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.
We have a few non-animal photos today: abstracts from nature. The first three are from reader Ken Phelps with this note:
Last day of frosty weather here, so went out and got a few shots of hoar frost, snow on twig, and an icicle with an odd face inside. Wood siding on cabin gave the brown background color.
A piece of tree bark in the Pennsylvania woods; photo by Nicole Reggia:
Good morning; it’s Monday, January 16, and a holiday in the U.S.—Martin Luther King Day. As for me, I’m off in a short while to tape the Rubin Report, and then immediately flying back to Chicago. That means that posting will be light today.
As for food holidays, it’s National Fig Newton Day (“Fig Roll” if you’re in the UK), and International Hot and Spicy Food Day. In the U.S. it’s also National Religious Freedom Day, honoring the Virginia Assembly’s adoption on this day in 1786 of Thomas Jefferson’s Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom—the precursor of the Constitution’s First Amendment. Here’s the last paragraph of Jefferson’s statute, one of the three accomplishments engraved on his tombstone (“President of the US” was not one of them):
Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities. And though we well know that this Assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of Legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare that the rights hereby asserted, are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.
On this day in 1945, Hitler and his retinue moved into the underground bunker (Führerbunker), where he and others (Eva Braun, Goebbels et famille), met their end as the Russians took over Berlin.
Notables born on this day include Eric Liddell (1902), the “muscular Christian” in the movie Chariots of Fire, famous for refusing to run in the Olympic 100-meter heats because they were held on a Sunday. He later became a missionary in China, was interned by the Japanese, and died in 1945 of a brain tumor. Here he is running in the British Empire games in 1924:
Others born on this day include Dian Fossey (1932), Susan Sontage (1933) and Sade (1959). Those who died on this day include Edward Gibbon (1794) and evangelist Herbert W. Armstrong (1986). Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili is working a guilt trip on her staff; perhaps she’s petulant because she can’t go outside in the snow:
Hili: I wonder what you have in your defence.A: Defence in what case?Hili: Think it out for yourself.
Hili: Ciekawa jestem, co masz na swoją obronę?
Ja: W jakiej sprawie?
Hili: Sam się domyśl.
There is news today that Ladybird Books is publishing a new book co-authored by Prince Charles on climate changeLadybird Books is an iconic children’s books publisher – anyone learning to read in Britain in the early 60s knows [and loves] the brand from that and also the “Learn about” series of instructional books for [mainly] children
These books have an instantly recognisable appearance [layout, style of illustration, slim, hardback]; and recently the imprint has tried to recapture their old audience with fairly jokey titles for adults such as their guide to The Hangover & The Hipster [these & similar have also been published for the US market as “The Fireside Grown-Up Guide to…”, but I doubt that it will catch fire over there without the history!]
Anyway, I had a look around and discovered there’s one coming out on Evolution by Steve Jones.
Steve Jones is Emeritus Professor of Genetics at University College London and is one of the world’s top six experts of snail population genetics (the other five agree).
Here’s the book, coming out January 26; it has 56 pages, and so is a short read:
Part of the new Ladybird Expert series, Evolution is a clear, simple and entertaining introduction to Charles Darwin’s pioneering and revolutionary theory of how all life changes through natural selection.
Written by broadcaster, prize-winning author and geneticist Professor Steve Jones, it explores the extraordinary diversity of life on our planet through the complex interactions of one very simple theory.
You’ll discover the common origins of dogs and Brussels sprouts, how it is we’re all mutants, where wings, ears and tails came from, why sex is good for you, how some dinosaurs evolved and survived, and why human evolution may finally have stopped. [JAC: I disagree with that, and so do many others. There is plenty of evidence that human evolution has NOT stopped.]
Written by the leading lights and most outstanding communicators in their fields, the Ladybird Expert books provide clear, accessible and authoritative introductions to subjects drawn from science, history and culture.
For an adult readership, the Ladybird Expert series is produced in the same iconic small format pioneered by the original Ladybirds. Each beautifully illustrated book features the first new illustrations produced in the original Ladybird style for nearly forty years.
If you want a quick overview on evolution, this might be the book for you. For a more comprehensive take aimed at scientifically literate adults (no degree required), check out Oxford University Press’s Evolution: A Very Short Introduction by Brian and Deborah Charlesworth. That “VSI” series, which now includes over 400 titles on subjects as diverse as quantum mechanics, French cinema, and free will, is a great way to get up to speed on lots of things. There’s even a VSI on atheism, I believe by Julian Baggini.
And the BBC News describes Prince Charles’s book on climate change, which, I trust, is more scientifically sound than his views on homeopathy. Judging from the cover, it looks to be:
Last night, Sean Carroll (a cosmologist at CalTech and the Official Website Physicist™), gave the keynote address at the LogiCal meetings. As he told me at dinner beforehand, he was trying to condense all five of his Gifford Lectures (given in Glasgow last year) into a single hour. It was, like his Gifford Lectures, a summary of his excellent book The Big Picture.
Given his task, he did a good job, laying out the reasons why we completely understand all the physics of everyday life (he is of course a physical determinist), explaining why dualism isn’t possible, but also noting that we can talk about things, like meaning and purpose and value, that are “emergent phenomena”, consistent with but not possible to explain in the language of particle physics.
The only part of his talk that baffled me, as it did in his book, is his explanation of why entropy seems to be a violation of the symmetrical laws of physics, since it increases with time, but why (or so I thought), the passage of time from past to future is more or less an illusion. He asked a very good question: “Why do we remember what happened yesterday but don’t remember what hasn’t happened yet?” His explanation—that we don’t fully grasp the Second Law of Thermodynamics—didn’t satisfy me, and I’m still seeking an answer. Any reader who can explain this to me is encouraged to do so below.
Sean has developed into a very dynamic and engrossing speaker, with a lot of humor, and it was a very good after-dinner talk, but one with a lot of brain food.
Sean presenting “The Core Theory”: the equation that completely explains the physics of everyday life. It’s in his book.
I had the pleasure of dining with Sean before the talk, and asked him the perennial question, “Why is there something instead of nothing?” His answer was that the question doesn’t make sense—yet. “Why questions”, he said, always come embedded in a larger framework—often, in my view, a religious one—but in this case, said Sean, it’s possible that that question, meaningless now, might someday find an answer if we learn more about the circumstances that produced our universe and that may be producing other universes.
Anyway, I urge you to read his book, The Big Picture, which is deservedly popular. Although I don’t agree with some of it, most notably his compatibilism on free will, by and large it’s a rewarding read, and accessible to all educated people.
This afternoon, Dan Barker, co-President of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, is giving his own take on the issue: “Free Will, a Beautiful and Useful Illusion.” I’ve read the draft manuscript for him on this issue, and, as you can imagine, we had long and strong disagreements. I’ll see from his talk whether I had any influence on his thinking. Given his responses in our email correspondence, I doubt it. I’ll report back.
As I’ve documented repeatedly, since Rupert Murdoch took over National Geographic, the magazine and its spinoffs have become increasingly oriented toward religion—and in a friendly way. Last summer Morgan Freeman hosted a National Geographic series called “The Story of God”; here are its six episodes. 
Now, according to PuffHo, there’s a second season in the offing, with the first episode airing tomorrow (there will be three). The website for the new season is here, and you can watch two clips here). PuffHo‘s blurb notes that—for crying out loud—it’s going to be about theology (my emphasis):
The first season aired in the spring of 2016 and became National Geographic’s most-watched series of all time. On Monday, Season 2 will premiere with Freeman exploring a fresh set of theological questions.
“We’re dealing with esoterica here, things that are more internal than external. So there are always going to be more questions,” Freeman told The Huffington Post on Wednesday. “It’s one of those situations where the more you delve into it the deeper it gets.” [JAC: sort of like a cesspool.]
The second season features just three episodes exploring three fundamental religious themes. The first episode explores the concept of the “chosen one” ― people who have been singled out throughout history for purportedly having direct access to the divine. Next, the show explores “heaven and hell,” with a look at how people’s beliefs about the afterlife influence their actions in this life. The final episode dives into the age-old question of whether there’s “proof of God,” and the subtle ways people of faith find look for it.
Do you think the last episode will also deal with the “age-old” issue of the evidence against gods, or the lack of evidence for anything divine? I’m betting against it.
Now I’m not going to watch this show, for I don’t have cable; and even if I did, I wouldn’t watch it anyway. But my prediction is that it will involve heavy osculation of the rump of faith.
Now why is Freeman doing this? What are his own beliefs? PuffHo, in an earlier article connected with the first season, first implied that he’s an atheist, but then backpedaled (my emphasis):
Morgan Freeman has played God on the big screen, but in real life he sees the Almighty as an invention of the human mind.
It might seem curious, then, for the 78-year-old actor to star in a National Geographic Channel show all about God and religion. But “The Story of God with Morgan Freeman,” which airs its season finale on Sunday, isn’t so much a celebration of God as it is an exploration of human beings’ unending search for the divine, Freeman says.
. . . “Life is more about what you believe than almost anything else. That’s why God still exists,” he said.
What he should have said is “that’s why the IDEA of God still exists,” but of course he’s walking a fine line here, trying to pretend that the human construction of God is itself evidence for God—something likely to be lost on the viewers.
People spend their lives searching for God, he continued, when true divinity may be in front of us all along. In Hebrew, Freeman recounted, the word for God is derived from the verb “to be,” making it translate roughly as “I am.” He used this example to explain his own beliefs on the subject.
“God is in all things — a sunset, a bloom, a rose,” he said. “The ultimate answer to the question of God’s existence is ‘God is.’”
Well, if you’re a pantheist, as Freeman seems to be in the last sentence, then you can say “God is” if you see God as a rose, a sunset, or even a pancake. But that’s cheating, for Freeman—and National Geographic—know full well that this series will be seen as a vindication of religious belief and of God’s existence. That, of course, explains why it’s been so popular. It also explains the popularity of books like Proof of Heaven and Heaven is for Real.
What a great shame that National Geographic, which used to educate people about the real world we live in, is now trying to deceive people about a numinous world that doesn’t exist.
Since I posted a letter from a creationist student last week, as well as other commentary on the faithful, I’ve been inundated with comments telling me that Jesus loves me, and that if I only sought that love, I’d become a convinced Christian. Talk about confirmation bias! You’d think that if Jesus really loved you, he’s make you aware of his love even if you weren’t seeking it!
This comment came (with ID given) from the author of the religious site Gleaning the Scriptures. It was offered as a comment on my post “Adam and Eve: More than two ancestors?”
God made Adam and Eve. If God made Adam and Eve He can make others and not include that in The Bible: testing our faith. Yahova does not have to include everything in The Bible. is not a spoon feed set up. There is a lot of knowledge that comes to people who have turned to Yahova.
Why evolution is not true: We have been studying and recording nature scientifically for thousands of years. If eveolution is true you must be able to show me one instance, ONLY ONE, of a mother giving birth to another species. One mutation after another, yes, but there must be a point where the DNA goes from that of a man to that of a “whats to come”.
If you are a woman, let me know when you give birth to a “whats to come”. People bear people and salmon bare salmon. This has been, is and always will be. Its really simple.
Note: The new species has to be able to give birth to more of its same species, or be able to give birth at all. There is no continuation of life in a mule or whatever that thing is.
Further, when have you seen, ever, where a mutation has aided an animal in both life and finding a mate: never. the only thing evolution has to hinge on is the fact that there are many species with similar attributes. This is because God created them and the environment that they survive in. Darwin was wrong.
I think readers here should now be educated enough about evolution to refute the two big claims in this critique (put in bold), so I’ll leave it to you to do that, and then will email your responses to the author. The author is an adult, and seems pretty set in his/her ways, so you needn’t treat the person with kid gloves. But, of course, please try to be temperate in your response. I am not, however, going to cut out mockery of faith this time.
It’s fun crowdsourcing responses to creationists.
This didn’t appear on my Google screen, but reader Dennis tells me that yesterday Google in Canada posted a Doodle honoring the 155th birthday of Carrie Matilda Derick (1862-1941).
Derick, a geneticist specializing in plants, was in fact the first female professor in any subject in a Canadian university. She was also the founder of the botany department at McGill University, but wasn’t made a professor for three years after she’d been running the department! (See below.) The Library and Archives Canada recounts some of her achievements, which were not only in botany, but in popularization of science and political activism:
As well as teaching and doing research, Derick published numerous articles on botany, including “The problem of the ‘burn-out’ district of southern Saskatchewan,” “The early development of the Florideae,” and “The trees of McGill University.” Many articles were aimed at the scientific community, earning her the respect of colleagues around the world and the distinction of appearing in the 1910 edition of American men of science. Others were intended to bring an understanding of nature to a general audience. In addition, she wrote biographical sketches and political essays.
At the same time that she was leading a busy and sometimes difficult academic life, Derick was deeply involved in social activism. Her main interests were women’s suffrage and education, but she worked for many causes throughout her life. Her energy and commitment are reflected in a partial list of the organizations she was involved with: the Local Council of Women (Montreal); the Protestant Committee of the Council of Education; the American Association for the Advancement of Science; the Montreal Suffrage Association; the National Council of Education; the Federation of University Women of Canada; and the Montreal Folklore Society.
Sadly, this Doodle is seen only in the blue places below, i.e., Canada. It’s the first one-country Doodle I’ve seen, and that’s a shame. It does us well to remember the indignities suffered not all that long ago by women in academia, and to mourn the loss of scientific advances caused by the marginalization of women. Wikipedia gives the evidence (my emphasis)
In 1891, Derick began her master’s program at McGill under David Penhallow and received her M.A. in botany in 1896. She attended the University of Bonn in 1901 and completed the research required for a Ph.D. but was not awarded an official doctorate since the University did not give women Ph.D. degrees. She then returned to McGill and “continued to work, teach, and administer” in the botany department. In 1905, “after seven years of lecturing, assisting Penhallow with his classes, researching and publishing, without any pay increments or offers of promotion, Derick wrote directly to Principal Peterson and was promoted to assistant professor” at one-third the salary of her male counterparts. Derick was only officially appointed as professor of comparative morphology and genetics by McGill in 1912 after three years of running the department following Penhallow’s death. She was the first woman both at McGill and in Canada to achieve university professorship. She retired in 1929.
by Grania
Good morning! I’m fending off the damp cold of Cork by sipping on Spanish Hot Chocolate (indistinguishable from any other kind of hot chocolate in my opinion).
Today is the anniversary of the “Miracle on the Hudson” when Captain Chesley Sullenberger landed Flight 1549 in the Hudson River after colliding with birds after take-off. It was less of a miracle for birds as they ended up being culled by the thousands in an effort to prevent such an accident from happening again.
Today is also the 16th birthday of Wikipedia which first went online on this day in 2001. Although it is not without its problems, it still remains a valuable starting point for researching anything quickly online.
Today is also the birthday of Finnish composer Osmo Tapio Räihälä and American singer Lisa Lisa.
Over in Poland, the four-footed cousins are once again engaged in serious discussions of serious subjects. I’m not sure why the subject of entropy is bothering Cyrus today. Could it be the cold winter?
Cyrus: We should talk it over thoroughly.
Hili: But what exactly?
Cyrus: Well, maybe the second law of thermodynamics?
In Polish
Cyrus: Powinniśmy to wszystko przedyskutować.
Hili: A co dokładniej?
Cyrus: No chociażby to drugie prawo termodynamiki.
And out in Wlockawek, Leon has had a fright:
Leon: What’s that? Strangers are attacking!
