 p.m. on February 7 at the San Bernardino County Museum in Redlands.

It does feel funny, though, to get all hyped up about Darwin again, with the big celebration of his 200th birthday and the 150th anniversary of The Origin just over.

I am an evolutionary biologist (or trying to be), and yet I have never read Darwin. And I don't particularly plan to, either. I firmly suspect a large fraction of evolutionary biologists would reprimand me for saying so. After all, he really was the prime initiator of evolutionary biology as we accept it today.

So I have a question: Can you be a successful evolutionary biologist without ever having read Darwin?

Why not?

I have an M.S. in physics, and yet I have never read Newton. Or Kelvin. Or Maxwell. Or Einstein. Actually, I may have read his 1905 paper on special relativity, but the point is that physics have come a long way since those guys. That's not to say that they are of no relevance, just that the core of their work has been written a thousand times over in books, and these are the ones that are read in university. No sane professor of physics would argue that you must read Principia to understand classical mechanics.

So I haven't read Darwin, and yet I think I understand natural selection and common descent just fine. What i specifically plan to avoid is becoming one of those distinguished evolutionary biologists who give talks and interviews explaining how it is important to read Darwin, because already back then he touched upon many salient features of evolution.

Evolutionary biology is moving forward at speeds faster than ever before. The integration of many areas of biology into evolution (developmental bio, ecology, molecular bio, genetics, paleontology, taxonomy, biogeography, conservation, computational bio, systems bio) is the cause of this success. Frankly, there are too many other books and papers that must be read to keep up. I don't have time for Darwin.

So shoot me.

Evolution is no more unlikely than development

Here is an excellent argument why the fact that we do not yet understand how something really complex evolved is not a good argument that it did not evolve.

If you argue that it's very, very unlikely for complex biological structure to originate by evolution, then it is similarly very, very unlikely that the same complex structure can develop from a single cell.

Development is a most amazing process, and Dr. Louis' argument is that the only difference in believing that something as complex as the bacterial flagellum can develop vs. believing that it could evolve, is that we can actually see that it can develop, while we don't get to see it evolve.

Flagellum develops in bacteria all the time, as we speak, but it already evolved, so we don't get to verify that directly. And yet, suppose we were not able to see it develop over and over, then we should consider it just as unlikely that it develops by natural processes, as some people consider it unlikely that it evolved by natural processes.



If you are into the more theological aspects of this discussion, I suggest you go to BioLogos to get your fix, you freaking junkie.

Trapping mice in Scotland

If I had the time, here is a volunteer job I'd really like to take.

Volunteer wanted for 5 weeks from 5th March 2010, to help with live trapping of field mice on St Kilda (map), a small archipelago 180km off the west coast of Scotland.

Responsibilities consist of helping to set up trapping grids on remote parts of the island, prepping and cleaning traps, handling mice and recording data. You will be living as part of a small group of researchers in restored cottages on the remotest field site in the British Isles; the accommodation is fairly basic but the scenery is spectacular! A great opportunity to acquire small mammal field experience.

You must be available for the full duration of the field work, and should have a background in biological sciences. A good level of fitness and head for heights are essential, as the field work will involve carrying heavy equipment packs over steep and precipitous terrain in all weathers (and we do mean all weathers!).

Helicopter flights between St Kilda and Benbecula (Outer Hebrides) will be provided, as will food and board whilst on St Kilda. Reasonable travel expenses within Scotland will also reimbursed.

To apply for this volunteer position, please send a CV and covering letter, plus details of two referees who can be contacted at short notice by email to: Tom Black (t.w.black@sms.ed.ac.uk).

O'Reilly on Oprah on Denmark

In this Culture Warriors segment Bill O'reilly and his warriors talk about Oprah's visit to my home town Copenhagen, Denmark.

• Oprah is told that the government does not pay 90 percent of your salary for four years when you become unemployed. That is FALSE.
• O'Reilly suggest the average income tax is 75 percent if you earn good money. That is FALSE. No one pays that much, and it is rare that anyone pays over 50 percent.

The reason for O'Reilly's and his co-hosts' annoyance is that the Danes are touted, as has been shown, as being the the happiest people on Earth (PDF). While I personally would take that finding with a grain of salt, it is clear that the relatively high taxes that the Danes pay do afford them a lot of good services:

• Free health care for everyone (without exception).
• Free education.

You can graduate from high school, and go to university without ever paying for tuition and fees. You do have to pay for your books, but if your parents earn below a certain limit, you are also eligible for a small stipend while you study. I got this, as most students I know did, and it was enough for me to live on (I did pay very low rent, and ate little else than beer).

But that isn't to say that there aren't lots and lots of problems in Denmark. We do have poor people, homeless people, gang-wars, crime, suicides, etc.

Their argument against raising taxes to provide health care is that Denmark is a country of 5.5 million people, while there are over 300 million in the US, and therefore it can't work the same way. But why not? If everyone's taxes are raised, surely there would be enough money to pay for it. I know Americans don't like the idea of raising taxes, but I posit that's because they don't know how much it would benefit them personally, as well as the country as a whole*. I strongly suspect that everything in America would be improved in the long run if American's (and the legal aliens like myself) didn't have to worry whether they can get the health-care they need. It would have repercussions far beyond the health benefits alone.

Anyway, the level of seriousness drops below some low threshold when O'Reilly says that he isn't so sure if the Danes were perpetuating happiness when the Vikings were raping and beheading his ancestors in Ireland.

* That isn't to say that the Danes don't complain about paying taxes. They do. Constantly. Of course, the more so the more conservative their political views are.

My Kevin Bacon number is 3

Yeeeeeeeeees! I have a Kevin Bacon number!!!

3.

Bjorn Ostman was in 777 (2007)
     with
Blake Sherman was in Edmond (2005)
     with
Mena Suvari was in Beauty Shop (2005)
     with
Kevin Bacon

I so totally rule.

Find your own at The Oracle of Bacon.

---

Update evening:
You can also check your Erdös number. Mine is 5. And yes, these numbers matter very much. They are the measure of my worth as a person, no less. And yours.

Evolution highlights XIII

I have just started to subscribe to the RSS from ScieneDaily, and it is a treasure trove. It's great if you don't have the time to read the journal papers, plus it's free. Here's a few from today:

'Microraptors' Shed Light on Ancient Origin of Bird Flight

Indeed, the KU-China team's work provides such strong support for the trees-down model for the origin of avian flight that the alternative terrestrial (ground up) origin now may be abandoned.

I still like the ground up theory a lot.

In Bats and Whales, Convergence in Echolocation Ability Runs Deep

The discovery represents an unprecedented example of adaptive sequence convergence between two highly divergent groups and suggests that such convergence at the sequence level might be more common than scientists had suspected.

Value of Sexual Reproduction Versus Asexual Reproduction

The study looked at sexual, as well as asexual, varieties of a New Zealand freshwater snail (left), Potamopyrgus antipodarum, by sequencing mitochondrial genomes and found that the sexually reproducing snails had accumulated harmful DNA mutations at about half the rate of the asexual snails.

[John M. Logsdon, blogging at Sex, Genes & Evolution is a co-author on this one.]

The above experiment shows what many people have been suspecting for a long time, namely that sex is great (!) because it helps remove deleterious mutations. That doesn't mean that cloning yourself once in a while isn't acceptable, as in sharks:

Study of Shark Virgin Birth Shows Offspring Can Survive Long Term

"Examination of highly variable sections of the genome prove that these young sharks had no father," Feldheim said. "These findings are remarkable because they tell us that some female sharks can produce litters of offspring without ever having mated with a male.

Lastly, in non-evolution news, I used to say I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous, but now I'm not so sure anymore:

Mixed-Handed Children More Likely to Have Mental Health, Language and Scholastic Problems

Around one in every 100 people is mixed-handed. The study looked at nearly 8,000 children, 87 of whom were mixed-handed, and found that mixed-handed 7 and 8-year old children were twice as likely as their right-handed peers to have difficulties with language and to perform poorly in school.

The brain is the most curious thing, innit?

And that reminds me of a great entry in the Urban Dictionary: innit.

General positive exclamation meaning "yes, I agree!"
1. "Hey dere's some pigs in dat cop car over there innit?"
"Yo look at my new car innit!"

these words are used by individuals who use all three brain cells to create speech that in virtually incoherent.
Townie 1: Fuck, innit.
Townie 2: Innit
Etc.

These chav-bashers are cunts, innit?

Townie: An' ah was like at the club wit' ma mates innit
Smi: You go clubbing?
Townie: Yeah innit
Rabson: You're only 12!
Townie: Yeah innit don't ya mate?
Smi: No...
Townie: Oh ma God-a like! I can't believe ya don't go clubbin' innit!

A chav in a box - preferably a coffin.
(In a rather high-brow British accent, upon coming across a chav funeral) Hurrah, another of those bastards innit!

I'm not sure (and don't care) what a chav is, but the whole thing just cracks me up, innit

Group selection lectures

Is natural selection at the group level an important evolutionary force? is the question asked to Stuart West, Samir Okasha, Herbert Gintis, and Mark Pagel.

It's a controversial topic, as some scientists think it is a much underrated and important level at which selection can act, while others are dismissive, saying that it cannot occur. That's a nice way to polarize the arguments, I think.

Here's West with an argument that the whole debate is overrated:



West points out that i) inclusive fitness is the theory that can be and, indeed, has been used to study what we might call group selection, and ii) that group adaptation does not generally occur. In other words, he notes that the issue of whether group selection occurs was solved a long time ago, and needn't be controversial anymore.

"Slimemolds are much more altruistic than humans are" - Stuart West.

Also see the videos of the talks by Herbert Gintis, Mark Pagel, and Samir Okasha.

In the end the four of them gathered for a panel discussion - which I haven't watched yet (it's hard to find 74 minutes available for that) - but I am certain it will be a great show.

Swans divorce

Fascinating, fascinating story about a couple of married swans who divorced each other and then both remarried other swans.

First suspicions of the rare event were raised when male swan Sarindi turned up in the annual migration from Arctic Russia without his partner of two years Saruni and with a new female - newly-named Sarind - in tow.

The pair's arrival led conservationists to fear the worst for Saruni.

But shortly afterwards Saruni arrived at the wetlands site - also with a new mate, Surune.

And after observing them, the experts discovered the old relationship had ended and new ones had begun.

Sad and uplifting at the same time. Also, the parallel to humans is intriguing. Did they perhaps stop loving each other? I have, by the way, been blessed watching a couple of swans in Copenhagen caressing or dancing (or...?). They were necking, and I was spellbound. They looked like they were in love.

As for why they may have split, she said: "Failure to breed could be a possible reason, as they had been together for a couple of years but had never brought back a cygnet, but it is difficult to say for sure."

Not unheard of in humans, either, I suppose.

Massimo's fixes for the US democracy

Gotta read this great post by Massimo Pigliucci about how to fix the American democratic system.

And elections should take place over two days and on weekends, to maximize participation. Still, if we could get through the five points above, the US would truly be a remarkable democracy, though still not “the best.” Instead, it is rotting away, and the stench is becoming unbearable.

British bomb detectors finally banned

Dowsing rods as bomb detectors in Iraq?!? If you haven't read about this yet, you must hurry over to Bruce M. Hood's blog, SuperSense (yet another of those blogs named after the author's book - I fully expect to write a book on pleiotropy when I go on sabbatical). It's a fantastic tale with tragic consequences, unbelievable levels of gullibility, shameless criminals, and ultimate justice.

Clearly this was pseudo-scientific babble. To my eyes, the ADE651 was a sophisticated looking dowsing rod, and yet the company ATSC Ltd that made them had already sold £50million worth of these devices to the Iraqis and had just secured another major contract.

I guarantee you this will end up as a movie-script one day.

I just found this on youtube:



Looks like a parody, and the company doesn't appear to be the same. In this video it's called Prosec, but Jom McCormick's company is ATSC. Here's one by ATSC:

... go together like pigs and whiskey

Heh! Yeah, they go together like pigs and whiskey.

Click to see the bartender's answer. I never quite thought about it like that.

Most awesome Rickroll ever

I just love the look on the face of the guy holding the Bible. Complete incomprehension.

McCain puts up his arms

John McCain is chock full of it. He just sent me an email about Scott Brown's victory:

His victory sent a strong message that you and I have long known - Americans are furious with the liberal leadership in Washington. Their out of control spending and proposed takeover of health care are destructive to our country and we must continue to fight against it.

I look forward to welcoming Scott as a colleague when he comes to Washington to join our battle against runaway spending and government run health care. But, unfortunately, there is now talk of Democrats employing Washington D.C. political games to move their agenda forward regardless of the people's will. [Emphasis added.]

Gimme a breakus, you fossil! You campaigned on the idea that the war in Iraq could continue for 100 years, and we all know how expensive that would be, and for what reasons (look up Haliburton). As for people's will, note that there are 41

New season of lovely skeptic-lectures

Kick me if the Skeptics Society hasn't managed to schedule some very interesting talks this spring. For example:

Natural Experiments of History with Dr. Jared Diamond
Sunday, February 28, 2010 at 2 pm.

and

Does God have a Future?
A debate between Deepak Chopra & Jean Houston v. Michael Shermer & Sam Harris.
Sunday, March 14, 2010 at 2 pm.

I don't know Jean Houston, but Deepak Chopra is of course completely insane (or, at least going for the ride pretending to be). I have never heard Harris speak live, so I might just go to this.

---

Update 1/25:
I just reserved two tickets to the March 14 debate. Yeah! I don't have anybody I would imagine would want to join me, but I was recommended to reserve all I'll need because they were down to 100 out of 1100 tickets already. Anybody in need of a ticket?

Scientia Pro Publica #19 is up

Scientia Pro Publica, the science blog carnival, has a new edition up at Deep Thoughts and Silliness, and it has several posts on evolution.

For example, in The Non-Line Between Life and Not-Life Andrew Bernardin argues that prions are fuzzying the boundary between life and non-life, because of the observation that prions can evolve. However, this assumes first that life is well defined by that which evolves, which I think it very not true. Lots of other things can evolve that we would not call life, like strings of numbers in a computer, inorganic molecules, and memes. And, much like memes, prions don't really reproduce. They are expressed by mammalian genes, and are found all over in our bodies. The prions that cause disease are misfolded. A misfolded protein can induce misfolding in a properly folded prion by a method that still isn't quite well understood, and while it is beneficial to think of this as reproduction, and really is more like a cultural propagation of ideas. Or a game of tag.

Not that I think the line between life and non-life isn't fuzzy, though.

Gerald Joyce also includes the capability to evolve as a necessary component in his definition of life, which I disagree with, though he doesn't say it is a sufficient condition, at least.

Here are two previous posts with links to new articles about prions: Evolution highlights VII and X.

Scott who wins senate seat in MA?

Republican Scott Brown takes the MA seat in the senate after Ted Kennedy, who called the overhaul of the health care system the cause of his life, and yet Brown, who plans to oppose the bill, still has the nerve to aspire to be a worthy successor:

And he effusively praised Mr. Kennedy as a big-hearted, tireless worker, and said that he hoped to prove a worthy successor to him.

Fuck you too, Brown.

Do we have any idea why 52% of the voters would vote to endanger the health care bill? Let's see:

Although the race has riveted the nation largely because it was seen as contributing to the success or defeat of the health care bill, the potency of the issue for voters here was difficult to gauge. That is because Massachusetts already has near-universal health coverage, thanks to a law passed when Mitt Romney, a Republican, was governor.

Thus Massachusetts is one of the few states where the benefits promised by the national bill were expected to have little effect on how many of its residents got coverage, making it an unlikely place for a referendum on the health care bill.

Ah, but of course. Spending all that money wouldn't benefit Bay Staters anyway. Nothing decides like selfishness.

Oh well. 30 million of the poorest Americans will now have to look elsewhere for health care, I suppose.

Moralistic fallacy to the left of me, naturalistic fallacy to the right...

Somehow I find it tacky to blog about other blogs - the navel-starring just gets to me. However, I have been unable to forget evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa's post, Two logical fallacies that we must avoid: If what I say offends you, it is your problem, about the naturalistic and the moralistic fallacies.

Both are logical fallacies, and they get in the way of progress in science in general, and in evolutionary psychology in particular. However, as [Matt] Ridley astutely points out, political conservatives are more likely to commit the naturalistic fallacy (“Nature designed men to be competitive and women to be nurturing, so women ought to stay home to take care of the children and leave politics to men”), while political liberals are equally likely to commit the moralistic fallacy (“The Western liberal democratic principles hold that men and women ought to be treated equally under the law, and therefore men and women are biologically identical and any study that demonstrates otherwise is a priori false”).

Really? This is true? Assuming it is (and wit that I am free from having to actually look it up ;), that's pathetic. I count myself as a liberal in America (in Denmark I would not, as the political spectrum is different), but the moralistic fallacy is so absurd that I swear I would never commit it in a thousand years*. It's not that I would commit the naturalistic fallacy either, but I'd like to argue that it isn't quite as batshit insane in its logic as the moralistic fallacy. I mean, what is real could be imagined to have a bearing on how we view life, the universe, and everything, but how we view that could never ever in any way affect what is real.

The big difference in committing these two logical fallacies is that the naturalistic fallacy (in this context equal to the is/ought fallacy [see a discussion of that in Massimo Pigliucci's blog, Rationally Speaking]) at least makes it explicit that the (wrong) step from what is to what ought to be is made. The moralistic fallacy, as much as I have identified it in arguments, is never made explicit, and is therefore much more (... dangerous is a strong word, so thank the saurus) pestilential (I love it!). The view of how things ought to be is sort of kept secret (because as people aspiring to be rational, we all know that this should have no bearing on an argument about what is), and will of course be vociferously denied in case it is identified by any of those pesky republicans (or well-meaning but naive liberal scientists):

Since academics, and social scientists in particular, are overwhelmingly left-wing liberals, the moralistic fallacy has been a much greater problem in academic discussions of evolutionary psychology than the naturalistic fallacy. Most academics are above committing the naturalistic fallacy, but they are not above committing the moralistic fallacy. The social scientists’ stubborn refusal to accept sex and race differences in behavior, temperament, and cognitive abilities, and their tendency to be blind to the empirical reality of stereotypes, reflect their moralistic fallacy driven by their liberal political convictions.

It is actually very easy to avoid both fallacies – both leaps of logic – by simply never talking about what ought to be at all and only talking about what is. It is not possible to make either the naturalistic or the moralistic fallacy if scientists never talk about ought. Scientists – real scientists – do not draw moral conclusions and implications from the empirical observations they make, and they are not guided in their observations by moral and political principles. Real scientists only care about what is, and do not at all care about what ought to be. [Emphasis added.]

Here I am, then, going to have to disagree with Kanazawa. It is indeed possible to commit the moralistic fallacy without talking about ought, because political or ideological conviction need not be clarified for people to express what their conformation bias makes them conclude.

* Full disclosure: Last year I was accused of committing the naturalistic fallacy by two people who continues to commit the moralistic fallacy**. Isn't that ironic?

** Fuller disclosure: I am aware that that's my interpretation of written words, but do judge for yourself, and let me here what you have to say.

This just in: Evidence for Christianity

Finally, finally, someone has the evidence for Christianity. In I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, Norman Geisler and Frank Turek "builds the case from the ground up":

The authors include run-ins they've had with professors and debate opponents, making for an interesting read. The appendixes [sic], which feature a mock dialogue between a Christian and an atheist, are entertaining. The book covers all the important issues that this topic entails, from cosmology, life origins, evolution, morality, and a defense of the Bible.

No honest atheist can read this book without being impressed by the quality of the theistic arguments as presented by the authors. The objections of skeptics are confronted with confidence. Did it change my mind? It may have planted a seed.

Wait! It says confidence, not evidence. Sorry, my bad.

Right then, carry on. Nothing to see here.

(I truly misread that as evidence the first time around.)