thinkevolution.net

The original nerdy Philadelphian.

A couple months ago the NYTimes published an article about “nerdy” people in an East Village bar giving powerpoint presentations on things like intestinal fish tapeworms and light-sensitive robots. Nerd nite originated in Boston and has boasted such presentations as “Beyond ‘Simple Gifts’: the music of the Shakers” and “Cnidaria and Porifera: the socially misunderstood invertebrates.” We really, really need to get something like this going in Philadelphia. Maybe Geekadelphia can get on it?

Anyway the Times article opened with quite a hook (pun intended), aiming, I’m sure, to reel in the dweeb-inclined with a list of what really does have to be the nerdiest of all the creatures. “Pinworms. Flatworms. Roundworms. Fish tapeworms tens of meters long, inside someone’s intestine.” Gross! For those of you for whom this sounds awesome, I have it on good authority that someone may be talking about worms again soon in the East Village. This time the presentation will be on a bizarre copulatory plug phenomenon, in which male worms—which usually put the copulatory plug in the female vulva, where it belongs—sometimes put it on the heads of other males! Obviously, you don’t want to miss it.

Tiktaalik visiting the Leidy Biology building at UPenn during the filming of The Tiktaalik Song music video.

The University of Pennsylvania conducts something called the Penn Reading Project each fall for incoming first-year undergrads. Each student reads (or is supposed to read) an assigned book, and faculty from all different departments in the university host small-group discussions.

This year the book is Your Inner Fish: A Journey Into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body, by (former Penn professor!) Neil Shubin. Shubin co-discovered Tiktaalik, a 375 million year old amphibious fish.

Spicing up this year’s reading project is… a music video about Tiktaalik! The Ohio band The Indoorfins was commissioned to write a song about this transitional fossil, its discovery by Shubin, its participation in the Penn Reading Project… The whole thing is pretty wild. Check out the video here. Warning: the refrain is really catchy.

Lots of people don’t believe in evolution, and some of them are pretty influential. Here’s an update to the previous list of famous people who… you know.

Got a tip? Leave a comment!

Ron Paul, Congressman (R, Texas)

Video of the Spartanburg (SC) GOP Executive Committee meeting, November 1, 2007

Thomas Robb, national director of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan

“The Trap is Set,” blog post by Thomas Robb, April 24, 2008

Ben Stein, actor (Famous line: “Bueller? …Bueller? …Bueller?”)

“Ben Stein to Battle Darwin in Major Film,” World Net Daily, September 28, 2007

Claude Vorilhon, founder of the Raelian Church

Raelian Movement website

John Boehner, House Minority Leader (R, Ohio)

Judd Gregg, Senator (R, New Hampshire)

Rick Santorum, former Senator (R, Pennsylvania)

Letter to the Discovery Institute (PDF) asserting Congress’ position that students should learn about theories other than evolution, in reference to their support of the Santorum Ammendment to the No Child Left Behind Act

Ronald Reagan, former President of the United States

“God, Satan and the Media,” The New York Times, March 4, 2003

Reverend Sun Myung Moon, Founder and leader of the Unification Church

Chapter 1: The Principle of Creation, from the Divine Principle, the main theological text of the Unification Church

Ted Nugent, musician

“Vegans, Keep Out: It’s Hunting Season,” The New York Times, September 27, 2005

Grover Norquist, lobbyist

“Conservatives and Evolution,” The New Republic, July 7, 2005

Pat Buchanan, politician and The American Conservative co-founder

“Conservatives and Evolution,” The New Republic, July 7, 2005

Sherri Shepherd, The View co-host

The View television clip

(more…)

Today on Hullabaloo, tristero writes an affectionate post about the marvelousness of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species. It’s cool to see interest and enthusiasm for this work outside of science media. The inspiration came from Olivia Judson’s piece in the The Times, which confesses that lots of biologists haven’t actually read it. Both posts are appeals to correct that. I’d like to add another argument to theirs: the most impressive thing about The Origin is Darwin’s staggering amount of observation and inference, and its explanatory power is a delight to non-scientists and a thrill for modern biologists.

The Origin is one of the most important theoretical accomplishments in science, yet it is entirely accessible to lay readers. This simply doesn’t happen anymore. In fact, Darwin’s entire process would be unusual today. Although he did some tinkering, particularly by breeding animals, Darwin was not really an experimentalist. Mostly he was a naturalist: he kept his eyes open, recorded everything, and synthesized it all to produce his cohesive—and largely correct—theory of natural selection. Now, experiments, often complicated and expensive experiments, test hypotheses. (This is called the scientific method.) Even observational studies are formally executed, with carefully circumscribed parameters—and certainly they are published that way, unlike Darwin’s creative assemblage of facts, insights and conjectures. But even as hypotheses are carefully chosen and experiments painstakingly designed, the ultimate synthesis still takes place in the brain. Darwin’s beloved book will always be relevant, because it is an inspirational reminder to keep the breadth of observation as wide as possible.

On the January 14 Colbert Report, Stephen Colbert interviewed Neil Shubin. He’s an evolutionary biologist and one of the discoverers of Tiktaalik, that fish with legs that crawled out of the ocean 375 million years ago.

Stephen Colbert: Your book has a provocative title. It’s called Your Inner Fish: A Journey Into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body. Now what the hell does that mean! I do not have a fish inside me.

Neil Shubin: Actually your body is organized a lot like a fish.

Stephen Colbert: What is it with evolutionary biologists that they just can’t let people think what they want about themselves?

Neil Shubin: Well, we’re constrained by the data!

Shubin has also published a thoughtful guest post on Pharyngula discussing his experience going on national TV.

Radio Times host Marty Moss-Coane interviewed Michael Shermer again today. In his new book, The Mind of the Market: Compassionate Apes, Competitive Humans and Other Tales from Evolutionary Economics, he argues that the emotional decisions we make about money can be explained by evolutionary psychology—or by a new science called “evolutionary economics.”

In the interview, Shermer discussed how decisions about money often violate the expectation of straightforward financial gain. These decisions may appear ethical: in 1983, the US International Trade Commission imposed a 45% tariff on imported motorcycles to protect the employees of the American-based Harley Davidson company. Or they may be irrational: a stockholder may refuse to sell a declining stock because desperation makes him hope the original value will be regained. The interview included virtually no discussion of evolution or how research in evolutionary biology supports the psychology Shermer describes. I haven’t read the book, but it seems to me that “evolutionary economics” is really “why we put our money where we put it.” But of course, anything with “evolution” in the title is going to get much more attention!

Michael Shermer is the founder and publisher of Skeptic magazine, columnist for Scientific American and founder of the Skeptics Society. Marty Moss-Coane is the host of Radio Times, a daily radio show from NPR radio station WHYY, 90.9 FM in Philadelphia, PA. You can listen to this show from the Radio Times archive.

According to Salon’s Broadsheet blog, I’m not the only graduate student frustrated by portrayals of scientific discoveries in the popular media. Anthropology student Allison Sherrill indicts MSNBC for spinning news from an archaeological dig into an entirely new story. Discovery of a small female figurine dressed in clothing prompted the MSNBC journalist to cry, “Prehistoric women had a passion for fashion.” The truth, in Sherrill’s words:

This type of news coverage typically frustrates archaeologists. Unfortunately very common — in order to make a better story, the media frequently portray a very tentative conclusion as well-supported truth, and furthermore, those hypotheses are often twisted into a meaning that the archaeologist never intended. In this case, some figurines that portray women in some kind of costume have been spun into a sweeping conclusion about women’s innate love to shop. The article even mentions that the archaeologists felt that their most important find had to do with early copper production, but obviously, that headline does not look nearly as exciting (or maybe they just couldn’t think of one that rhymed?).

A post over at Movering reports something annoying.

Edmunds Scientific, a company that sells “the latest and most unique science related items available,” has a rather gendered perspective on their consumer market. They’ve got a pull-down menu from which online shoppers can select “Gifts for Girls” or “Gifts for Boys.” No surprise here: the girl options include make-your-own makeup kits and some kind of scientific spa apparatus, the boy options include lots of blammo-type weaponry. This company is not a typical toy store: they say they manufactured a critical component used to record the Apollo landings, and now boast high-quality scientific products for hobbyists of all ages.

I would have been one indignant 8-year-old if I had received the “Creative Cosmetics Kit,” but maybe it’s not entirely reprehensible that someone is manufacturing kiddie makeup as science. (Is it?) But why impose gender categories for things like a personal planetarium (boy) or a rock tumbler (girl)? As Emily on Movering says, it’s offensive, coming from a company invested in getting young people excited about science. Join us and write them a letter saying so.

This week The New York Times published an article by Nicholas Wade entitled “Is ‘Do Unto Others’ Written in Our Genes?” It reads like a parody of science writing, it’s so full of flimsy logic. Of course it’s just the latest article among many (e.g. 1,2,3) that have inappropriately invoked adaptive explanations for complex human characteristics.

The article describes the views of Jonathan Haidt, a psychologist at the University of Virginia who researches human emotions and morality. Haidt proposes that our morality is rooted in two fundamental structures, one “ancient” and one “modern.” Through cross-cultural research, he has also concluded that human morality is based on five moral systems, which may vary in importance but appear fundamental across most cultures. Some cultures emphasize the rights of the individual, for example, while others reinforce group cohesiveness. All this sounds interesting and enlightening, until the argument is overextended… and these moral structures become adaptations. “Religious behavior may be the result of natural selection,” according to Haidt, and “‘Those who found ways to bind themselves together were more successful.’” Haidt also claims that the “ancient” and “modern” moral structures evolved independently in humans, at different points in our history: before and after the emergence of language. Interesting speculation, but where’s the evidence?

To be honest, I’m more frustrated with the NYT’s Nicholas Wade than I am with Haidt. I haven’t read Haidt’s research, so he very well may have been careful to explain the potential evolutionary implications to his anthropological and psychological findings. But consider the opening paragraph in the article:

Where do moral rules come from? From reason, some philosophers say. From God, say believers. Seldom considered is a source now being advocated by some biologists, that of evolution.

What biologists? Wade does not cite a single biologist, let alone an evolutionary biologist, in the article. For shame! This is downright inaccurate reporting.

So what’s the big deal? Two points. First, evolutionary biology is an actual field, in which empirical data are collected and theory is developed. Science has a method, in which hypotheses are formed and tested; you can’t just make up your own, convenient as it might be. This process generates evidence, which can support a claim. Without evidence, it is not science. Second, evolution is contentious in the public sphere. And small wonder! Haidt’s claims on the role of religion in human evolution—such as they might be—are absolutely, positively, not science (and not the first we’ve heard, either). Yet to a lay reader, the claim that morality is an evolutionary adaptation, proposed by someone with an academic degree and covered enthusiastically in the NYT science section, may seem like a perfectly legitimate representation of contemporary evolutionary theory. It’s not! Let’s not confuse titillating speculation with science, lest the power of basic science research to explain the world around us be destroyed.

According to a May 2007 Gallup poll, 49% of Americans believe in evolution, 48% do not and 2% have no opinion. Still, I find it startling every time I hear about another person who doesn’t. Evidently I’m wrestling with my own issues of mulish blockheadedness. Anyway, although hearing about ordinary people who don’t believe in evolution makes me die inside, finding out about famous people who don’t believe in evolution is entertaining. So let’s start a list.

Got a tip? Leave a comment!

Chuck Norris, action hero

“On Chuck Norris ‘mania’ sweeping the net,” article by Chuck Norris, World Net Daily, October 23, 2006

Kirk Cameron, actor

The Way of the Master video

Jeffrey Dahmer, serial killer

MSNBC television interview, July 11, 2007

Deepak Chopra, guru

“Intelligent Design Without the Bible,” blog post by Deepak Chopra, The Huffington Post, August 23, 2005

Mel Gibson, actor

Interview in Playboy, July 1995

George W. Bush, president

“For Bush, His Toughest Call Was the Choice to Run at All,” New York Times, October 29, 2000

Elisabeth Hasselbeck, The View co-host

Interview in Today’s Christian, July/August 2006

Charlton Heston, actor

The Mysterious Origins of Man video (read Skeptical Inquirer review here)

Pope Benedict XVI

“Pope Weighs in on Creationism Controversy,” MSNBC.com, November 11, 2005

Sam Brownback, senator (R, Kansas) and 2008 presidential candidate

Mike Huckabee, governor of Arkansas and 2008 presidential candidate

Tom Tancredo, representative (R, Colorado) and 2008 presidential candidate

The May 3, 2007 GOP presidential candidates debate

John Thune, senator (R, South Dakota)

“The Gay War Rolls On,” Newsweek, July 26, 2004

Ann Coulter, maniac

Godless: The Church of Liberalism by Ann Coulter, published by Crown Forum