Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
Today is the third and last set of photos sent last week, so I am of course in need of more. Send ’em if you got ’em!
The photos today come from reader Jan Malik. Jan’s IDs and notes are indented, and you can enlarge his photo by clicking on them.
In August I had to go to one of Mexico’s southern states for work (the usual story of Americans taking the jobs of hard-working Mexicans). The 12-hour shifts left little time for photography, and only toward the end of my assignment did I manage to spend a full three hours in a small nature preserve. The preserve is maintained by a certain state-owned company with an effective monopoly on oil exploration and processing in Mexico. Soon after entering, I realized that the preserve might well have been a money-laundering enterprise, but nonetheless, I went ahead trying to find interesting arthropods.
The white peacock butterfly (Anartia jatrophae), with a damaged wing, which probably occurred during a not quite successful pupation or immediately after, when the wings are soft and pliable and can get entangled in the exuviae or vegetation:
A leaf-cutter ant from the genus Atta—as evidenced by the sharp spines growing from its thorax. This may be Atta mexicana:
They were busy stripping bare a nearby ficus tree, which from my observations is one of their preferred foods, with supple leaves and twigs that are easy to cut:
More precisely, ficus is not the ants’ food, but raw material for their underground gardens, where they farm and tend to a fungus growing on plant matter, then eat the special tissue produced by the fungus. The fungus (Leucoagaricus gongylophorus) has lost the ability to thrive on its own and depends entirely on the ants for survival. In fact, a leaf-cutter ant’s nest is a consortium of at least three symbiotic organisms—ants, fungus, and bacteria growing on the ants’ exoskeleton, which secrete antifungal compounds to protect the garden from parasitic infections:
These ants are vegetarians (and often dreaded agricultural pests), but occasionally they may collect other arthropods, like this unfortunate caterpillar, which is being carried to an underground nest to be used as fertilized for the fungus:
I first became interested in the small creatures that live unnoticed under our feet after reading, decades ago, a popular science book by Bert Hölldobler and Edward O. Wilson, “Journey to the Ants,” which I highly recommend. The same team also wrote “The Leafcutter Ants: Civilization by Instinct,” which is still on my reading list. Perhaps that book contains the clue to this picture – how two or more ants with such tiny brains can organize their work so they can carry items to their nest together:
Leaving the ants alone, I went deeper into a subtropical grove, where by accident I spotted a supremely camouflaged tree trunk spider (family Hersiliidae), possibly from the genus Neotama. It was perfectly flush with the tree trunk; in fact, after looking away from it for a moment, I had trouble spotting it again. Normally it would have two “tails,” actually elongated spinnerets, at the end of its abdomen, but one of them had broken off on this individual:
Trying to photograph the cryptic spider, I brushed against another tree nearby and something—I thought moss or dirt—broke off. But, seeing several insects milling about around that spot a moment later, it turned out to be an encased termite tunnel, a section of which I had just destroyed. By the look of these nasute soldiers, they are from the genus Nasutitermes (spinning the taxonomic roulette wheel, it may be Nasutitermes corniger). They are completely blind and the first to lay down their lives in defense of their nest, trying to squirt a sticky liquid from their nozzle-like heads to ensnare invaders:
The termite tunnel led to a large bulbous nest. Some birds, like trogons and parakeets, use these structures for nesting—they breach the relatively fragile walls constructed from chewed plant material, saliva, and feces, then let the insects do the hard work of sealing the broken internal runways, thus acquiring a climate-controlled, safe nesting place:
Looking closer, there were two termite castes that appeared at the breach in their fortified tunnel: nasute soldiers, the bodyguards of the colony, and workers, here visible with lighter-colored heads and functional mandibles, trying to mend the breach. They must do it quickly, or marauding ants will invade the nest. Usually, after a breach in the defenses is mended, some straggler soldiers are left outside to die:
There was no shortage of ants in that neighborhood, for a few trees away I saw some turtle ant workers (genus Cephalotes, but I don’t know the species). They acquired the moniker “turtle” because of the soldiers’ flat, armored heads, which they use to block the entrances to their tree nests. They seemed to proceed with their business more deliberately, not in the feverish hurry expected of ants:
Some of them appeared to be carrying their larvae or pupae in their mandibles. These arboreal ants can reportedly control their fall to land back on the tree trunk and safely stick the landing:
This is possibly the spotted red bug (Pachycoris klugii), but they are highly variable so I may be wrong:
This tiny (about 5 mm) larva is probably a species from the bagworm family (Psychidae), which if everything goes well pupates into a small moth. It was crawling slowly, turning its armored head around, searching for anything palatable. The protective case is made from its own silk and plant debris. Adult males are winged, but females of many species stay inside their protective cases for life:
Another arthropod was a common spinybacked orbweaver (Gasteracantha cancriformis). I might have seen this species in New Jersey, but definitely in Texas. Unlike many squishy spiders, this one has a tough carapace and spines, making it a difficult morsel to chew or swallow whole. Its bright color may be an honest, warning signal to predators not of a foul taste or toxicity, but of the risk of choking or throat damage
Leaving the preserve, I spotted this butterfly, which could be a glassy-winged skipper (Xenophanes tryxus). The whitish spots on its wings are actually semi-translucent:
The latest Jesus and Mo strip, “fifty”, is a good one, and refers to a BBC article excerpted below. The “pedophilia” question refers to Muhammad’s youngest wife, Aisha, whom he married when she was six. (When the marriage was actually consummated is a vigorously disputed subject.)
Here’s the note that came with the email:
Today’s strip is in response to a story about the revoked death sentence of a Saudi-based Sri Lankan man who insulted Mohammed on Facebook.
From the BBC story:
The case sent shockwaves through Sri Lanka, spurring diplomatic efforts to seek clemency
Saudi Arabia’s Supreme Court has set aside the death sentence handed to a Sri Lankan migrant worker over a comment he made on Facebook, Colombo’s Deputy Foreign Minister Arun Hemachandra said.
Anojan Sivarasa, 27, was sentenced to death in September after a Saudi appellate court convicted him of blasphemy against Islam and the Prophet Muhammad over his comment.
Saudi Arabia’s top court set aside the sentence on Wednesday, Hemachandra said in a post on Facebook, where he thanked the authorities and legal teams of both nations for their efforts.
In late June, footage of a young Muslim man kicking a dog following Hindu pilgrims circulated widely on social media, triggering religious arguments online.
During the exchange, a user posted derogatory remarks about a Hindu deity, leading Sivarasa to respond in Tamil insulting the Prophet Muhammad.
Although Sivarasa promptly deleted the comment and posted an apology video, a screenshot of it was brought to the attention of his employer and Saudi officials, leading to his arrest in July.
It is not clear if there will be further legal proceedings or whether Sivarasa will remain in detention, and for how long. He was initially sentenced to five years in prison as well as a fine of three million Saudi riyals ($0.8m; £0.6m) by the Al-Ahsa Criminal Court.
The death sentence came later, but is now revoked. It’s still ridiculous and barbaric treatment for insulting religion. I know of no other faith that would do something like this.
Oh, and the artist said this in his note to Patrons:
In other news, there’s a new Jesus & Mo book out! It’s a “best of” collection called The Chosen Ones – a selection of about 150 from 2005-2026. It would be a lovely Xmas present for the infidel in your life!
Also, if you wish to support J&M’s continued existence, please consider becoming a Patron. Just a dollar or two a month makes a difference.
Welcome to a Hump Day (“Ziua Cocoașei” in Romanian): Wednesday, October 14, 2026, and National Dessert Day, celebrating everyone’s favorite course. Here’s a fine treat of Hawaiian “shave ice” with matcha ice cream, sweet red beans, and vanilla ice cream on top and mochi on the side. Shave ice hasn’t made it to the mainland yet, but I remember that Obama loves it:
Readers are welcome to mark notable events, births, or deaths on this day by consulting the October 14 Wikipedia page.
Hili will be short today as I went to the eye doctor yesterday, consuming the time I usually use to prepare this feature. Bear with me (this could be the title of the photo above); I do my best.
Da Nooz:
*During an operation yesterday to remove a nodule from his lung, Pope Leo was diagnosed with lung cancer, and a portion of his lung was removed. He’s only 71–young for a Pope:
Pope Leo was diagnosed with lung cancer on Tuesday, and a lower lobe of his right lung was removed during surgery, the Vatican said in a statement.
It said an examination of a nodule during the operation had confirmed a diagnosis of lung adenocarcinoma. It said cancer had been “suspected by preoperative tests.”
The surgery itself lasted approximately 90 minutes, and the pope, 71, was in the operating room for about 3 hours. “The surgery was successful, and there were no complications,” the statement said.
The statement did not say whether the pope would undergo further treatment. A Vatican spokesman said that the statement spoke for itself.
On Wednesday, the Vatican issued a statement saying that the pope “had a restful night.”
Lung adenocarcinoma is a common form of lung cancer. Survival rates for it vary greatly depending on the stage of the cancer and a patient’s overall health.
The information released about Leo thus far seems to indicate he has early-stage lung cancer, which is typically treated with surgery and tends to have a very high survival rate, said Dr. Sudish Murthy, a thoracic surgeon at the Cleveland Clinic.
The surgery was performed at a hospital in Rome, the Policlinico A. Gemelli. The Vatican had said previously that Leo was expected to spend about a week recovering in the hospital after the surgery and that all audiences with him would be canceled until Oct. 20.
An oncologist interviewed on NBC News last night said that if the cancer was stage 1, no other treatment would ensue, but if it were 2 or 3, he would have other treatment: presumably radiation or chemotherapy. I don’t think it was stage 4, which has a dire prognosis.
Kimberly Guilfoyle resigned as the U.S. ambassador to Greece on Tuesday after the White House asked her to do so following a string of damaging reports, including that she had asked a Republican donor to pay off her credit card.
In response to a question from a reporter about Ms. Guilfoyle’s status, President Trump’s new press secretary, Katie Zacharia, said: “We have asked Ambassador Guilfoyle to resign. She has been a wonderful asset to the team, and we wish her well.”
Mr. Trump said Tuesday that Ms. Guilfoyle “was doing a good job” but that he “didn’t like what I read.” The president also downplayed his connection to Ms. Guilfoyle, who was once engaged to his oldest son, Donald Trump Jr.
“She wasn’t a member of my family,” he told reporters before leaving the White House for Alaska. “She, I guess, dated my son a long time ago.”
In a lengthy post on social media, Ms. Guilfoyle said that her time as ambassador was “coming to an end” and that she planned to “vigorously defend my name, my reputation, and my integrity.”
“I will not allow false accusations to define my decades of public service,” she wrote.
A donor, Eric Deters, first told The Wall Street Journal that Ms. Guilfoyle asked him to wire her $100,000 to pay off her American Express card just before her Senate confirmation hearing in July 2025. According to messages Mr. Deters provided to The New York Times, Ms. Guilfoyle promised to serve as his “ride or die in Trump world” if he sent her the money.
Ms. Guilfoyle was one of the first ambassadors to be nominated in the president’s second term. In Greece, she has been a highly visible ambassador, appearing on the cover of Vogue Greece and at parties around Athens. Ms. Guilfoyle told The Times last year that her active social life demonstrated her commitment to the job.
What Gilfoyle did was bribery, plain and simple: “I’ll put in a good word for him with Trump if you give me the money.” Now whether an ambassador to Greece can have a lot of influence with the President is dubious, but nobody should be allowed to serve after saying something like that. And she’s not particularly qualified, either, though lots of ambassadorships are offered merely as political plums.
Missile and drone attacks by Yemen’s Houthis over the weekend have Saudi Arabia reeling. The skies over Riyadh emptied after a Saturday strike on the international airport killed 13 and injured more than 300, and a Sunday attack killed one more. Now comes the test for U.S. policy.
Asked Saturday about joining Saudi strikes against the Houthis, President Trump said, “We may. We’re going to look at it.” Yet the last thing he seems to want before midterm elections is a military escalation. That hesitation may be what Iran and its Houthi militia proxies, whom it arms and finances, are counting on.
The U.S. could let the Saudis fend for themselves against the Iranian axis, but at great strategic cost. The region is watching what Washington will do when the cornerstone of its Gulf alliance system is under attack.
This doesn’t require a blank check for Riyadh, and U.S. interceptor shortages constrain what Mr. Trump can provide on defense. But this fight won’t be won on defense, continuing to play whack-a-mole with Houthi projectiles. That points to offense, where munitions stocks are healthier and U.S. help is needed to take out Houthi surface-to-air missiles.
Real-time U.S. intelligence support is more discreet but equally important. The Saudi-backed Yemeni government offensive already has the Houthis under pressure along Yemen’s western coast and Red Sea corridor, but it’s moving slowly.
The U.S. can also continue its diplomacy to rally a regional anti-Houthi coalition, including Israel and the United Arab Emirates. The Houthis threaten the region and international shipping, not only Saudi Arabia, and they operate as part of a larger Iranian strategy. Though Houthi-Saudi conflict predates the current Iran war, the war has put Saudi Arabia in the line of fire. Iran may believe it has identified the weak link in the U.S. regional alliance.
. . . . It didn’t have to be this way. The original Western error was to restrain the Saudi-Yemeni alliance when it had the Houthis on defense. Amid international humanitarian concerns over civilian casualties, a chance to defeat the Iranian proxy was missed in 2018 and 2019. In February 2021 the new Biden Administration cut off all support—arms, intelligence and logistics—for the anti-Houthi offensive.
To accommodate Iranian power, Joe Biden even lifted the Houthis’ terror designation. This for a group whose chant is: “God is the Greatest, Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse be upon the Jews, Victory to Islam.” The Saudis then cut a deal to appease the Houthis, including funneling money to grease the peace. As with Qatari money in Gaza, it didn’t work. The Houthis used the reprieve to rearm.
As with Hamas, there is no diplomatic way to eliminate the Houthis threat. Yes, diplomacy may be needed to forge an anti-Houthi alliance, but, like all Islamist Iranian proxy groups, there is no solution but military engagement. And “rallying a regional anti-Houthi coalition” means putting together a plan of military strikes. It’s less than two months until the midterms, but the Houthis can do a lot of damage to Saudi Arabia before then.
This weekend, the Green Party of England and Wales crossed a line. A dangerous line. One that it is unacceptable to cross. It passed a resolution which effectively denounced the State of Israel’s right to exist.
By a vote of 1,022 to 813, the party passed a motion entitled “Zionism Is Racism,” which commits the party to a single Palestinian state covering all of historic Palestine—which is to say, to a world in which Israel, the state which contains the largest population of Jews on Earth, does not exist.
To understand the full depth of this shift, consider what the motion says. It defines Zionism not as the movement for Jewish self-determination in the historic Jewish homeland, but as an ideology demanding “an ethnonationalist Jewish State in historic Palestine to the exclusion and/or domination of the non-Jewish population.” It instructs that Zionism will be “treated as any other form of racism” and rejects any attempt “to equate anti-Zionism with antisemitism.”
Since at least two-thirds of British Jews call themselves Zionists, the party has, in effect, branded the majority of the country’s Jews racists, while declaring that doing so cannot be antisemitic.
. . .There are those in my party, Labour, who might be tempted by the so-called progressive Red-Green coalition—an alliance between Labour and the Greens to unite the British left. But this vote should serve as a warning of the dangers such an alliance would bring.
Zionism was never a movement started in support of Jewish supremacy. It started because Jewish people found that the original preferred strategy of assimilation was impossible. Throughout the centuries Jews in Europe and elsewhere were subject to persecution. Sometimes treated less badly than at other times, but never treated equally. So in the late 19th century, the movement began for a Jewish homeland. The terrors of the Holocaust gave it unstoppable force. But it was never, and has never been, incompatible with self-determination for the Palestinians.
“Zionism is racism” is not fresh moral thinking about the Middle East. In 1975, the Soviet bloc and its Arab allies pursued United Nations Resolution 3379, which declared Zionism a “form of racism and racial discrimination.” Britain voted against the resolution in 1975 and for its revocation in 1991. Now, a Soviet propaganda campaign, which should have died with the Cold War, is being given a second life in 21st-century Britain.
. . .This weekend’s motion overturns decades of international consensus. It rejects the two-state solution. With it goes the architecture of every attempt to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since 1947, when the UN General Assembly first voted for a Jewish state alongside an Arab one. In this, the party is unashamedly aligning itself with the most extreme elements of Middle East politics.
Those of us working, through the Board of Peace, to ensure that the bloodshed of October 7 is never repeated, and that Gaza has a different and better future, understand very well the legitimate global concern about Gaza. We have a plan—the only viable plan on offer—whose framework is designed to create a new Gaza in which Israel’s security is protected and the Palestinians in Gaza have the chance of a different and better future. And we know that only by freeing Gaza from the control of Hamas, so long as it remains a group committed to the destruction of Israel by violence, can the Palestinians of Gaza have a chance at freedom.
This is very refreshing coming from a Labour Party man, though he’s misguided about the two-state solution. But Blair is right about freeing Gaza from the control of Hamas. He should realize that that will never be effectd by the “Board of Peace”, but only through military compulsion. I’d be delighted if Hamas laid down its weapons and disbanded, but can’t imagine the latter happening without the former—or ever. Hamas without weapons is like a lioness without teeth.
The black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes), brought back from near extinction and always precarious, is in more trouble now, as the founding population seems to have largely disappeared. A plague is ravaging the species as well as its main prey, prairie dgs. (“Sylvatic plague” is caused by the same bacterium that produces bubonic plague, but this strain appears to affect rodents and mustelids, though its effect on ferrets is largely by killing their prey, not the ferrets themselves.)
Wyoming wildlife managers are reporting that no black-footed ferrets are being detected in the cradle of the species’ conservation: the Absaroka Range foothills outside of Meeteetse, where the ferrets were saved after presumed extinction in the 1980s.
A tough combination of plague and drought — both big issues for the embattled western species — are suspected causes of a population collapse in the Meeteetse area, where wildlife managers returned ferrets to the wild in 2016 after a three-decade-long absence. It’s not assured that the reintroduced population is completely gone, but it’s not looking promising, Wyoming Game and Fish Department small carnivore biologist Andy Gygli said.
“We spent a couple hundred hours of effort surveying 4,000 to 5,000 acres of the Meeteetse reintroduction area,” Gygli said. “We didn’t see any ferrets.”
Wyoming wildlife managers are reporting that no black-footed ferrets are being detected in the cradle of the species’ conservation: the Absaroka Range foothills outside of Meeteetse, where the ferrets were saved after presumed extinction in the 1980s.
A tough combination of plague and drought — both big issues for the embattled western species — are suspected causes of a population collapse in the Meeteetse area, where wildlife managers returned ferrets to the wild in 2016 after a three-decade-long absence. It’s not assured that the reintroduced population is completely gone, but it’s not looking promising, Wyoming Game and Fish Department small carnivore biologist Andy Gygli said.
“We spent a couple hundred hours of effort surveying 4,000 to 5,000 acres of the Meeteetse reintroduction area,” Gygli said. “We didn’t see any ferrets.”
. . .“We’ve heard a lot about deer, elk, pronghorn and cattle having hard times,” Gygli said. “It’s the same with our other herbivores. Prairie dogs also have to eat, and lack of (vegetation) coverage can result in low recruitment, which can result in downstream effects.”
For ferrets, those downstream drought effects are severe. They, too, haven’t had enough to eat. Indirectly, drought caused the numbers of rare mustelids in the world’s largest wild black-footed ferret population, in South Dakota’s Conata Basin/Badlands, to plummet from 250 to 70 animals between 2024 and 2025, according to biologist and ferret expert Travis Livieri, who studies that population.
“In my 30 years of doing this, I’ve never seen (drought) this bad, where prairie dogs failed to reproduce at a high rate,” Livieri said. “The prairie dogs don’t do well, the ferrets won’t do well.”
. . .There are some skeptics that Meeteetse will ever be home to self-sustaining ferrets. Oakleaf, the Game and Fish retiree, says he understands the desire to restore the historically significant population, but he worries that it’s just not the right place — it’s too small and has too much plague, he said.
“Everybody involved feels obligated to put them back in Meeteetse.” Oakleaf said, “But, man, I don’t know how you do it. It just hasn’t shown over the years that it could support a ferret population.”
For now, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department is not giving up.
“This is a place that we’re going to continue to work on,” Gygli said. “It’s the place where ferrets persisted.”
There are about 500 of these ferrets left in the wild and around 300 in captivity. Here’s a photo from Wikipedia:
USFWS Mountain Prairie, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili has an odiferous premonition:
Hili: There’s something scary over there. Andrzej: I don’t see anything threatening.
Hili: Neither do I, but I don’t like the smell.
In Polish:
Hili: Tam coś straszy. Ja: Nie widzę niczego groźnego.
Hili: Ja też nie, ale zapach mi się nie podoba.
From Masih: Here’s the funeral announcement for a woman murdered by her brother in an “honor killing” in Iran. The killer is listed among the mourners and organizers, with the honorific “esteeemed”:
And then came the funeral announcement…Surreal? No. This is real life under Islamic Republic of Iran.
Guess whose name appeared among the mourners and organizers? Her killer. Maryam was murdered by her own brother, with the help of her husband, in the name of “honor.”
And to make this sick joke even sicker, his name was preceded by an honorific: “Esteemed.”
Yes. The murderer gets respect. The murderer gets recognition. The murderer gets to play the grieving relative.
But here’s the detail that should terrify everyone.
Maryam’s son’s full name appeared in the announcement. Her daughter? No name. Just “the grieving daughter.”
The alleged killer deserves a name and a title. The innocent girl doesn’t even deserve an identity.
Think about that. Even on a funeral announcement for a woman murdered in the name of honor, the next generation of women is already being erased.
This is what happens when women are treated as men’s honor instead of human beings with their own dignity.
Two from my feed. First, Hasan Piker cooks himself in his fancy Mao suit. Did he really say he had to “slope himself out”, or am I mishearing?
In less than two minutes, Ziwe cooks Hasan Piker more thoroughly than 1,000 MAGA influencers and 2,000 more irrelevant cable news segments. https://t.co/EYAlnsd7Qc
Two from Dr. Cobb. We’ve seen the first spider before, but not, I think, like this:
Here's a spider 🕷️ using a web 🕸️ like Spider-Man: it creates a thin line of web that can be used to yank something in towards you at VERY high speed!doi.org/10.1016/j.cu… 🧪Hat tip to @brembs.mastodon.social.ap.brid.gy
There are many good doo-wop songs from the early days of rock, but this one’s my favorite: “So Much in Love” sung by the Tymes and released in 1963. It’s street-corner music of the highest order, complete with background wailing and great harmony. Note that it begins with the sound of seagulls at the shore. There’s at least one other pop song that begins that way; can you name it?
The American Journal of Biological Anthropology was formerly The American Journal of Physical Anthropology but, according to reader who sent me this link, the name changed, presumably to reflect the changing nature of the field. I quote:
You can see the table of contents at the last link above. Yes, a compendium of biological anthropology on sex and gender could potentially contribute to human understand of our personas and social interactions, but this one ain’t it. Here are a few select articles, and I’ll give a quote or two from each (click on the headline to read the free bits; excerpts are indented, and bolding is mine).
Here’s the phenomenon:
Callitrichids are equally notable as chimeras, a term referring to organisms whose cells are derived from two or more distinct zygotic lineages (Anderson et al. 1951). Among mammals, small numbers of chimeric cells (i.e., “microchimerism”) are thought to be present in all placental species (Gammill and Harrington 2017; Nelson 2012). In callitrichids, however, chimerism routinely occurs on a much larger scale. Within this taxon, chimerism occurs in conjunction with the production of fraternal twins and other multiples, which is the typical birth pattern for all but callimicos (Ah-King and Tullberg 2000; Harris et al. 2014).
That’s interesting, but in the hands of an ideologue the finding allows one to go wild with speculation:
This article demonstrates how queer monster theory can illuminate the cultural boundary-work that stabilizes biological categories of sex and reproduction as well as the kinship claims that often follow. Read as monstrous informants, callitrichid chimeras make visible how “monstrosity” is employed to police these categories in human and nonhuman primates alike, as well as what is at stake when that policing is normalized. When primatology defaults to inherited assumptions about sex and reproduction, it risks not only mischaracterizing its study species but lending scientific authority to the broader cultural machinery of queer monsterization and erasure.
The promises of monsters and monkeys therefore carry epistemic and ethical obligations. Meeting them is, in a sense, a monstrous practice; it requires connections and conversations across subfields and sustained attention to the entanglements of science and sociopolitical dynamics. Yet these obligations can also begin with small methodological choices: specifying the traits being measured rather than using “sex” as a silent binary proxy; defining and justifying what counts as “reproduction” and “fitness” within a given analysis; and acknowledging nonbinary sex and nonreproductive individuals without casting them as aberrant or without value. Practiced in these ways, primatology and biological anthropology can begin to unsettle naturalized bias rather than reproduce it.
In fact, the whole issue is permeated with the view that sex is nonbinary. Here’s another example, one of two article that bemoans the fact that “gender” (presumably how one identifies with respect to sex)
A quote:
Intersectional feminism and queer theories may also be used to challenge sexist and cisgenderist biases that can harm sex- and gender-diverse individuals. Striving to de-center patriarchal ideology, feminist history highlights the shared goals of gender equality and equity. Feminist anthropology, specifically, teaches cultural competence and limits patriarchal biases in forensic casework. A rich understanding of intersectional feminism can help forensic practitioners better understand sex and gender variability. A more feminist forensic anthropology could greatly improve the communal impact of medicolegal practitioners across the U.S. Queer theory aims to critique assumptions related to “atypical” bodies by normalizing the spectrum of human sex and gender diversity. Advocating against biological determinism, integrating queer theories in medicolegal investigations can help ensure that documents and datasets are reflective of individuals’ biological and cultural experiences. Discussions on queering bioarchaeology emerged around the start of the century, with scholars such as Sabrina Agarwal, Pamela Geller, Sandra Hollimon, and Julie Wesp outlining the importance and utility of queer theory and methods in skeletal assessments and conceptualizations of the human body (e.g., Geller 2005, 2008, 2009a, 2009b, 2019; Hollimon 1996, 2001, 2011; Wesp and Agarwal 2017). Failure to recognize both biological and cultural influences on the skeleton risks perpetuating scientism, presentism, and bio-colonialism (Geller 2005, 2009b, 2019; Hollimon 2011). Using queer theory in forensic anthropology can help improve medicolegal case resolution by broadening identification efforts and collaboration with living communities.
Another search for nonbinary sex in skeletons:
This author use sa bogus overestimateion of true intersex individuals, and then, since there are really no data showing what the skeletons of such individuals look like, they simply make predictions. Again, there’s a general denial that there are distinguishable sexes, as well as the usual emphasis on sex-related traits which, of course, we’ve long known are more variable than sex itself. We still have only two types of gametes.
Blackless et al. (2000) have estimated that approx. 1.7%–2.3% of all humans are intersex. Fausto-Sterling (2000a) similarly estimated that intersex people comprise 1.7% of the global population, revised from an earlier estimate of 4% (Fausto-Sterling 1993). If accurate, these estimates indicate that intersex is not rare in population genetics terms (Astorino 2019), since “rare” traits are exhibited by < 1% of individuals in a given population (Hartl et al. 1997; Jobling et al. 2013). Researchers in the social sciences have noted that this frequency estimate is comparable to the global frequency of humans with natural red hair—a trait that is generally not considered “rare” by medical professionals or many cultures (Dreger 1998; Karkazis 2008a; Davis 2015). In other vertebrates, it is unclear how common intersex is; while the frequency of other forms of sex diversity has been more comprehensively studied across higher vertebrate taxa (Ashman et al. 2014; Nemesházi and Bókony 2023), similar data on intersex are not available.
. . . . Given these frequencies, it may be inaccurate to characterize humans as sexually dimorphic (Blackless et al. 2000). Astorino (2019) suggested that humans may be conceptualized not as sexually dimorphic, but as sexually polymorphic. Dunsworth (2020) proposed referring to “sex differences” instead of sexual dimorphism. McLaughlin et al. (2023) argued that sex is multivariate, where many individual traits—each of which may or may not conform to a binary distribution—collectively constitute what is typically considered a single variable. Similarly, Smiley et al. (2024) asserted that individual sex variables each represent different aspects of sex, which may have complex, dynamic relationships with other sex variables, and suggested that researchers operationalize specific, measurable sex variables appropriate for a given study, each of which may be characterized as monomorphic, dimorphic, or multimorphic.
Despite the fact that sex variation has been noted to be complex in humans, sex is still most commonly defined as sexually dimorphic by biological anthropologists and evolutionary biologists.
Bonobos used to rectify the claimed erasure of lesbian and bisexual relationships:
The title of this paper “Just gal pals!” refers to the heteronormative tendency to erase lesbian and bisexual relationships and is a memeified response by the LGBTQ+ community online to such erasure (Warburton 2021). We believe it also encapsulates the way researchers over the decades have described bonobo GG rubbing: Wow look at those two female bonobos (gal pals) and their strong social bond or just two female bonobos (gal pals) reducing tension. Entrenched biases make the alternative—that two female bonobos are having sex—one of the last available explanations that researchers explicitly acknowledge in the scientific literature. This may be why sexual motivations are omitted from hypotheses for the function of GG rubbing (Hohmann and Fruth 2000; 2009; Waller 2016). Similarly, while GG rubbing in female bonobos has been emphasized, male–male sexual behavior in bonobos and other primates is often overlooked. Media portrayals of female–female sexuality in humans are often framed for consumption by the male gaze and/or imply that the women involved are “testing” or “experimenting” while not invalidating a heterosexual identity (Diamond 2005). Thus, female–female sexuality among humans, particularly for bi/pansexual women, is often not viewed as valid, and sexual relationships among women are viewed more favorably than those among men (Worthen 2013; Bettinsoli et al. 2020). As a result, recognition of female–female sexuality in our closest relatives may also be perceived as less directly threatening to patriarchal hegemony in humans.
Now I haven’t read the whole issue, or any article in great detail, as that would cause severe damage to my alimentary canal. Regardless, this issue, for which papers were solicited, appears to be driven not by a search for truth but by a drive to promote “progressive” ideology. Not only do we see the claim that traditional anthropology has caused great harm (see above about erasing lesbian and bisexual relationships), but that these papers will rectify that harm. The science is mission-driven rather than knowledge-driven.
Other harm appears to come from the claim that sex in humans is binary, with misguided biologists like me recognizing that humans have but two types of reproductive apparatus: those designed to produce eggs or sperm. I’ve defended that position assiduously while recognizing that there is a very low frequency (about 1/5000) of true intersex individuals.
Overall, this shows the growing tendency of biological anthropologists to distort science for ideological ends. The claim that there are more than two sexes, or that sex is a continuum, is of course made to buttress the idea that individuals who feel that they’re not of their natal biological sex will be harmed by the sex binary. It is a way of providing consolation to nonbinary people (I’m talking about gender, not sex.) That idea bogus, of course, but it’s these well-meaning but careerist scientists—those who infuse their “findings” with ideology—who do the real damage.
And of course I make no comment about the other papers in the contents that I haven’t looked at.
Yep, three people sent photos during the weekend, and today we have the second batch, arthropod photos contributed by regular Mark Sturtevant. Mark’s captions and IDs are indented, and you can enlarge the photos by clicking on them.
Here are more pictures that were taken two summers ago. A surprise development here and in the next few posts is that I did a lot of traveling that summer, and of course the cameras came with me.
First, here are a few pictures from where I live: eastern Michigan. We start with a Jagged Ambush Bug (Phymata pennsylvanica). Ambush bugs are a specialized kind of assassin bug that sits on flowers in order to catch pollinating insects. Their prey can include insects that are far larger than they are. I was surprised to recently learn that there is a second species in my area, called P. americana (Tr*mp had nothing to do with that), but this one identifies as the first species:
Next up is a nymph of the ubiquitous Marmorated Stink Bug (Halyomorpha halys). These introduced insects are NOT a favorite of anyone since they tend to gather on and inside peoples’ houses for the winter, but the nymphs change their appearance with every molt and this particular instar is simply adorable. I mean, c’mon, this little guy reminds me of an awkward teenager trying to figure out if they should go for a punk rock look, with spikes and gold studs, or the glam rock look, with pink and white accents:
Bee flies are a family of flies that parasitize other insects. Here are two local species. The first is Anthraxgeorgicus,which parasitizes tiger beetles, and the second is our largest bee fly, the Tiger Bee Fly (Xenox tigrinus). They parasitize our large Eastern Carpenter Bees:
The next two pictures are of a Giant Swallowtail Butterfly (Papilio cresphontes), but they are also the result of early experiments of mine in the more artistic sides of photography. I have been experimenting with multiple exposure, intentional camera movement, and some other techniques. These are early attempts at what is called the Pep Ventosa technique. Pep Ventosa is an artist from Spain who uses what are called “blending modes” to combine pictures to yield a more impressionistic kind of picture. He does landscapes and architecture, and you can see examples of what he does from here. My efforts are laughable by comparison, but it is a start and they were fun to do!:
During that summer the entire family flew to Italy, and this was my first time in Europe! We had a great time where we mainly stayed with in-laws in Lucca, a gorgeous historic walled city, but we also stayed for a time in Venice, and had a day trip out to Florence. The sites and food were amazing, of course, but what about the arthropods?? Well, of course Mark brought a stripped-down camera kit and spent a lot of time exploring local parks and botanical gardens.
First up are bees. Here is a Buff-tailed Bumble Bee,Bombus terrestris, followed by one of the Woolcarder Bees, Anthidium sp. The latter are a solitary species, and they are so-named because females gather hairs from fuzzy plants to line their nests:
Next up is an unidentified mayfly (Ephemeroptera), but I like how the jury-rigged diffuser on the flash gave an iridescent look to the wings:
The last insect here is a weird little planthopper nymph called the Black planthopper, Ricania speculum. The waxy ornaments on its rear are a deterrent that many planthopper nymphs do to ward off exploratory bites from predators. I had learned that this species was introduced from Asia, and that it’s an economic pest. I was sorry to not see an adult, though, since they look really interesting, but you can see that in the link:
Moving on to Italian spiders, here is a Cucumber Spider, Araniella sp. Much like a related species that I often see here, they typically build their small orb web across the concave surface of a slightly curled tree leaf:
As ever, jumping spiders earned a lot of attention, and I found two species. First is a female Half-edged Wall Jumping Spider, Menemerus semilimbatus. Following that is this really cool Hooked Striking Jumping Spider, Icius hamatus. This is clearly a male, and it will use its enlarged front legs and coloration during courtship displays:
Welcome to The Cruelest Day, Tuesday, October 13, 2026 as well as National Yorkshire Pudding Day. I don’t have a picture of this delectable treat, always served in England with the Sunday roast, but here are two plump puddings from Wikipedia as part of the whole dinner:
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman started the year on a high note. He had just visited the White House where he was embraced by President Trump. Even after the war with Iran kicked off, Saudi Arabia looked relatively well positioned. It could export oil through a pipeline that bypassed the blocked Strait of Hormuz.
But the Saudis’ escalating fight with Iran-backed Houthi militants in neighboring Yemen now poses new challenges to the kingdom’s security and the crown prince’s ambitious but already struggling plans to transform the country’s oil-dependent economy.
On Saturday, at least one Houthi missile slammed into the Saudi capital’s international airport, killing at least 13 people and injuring hundreds more, many seriously. It was the single deadliest attack on the U.S. or its Gulf allies in the conflicts related to the Iran war. A 28-year-old Egyptian flight attendant bled to death after her arm was blown off, one of several victims to lose limbs, officials briefed on the attack said.
. . .As recently as this summer, Saudi officials briefed journalists that the Houthi situation was under control. But the militants’ escalating attacks, which they say are retaliation for Saudi actions against them, have hit airports and energy facilities—including the kingdom’s main east-west pipeline and refineries—showing the growing threat along the southern border.
The conflict is jeopardizing Saudi efforts to build travel and tourism into a pillar of the economy, including a marquee international investment conference scheduled for the end of the month that is now increasingly in doubt. The costs of the war have already widened the budget deficit and threaten to push the economy into contraction.
How Prince Mohammed handles this test will have consequences that stretch well beyond the kingdom. Saudi Arabia is a major source of funding for the global tech industry and artificial intelligence projects. It is also a crucial provider of basing and overflight rights to the U.S. military.
. . . The Saudi leader has few good options, said Kristian Coates Ulrichsen, a Persian Gulf expert and fellow with Rice University’s Baker Institute. “Any military response risks getting drawn in deeper to an asymmetric conflict in which the Houthis have shown they have the ability to inflict significant and symbolic damage.”
It’s surprising that the Saudis, with a big army and a crack air force, is the weaker side in an “asymmetric conflict”. It would become less asymmetrical if the U.S. joined with the Saudis, as Trump has intimated in the last few days. But we get very little of our oil from Saudi Arabia (most imported oil comes from Canada), so, given his concern for gas and diesel prices (driving him into the arms of Putin), Trump may not decide to help out the Saudis. On the other hand, the oil market would react strongly to a closure of the Red Sea and the Suez Canal—something that the Houthis have the potential to do.
*Abdul el-Sayed, an Islamist Democrat running for Senate in Michigan, is well known for evading hard questions about his affection for Iran, is taken apart at the Free Press in a piece by Audrey Fahlberg called, “Abdul El-Sayed’s Unanswered Questions.”
Few things seem to infuriate Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed more than questions about the Iranian regime.
During a press gaggle last Thursday afternoon in Grand Rapids, I asked him whether he regrets comments he made on a private campaign strategy call in March. That’s when he said, according toThe Washington Free Beacon, that “I just don’t want to comment” on the assassination of Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei, because “there are a lot of people in Dearborn who are sad today” about his death.
Before I finished my question, he cut in to insist that the topic is completely “irrelevant” to the Senate race. The leaked audio, he explained, is “not relevant to people’s lives,” and he’s “just not interested in this dog and pony show” solely intended to create media “clicks.”
. . .El-Sayed’s sensitivity to questions about the Iranian regime is revealing, as is his short fuse. This progressive Democrat’s campaign platform revolves around Medicare for All, getting corporate money out of politics, and ending U.S. military aid to Israel. He insists that questions about Iran are a distraction from issues voters care more about, like healthcare and the cost of living, even though, as I reminded him during our roughly one-minute exchange, he spent the entire primary campaign talking about foreign policy—railing against Israel, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and the Iran war.
Our exchange is part of a broader pattern for El-Sayed, who has repeatedly declined to disavow the Iranian regime. He dodged questions during a town hall last month about whether he would renounce people who held vigils for Ayatollah Khamenei and whether he stands “unequivocally against” the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the world’s largest sponsor of terrorism. El-Sayed will not directly say whether he believes Israel or Iran is a bigger threat to America, calling it a “dumb question” to a News Nation reporter last week and a “ridiculous hypothetical”on the debate stage Thursday evening.
“Both of them have proven dangerous in their own way,” he said during the debate when pressed by a moderator on Israel and Iran. “One at risk of attacking us, one getting us into wars we have no business fighting.”
And here’s a scary statement:
Progressives believe El-Sayed will be a bellwether for the future of the Democratic Party. “What we do is that we break open the entire political calculus in America—period,” Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said at a recent New York fundraiser, according toThe New York Times. “If Abdul can win in Michigan, anybody can win anywhere. Anywhere.”
Like a good politician, El-Sayed is skilled at evading questions that require him to make a moral judgment, like his refusal to say that Iran is a bigger threat to America than Israel, which is palpably true. Like Mamdani, Omar (see below) and Tlaib, I think he’s a somewhat covert Jew-hater and Israel-hater—people who, when they’re not “progressive,” are siding with terrorists or dissing Israel. Here’s the tweet that links to “short fuse” above:
Here’s El-Sayed arguing with a t.v. interviewer at the “short fuse” link above. Surely campaigning with the odious Hasan Piker says something:
Abdul has a TEMPER TANTRUM when pressed about his close association with Hasan Piker. I’ve never seen a candidate blow up like this at a host. Abdul has a bad temper… just ask that shopkeeper…
It’s Monday, October 12, and it took a Holocaust scholar six days after October 7 to accuse Israel of genocide in print, and South Africa less than three months to take the charge to the International Court of Justice. The Gaza Ministry of Health beat both to the punch: its count began with the first Hamas gunman to fall in southern Israel.
So far, researcher Salo Aizenberg has identified by name 364 Hamas attackers killed on October 7. Eighty percent of them appear on the Health Ministry’s list, counted among the victims of the “genocide.”
This not-so-subtle sleight of hand has been there for anyone to see for years. Of the 692 Gazans the ministry lists as dying on October 7, 2023, 646, or 93 percent, were men of fighting age. Most of the children recorded that day were boys aged 14 to 17.
More recently, under the October 2025 ceasefire, Israel returned roughly 400 Palestinian bodies to Gaza. To help families identify them, the Health Ministry published photos of the bodies along with the names of those already identified. Of 396 bodies listed, 91 have been named.
All 91 are on the ministry’s casualty list. All are men between 18 and 60. Sixty-three of them, 69 percent, are listed as having died on October 7, 2023, the day they crossed into Israel.
. . . All of them, regardless, made it into the database as victims of a supposed genocide.
. , , ,Add this to the mounting blows against the genocide accusation, and the charge is faltering. On Friday, the Nobel Committee tried to shore it up by awarding its Peace Prize to Navi Pillay, the South African jurist whose U.N. commission accused Israel of genocide last year. The infinitesimal courage it took to condemn Israel from a U.N. commission does not earn her a place beside laureates like Nelson Mandela, Elie Wiesel and Yitzhak Rabin, though she would have a comfortable seat beside Yasser Arafat.
The committee honored her for her efforts to promote “peace and international law.” Yet few things have done less to advance peace and international law than the genocide libel. The accusation did nothing to hasten the end of the war or the suffering in Gaza. If anything, it prolonged both by generating American pressure that could not stop Israel, only delay it. As for international law, the genocide campaign degrades law’s most basic principle: impartiality. In the trial of international law, its blatant anti-Israel bias is Exhibit A.
The latest tally of the dead in Gaza is about 70,000 to 74,000, and on this Hamas and the IDF agree. Hamas can’t or won’t separate combatants from civilians, but the IDF estimates that 24,000 of the dead were combatants. That give about a 2:1 ratio of civilian dead to combatant dead, which remains an extraordinarily low ratio, especially for urban warfare (the ratio of 2:1 is close to that of WWII, Korea, and Vietnam).
A man has died after he entered a tiger enclosure at an animal attraction and was attacked by a Siberian tiger in Yorkshire, England, on Saturday, according to the police and park officials.
South Yorkshire Police said in a statement that they received reports of a man entering the tiger enclosure at Yorkshire Wildlife Park at 1:35 p.m. local time.
“The tiger subsequently attacked the man, resulting in serious injury,” the statement said, adding that “despite the best efforts of medical personnel,” the man died at the scene.
The man’s identity was not released, but the police said his family was aware and receiving support from the department.
Video surfaced on social media showing a man in a dark long-sleeve shirt and light-colored pants close to a tiger, which at one point grabs and bites him near the middle of his back. The tiger lunges at the man repeatedly and faces him before tapping him a few times with its front paws.
The police said they are aware of multiple videos of the event circulating online and encouraged people not to share the footage.
Yorkshire Wildlife Park’s website describes it as “the U.K.’s No. 1 walk-through wildlife adventure.”
I won’t share the footage, but here’s the park’s announcement. I’m glad they’re not going to kill the tiger, for what did it do besides acting like a tiger should act. There should be no punishing animals that act normally when somebody stupidly comes into their enclosure. The guy was nuts to go into a tiger cage, of course, but it’s still sad that he was killed. But what did he expect? Regardless, there should be no euthanizing animals in cases like this.
Federal authorities searched the D.C. home of Rep. Ilhan Omar on Monday morning, three people familiar with the matter said, intensifying long-standingimmigration-related accusations from Republicans regarding the nation’s first Somali American lawmaker.
Homeland Security Investigations, the investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security, executed the search. The Justice Department confirmed that it secured a court-authorized warrant for a law enforcement action Monday morning, but it did not name Omar or confirm what investigation the search was connected to.
“Today in the Washington, D.C. area, Homeland Security Investigations executed a judicially authorized search warrant secured by the Department of Justice. This enforcement action is part of an ongoing federal criminal investigation,” the Justice Department statement said.
In a statement on X, Omar (D-Minnesota) said she “will not be silenced.”
“Make no mistake: this is an attempt to target political enemies and weaponize federal law enforcement,” she wrote. “For ten years, Trump has targeted me with baseless lies and smear campaigns. This is just the latest escalation in his campaign of political intimidation.”
Last month, U.S. officials said federal authorities were investigating whether Omar unlawfully entered the country by falsifying her immigration paperwork. Omar and her team have repeatedly denied accusations that she committed immigration fraud. Omar’s team did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday morning.
The search of Omar’s home appears to be the type of action that law enforcement officials have typically avoided so close to an election in the past. Omar is up for reelection in November after winning the Democratic primary in her district.
Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin told a conservative podcaster in September that there was a continuing federal investigation into Omar, who he said “married her brother to try to bring him into the United States.” That is a claim she has denied for more than a decade.
Mullin said federal officials are investigating her past marriage as well as how her family immigrated to the U.S. In a Wall Street Journal interview earlier this year, Omar said she was never married to her brother and never committed immigration fraud.
Much as I dislike Omar as a Representative, an investigation only 20-odd days before the election violates the unwritten rule 60-days that federal investigative agencies like the DOJ have refrained from publicly announcing investigations that could influence an election. And lots of investigations have turned up no credible evidence that Omar married her brother to circumvent immigration laws. On the other hand, there remains that huge and still unexplained increase of the net worth of Omar and her husband, which jumped in one year from near zero to millions of dollars. Omar has said that is due to an accounting error, but there are also claims that there was money transferred from Omar’s campaign fund to her husband’s business. That may be worth investigating, but still, the DOJ should keep a low profile until after the election.
Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili notes with annoyance the coming of winter:
Hili: And the leaves are falling from the trees again. Andrzej: The trees are getting ready for their winter sleep.
In Polish:
Hili: I znów spadają liście z drzew.
Ja: Drzewa układają się do zimowego snu.
An Iranian “honor killing” described by Masih. I can’t find details of what the woman’s so-called “crime” was, but the other stuff appears accurate.
⚠️ Warning: Reading this woman’s story could break your heart.
Her husband took the children outside. Her brother came with a knife. And her family reportedly defended her killers.
This is not a horror movie. This happened in Iran.
Her name was Maryam Yarmohammadi. She was only 28 years old. A mother of two children .
On October 5, in Qeshm, southern Iran, her husband took their two children out of the house, reportedly to make way for her murder. Then her own brother entered. I cannot believe that I Am even writing this .😔
Her brother came with a knife and stabbed his sister in the neck, breasts, and genitals. He literally, stood over her body, butchered his sister and waited as long as he was certain she was dead, then he took her to the hospital.
But the most horrifying part of this story came afterward.
Some of Maryam’s own relatives gathered outside the hospital. Not to demand justice for her. Not to mourn her murder. They protested the arrest of her brother and husband.
They said death was the least punishment she deserved.
They called it HONOR.
What kind of honor requires a brother to butcher his sister? What kind of honor turns a husband into an alleged accomplice in the murder of his children’s mother? And what kind of society allows a woman’s life to be treated as family property?
Let me tell you why honor killings happen in Iran; Under the laws of the Islamic Republic, misogyny is not just a mindset. It is taught, institutionalized, and protected by law.
From childhood, boys are taught that a woman’s body, her hair, her sexuality, and her choices are matters of male honor.
In schools, universities, state media, and religious institutions, the message is repeated: A woman belongs to a man. First her father. Then her brother. Then her husband. At the end the strangers in the street called “morality police “.
And when a woman dares to disobey, these men think they have the right to punish her.
In Iran, a woman get arrested, beaten, and flogged for showing her hair in public. But a man who beheaded his 17-year-old wife and paraded her head through the streets received just over eight years in prison.
Eight years. For cutting off a woman’s head.
And you wonder why women are being murdered in the name of honor again and again!
A woman’s hair is treated as a greater threat than a man holding his sister’s or his wife’s dead body.
Now, do you understand why we try to educate some men in 21st century and shout laud that, we are not your honor. We are not your property. We are not your family reputation.
Our bodies do not belong to our fathers, brothers, or husbands.
Stop killing women in the name of honor. Stop controlling women in the name of religion. Leave women alone.
I cannot stop thinking about Maryam’s two children.💔
Two from my feed. First, the translation from the Spanish says this:
Not a single United Kingdom flag. Not one. That monument in the background there is the only clue to the location. London is now Palestine. That’s all I got out of this. Creepy.
And the poster Medvin notes that “The image is from the pro-Palestine “National March for Palestine: End the Genocide” held on Saturday, 10 October 2026.”
Marina Medvin 🇺🇸
Ni una sola bandera del Reino Unido. Ni una. Ese monumento al fondo ahí es la única pista de la ubicación.
Londres es ahora Palestina. Eso es todo lo que saqué de esto.
Today is World Migratory Bird Day. Please say hello to the Pfeilstorch (‘arrow stork’). In 1822 this bird was shot in the German village of Klütz. It already had a 30-inch arrow in its neck. The arrow was made of African wood, and this bird played a pivotal role in our understanding of migration.
If you have any kind of public presence, eventually you attract—like remoras to a shark—people who want money or publicity, though they l\often disguise their motives as being laudable or charitable.
A few weeks ago, for example, I got a letter from a woman who said she was organizing an online book club to read my book Faith versus Fact, and invited me to contribute if I wanted. Flattered, I said I’d be glad to, and could contribute a few discussion questions for the readers. The organizer said that was great, and shortly thereafter she asked me for $210 for a “participation fee”. I was not participating, but contributing, and it became clear that the whole megillah was a moneymaking scheme. I didn’t answer, and have not heard back since.
In the last week I’ve received three letters similar to the following, telling me about the deficiencies of Faith Versus Fact, how it’s become outmoded, and how the sender could publicize it and increase the readership. (I wonder if the “independent” requests are really connected.) Note how thorough the analysis is, as if the writer, John Ajala, had read and thought about the book. Well, as you’ll see below, there’s a reason for that. First, the email:
Dear Professor Coyne,
You wrote the book that made the incompatibility argument impossible to wave away. Before Faith Versus Fact, the accommodationist position was the respectable default. After your book, it had to defend itself. You did it as a working evolutionary biologist, not a philosopher or a journalist, and that gave the argument a weight it had not had before. Dawkins called it superbly argued. Kirkus called it important. That matters.
Here is the thing I cannot stop thinking about. A reader who searches for “science and religion compatible” will find ten thousand books telling them yes. A reader who is quietly losing their faith and does not know how to think about it is not finding yours.
Faith Versus Fact is filed under Religious Studies, Science and Religion, and Atheism. That is accurate. It is also a fence. Every piece of metadata around the book speaks to people who already know what the incompatibility thesis is. That matters because the people who most need this book are the ones least likely to pick it up. They are not browsing the atheism shelf. They are sitting in a pew, or a classroom, or a kitchen at midnight, trying to figure out whether the thing they were taught is true. Your book would answer that question. It is not the book that shows up.
The book has 1,808 ratings on Goodreads. On Amazon Australia, 159 ratings and 35 written reviews. On Amazon Mexico, 735 ratings and 252 written reviews. On Amazon US, the paperback ranks #290 in Religious Studies, Science and Religion. That is a strong niche position. It is not a general one. For comparison, Why Evolution Is True has 1,379 ratings on Amazon Brazil alone. Your earlier book is reaching a broader audience than this one. The argument that matters more is reaching fewer people. A reader who needs this book is finding your evolution book instead, and then wondering if there is another one.
Because the book is ten years old and the conversation has moved. The accommodationist position has reasserted itself in popular science writing. The new atheism moment has passed. The book that made the strongest case for incompatibility is now filed in a section that only the converted browse. If the argument is going to outlive the moment, it needs to be findable by the people who are just now starting to ask the question.
I believe this is fixable. Not by changing the book. The book is finished and it works. By changing the metadata around it, the description, the categories, the keywords, so that it is findable by the readers who do not yet know they are looking for it. The categories and keywords need to speak to the doubter, not the convert. The description needs to speak to the person who is afraid to ask the question, not the person who has already answered it. The reviews need to be refreshed so the page does not look like it stopped moving in 2016. None of that changes a word of what you wrote.
What it changes is who finds it. A doubting believer searching for “is my faith irrational” is not finding your book today. They would find it if the metadata spoke to them.
What I want for you is the version of this book that a doubting believer finds at 2 a.m. on their phone, when they have no one to talk to and no idea where to start. That is the reader who would be changed. That is the reader who is not finding it.
Picture a reader who has never heard of you. They are twenty-two, they grew up in a church, they are starting to have doubts they cannot say out loud. They search for something, anything, that will help them think about it. They find your book. They read the first chapter. And they realise that someone has already thought this through, with rigour, and without contempt for the person they used to be. That reader exists right now. They are looking. They are not finding you.
Right now, the book is being read by people who already agree. It is being cited in arguments that were settled years ago. It is not reaching the person who is still inside the question. A year from now, the book is the first result when someone searches for “science and religion incompatible.” It is the book that gets handed to a friend who is losing their faith. It is the book that a professor recommends not because it is on the syllabus but because it answers a question the student just asked. It is still the same book. It is just findable.
I am writing to you specifically because most authors with a landmark book are not in a position to act. They are retired, or they are done, or they have moved on. You are still in the fight. You gave a talk in Katowice in December 2024. You resigned from the Freedom From Religion Foundation board in December over a disagreement about free speech. That is rare at seventy-six. It is why I am writing to you and not to someone else.
I work with authors whose books carry real weight and are not reaching the readers who would be most changed by them. I do not fix books. I fix the gap between what a book is and what it could become. I am not going to send you a deck. I am going to tell you what I see, and you can tell me if I am wrong. What I see is a book that won the argument and lost the stranger. And I think you already know that, because you have watched it happen for a decade.
I can make that happen. Not with ads. Not with a campaign. With the specific, unglamorous work of fixing the categories, the keywords, and the description so that the algorithms that decide what a stranger sees decide to show them your book.
If you tell me what you think the obstacle is, and it matches what I see, I will tell you exactly what I would do about it. No pitch, no deck, no retainer. Just the answer.
The book is ten years old. The argument is not going away. The readers who need it are not going away either. But the window where a book can be repositioned without being republished is not infinite. It is open now. It will not be open forever.
When you look at where the book ended up, and who is still not finding it, what do you believe the actual obstacle is?
And a second question, which matters more. Twenty years from now, what do you want this book to have done? Not how many copies. Not which reviews. What do you want it to have done to a reader who picks it up cold, with no atheist blogger telling them to, and no Dawkins blurb on the cover?
Reply with whatever you actually think. One line is enough. If you would rather not, I understand. Either way, the work stands on its own.
With genuine respect for what you have written,
John | Founder, Book Insight Hub
Yada, yada, yada. Had I written Mr. Ajala back telling him what I think the “obstacles” to adopting the book were, I’m absolutely sure he’d offer to help publicize it, and of course for a fee. I wrote back and told him I was happy with the book and not to bother me again.
But I had become suspicious because of the short sentences and words like “metadata”, which are often signs that the writer has used AI. So I put the whole email through Pangram, the best AI analyzer, and one that’s been tested with both AI- and human-written texts. Pangram virtually never says that something is written by AI if it was written by a human. And, sure enough, Pangram told me this:
Sure enough, the “thoroughness” of the email came not from a human, but from a machine’s program. What a fricking insult!
I would recommend Pangram if you want to see if what you’re reading was written by a human or a bot. In fact, it tells you which parts of a text (100% in this case) have been written by a human vs. AI. You can have about three free tries with Pangram a day, or you can subscribe for more money, though I don’t use it often enough to warrant that. The effectiveness of Pangram has been tested pretty thoroughly, and you can see the analysis at the site below, clicking on the screenshot and then here to download the paper.
The authors tested four kinds of papers: pure AI-written papers, pure human-written papers. “hybrid” papers that were part Ai-written and part human-written, and “humanised” papers that were first written with AI and then made to look more “human-written” by “Using the AI-generated sections from HYB01, rewritten with a custom ChatGPT prompt to increase perplexity and burstiness (less predictable wording, more varied sentence structures) while keeping meaning and references intact.”
They used 40 papers per category, and judged the ability of five AI-detection programs to see how good they were at sussing out the source.
As you see, Pangram is the overall winner, especially at detecting purely AI-written papers. It also is good at detecting hybrid and “humanised” papers, which it detects about half the time. But note at the extreme right: the papers that were written solely by humans. Nearly all the problems have a 0% false positive rate on Pangram, i.e. the analysis saying that a paper is AI when it was really written by a human. That’s why I’m so sure that when Pangram tells me something is 100% AI, like the duplicitous email above (how dare a human sign their name to something written by a program?), I’m nearly sure it’s AI.
I’ve used Pangram to suss out authors of fiction and poetry who didn’t really write their published stuff (more on that later), as well as to analyze essays and articles written by people I admire, but that looked suspicious. After a while you develop a nose for the AI-stuff, especially when you learn what someone’s own personal writing style is like. Facebook is full of that stuff: if you see a post that comprises a number of short sentences, it’s more than likely written by a bot. I deep-six those sites immediately.
If you’ve found AI stuff that pretended to be written by a human, weigh in below.
