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.
John Lewis & Partners have put out their annual Christmas ad, and this one with Elton John is, as the kids say, “epic”. The obvious point is that a gift you give to a child can make an immense difference in its life. But the way it’s done is poignant, and also features my favorite of all Elton John songs: “Your Song“, written by John and Bernie Taupin and released in 1970. (It’s #137 on Rolling Stone’s list of the 500 Greatest Songs of All Time.) Have a look at the two minute commercial, and see if you don’t like it.
So who could possibly object to this lovely Christmas vignette? HuffPo, of course:
The tactic here, as always in that reprehensible rag, is to use some dissent on Twitter, which you can always find, to push HuffPo’s own views, and then pretend it’s not the magazine’s opinion. Why don’t they like the ad? Get this:
Many people on Twitter said the ad ― titled “The Boy And The Piano” and set to John’s ’70s classic “Your Song” ― was “fantastic,” with one person praising its “endearing message.”
Others, however, said the promo that cost around $8.6 million and uses actors to depict various stages of John’s life was a “shameless plug” for John’s final Farewell Yellow Brick Road tour, which kicked off in September, and the upcoming 2019 “Rocketman” biopic movie of his life.
You know, I don’t fricking care what “Twitter” thinks, because no matter what opinion you seek, however odious, you’ll find it there. As for the ad’s cost, well, John Lewis can spend its money however it likes, and 8.6 million is small potatoes when you think of what it costs to make a movie. And I bet most Tweeters liked it, but HuffPo chose to headline the Scrooges. You might as well write about evolution with the headline “Darwin’s ideas miss the mark for many.”
As for me, I love the commercial, which almost makes me tear up at the end.
Today’s political post takes up two issues. The first is the widespread calls I’ve seen for Nancy Pelosi, likely at least the interim Speaker of the House (of Representatives) to recuse herself or resign, as she’s been on the job too long and “fresh blood” is needed. Even some Democratic representatives have signed a letter saying they’ll vote against her, and if enough of those sign it (she needs 218 votes to be re-elected Speaker), she won’t get the job.
Pelosi herself still wants the job, and is confident she has enough votes to get it. What I don’t understand is why everyone says “fresh blood” is really needed. She was Speaker of the House for only four years (2007-2011), and since then has been Minority Leader. Her stands, as far as I can see, have been good ones, and her crowning monument the passage of Obamacare, something that even Obama himself thought should be cut back, while Pelosi refused the cutback on the grounds that the watered-down version was “kiddiecare”. A broader version of course passed narrowly, and Obama gave Pelosi credit for that, calling her “one of the best Speakers the House of Representatives has ever had”. And Obamacare is still the law of the land.
So what’s wrong with her? The Republicans hate her, of course, but that’s because she’s effective (they really hate Obamacare), and probably in part because she’s a powerful woman. But there anyone who could do a better job as Speaker? I’m no political pundit, but I can’t think of anyone better, and, like surgery and airline piloting, experience counts in a job like this. I’m sure readers will have something to say about this, but right now I’m not with the Democrats who want to dump her. Perhaps the move to do comes from a feeling that something has to be changed in the Democratic Party in view of sweeping Trumpism. But throwing out the pilot doesn’t seem to me the right solution.
Speaking of Congress, you may have read that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a young Democratic Socialist, staged a green environmental demonstration inside and outside Nancy Pelosi’s office, claiming that Pelosi hasn’t gone far enough on remediating climate change. Here’s part of a video:
Ocasio-Cortez is seen by many Democrats as the salvation of the party, being young, enthusiastic, and of course a “person of color.” But to me she’s the Sarah Palin of the Democratic Party: prone to unthinking statements, not experienced, and having wonky views on many things, including Israel (where she doesn’t seem to have a real stand at all). She’s been unable to propose a way to pay for her platform, which mandates both free healthcare for all (something that I’m in principle in favor of) and free college tuition for all. The Washington Post, hardly a right-wing paper, has called her out for a number of fibs or inaccuracies, as has the leftist Politifact and The Hill.
What Ocasio-Cortez has going for her is her enthusiasm and a progressive agenda. But she also appears to be pretty ignorant about many of the things she proposes, and is already having her head turned by all the attention coming from the misguided people who see her as one of the saviors of the Democratic Party.
She isn’t. Her demonstration in Pelosi’s office was not only a violation of the law (Pelosi was gracious enough to not only refrain from having Ocasio-Cortez removed, but to praise her), but also a sign that Ocasio-Cortez has an inflated idea of her own value and potential accomplishments.
If she matures and succeeds in doing something, more power to her. After all, I did vote in the primaries for another Democratic Socialist, Bernie Sanders. He wasn’t perfect, either, but lacked the hubris that Ocasio-Cortez has, fueled by the Regressive Left’s view that it can only be young women of color who can save progressive politics in America.
Well I’ll be: a new paper in Science (click on reference below; free access with legal Unpaywall app, pdf is here) suggests that the Greenland shark, Somniosus microcephalus, is the longest-living vertebrate known to science. While there are big error bars around age estimates, it’s likely that many live at least 300 years, and some may live up to 500 years! Moreover, females don’t appear to reproduce until they’re about 150 years old. I’m stupefied!
But first a bit about this animal. Not a lot is known about it save for its geographic range, is in the northern waters of the Northern Hemisphere. Here’s the range given by Wikipedia:
And Wikipedia says this about its diet:
The Greenland shark is an apex predator and mostly eats fish. It has never been observed hunting. Recorded fish prey have included smaller sharks, skates, eels, herring, capelin, Arctic char, cod, rosefish, sculpins, lumpfish, wolffish, and flounder.
Greenland sharks have also been found with remains of seals, polar bears, horses, moose, and reindeer (in one case an entire reindeer body) in their stomachs. The Greenland shark is known to be a scavenger, and is attracted by the smell of rotting meat in the water. The sharks have frequently been observed gathering around fishing boats. It also scavenges on seals.
Although such a large shark could easily consume a human swimmer, the frigid waters it typically inhabits make the likelihood of attacks on humans very low, and no cases of predation on people have been verified.
As for its behavior, not much is known, as it’s rarely observed. It hasn’t actually been seen hunting, and nobody knows when and where the offspring are born.
Here’s one of the behemoths: they’re about 4-5 meters long and grow only about 1 cm per year, so that already implies that they’re old.
How did they figure out how old these things were? (The estimates are based on 28 female specimens ranging from 0.8 to 5.0 meters long.) The age determination was done in a clever way: using proteins in the eye nucleus of adults. These proteins are laid down in the embryos, and they don’t turn over during the shark’s lifetime. Thus the level of carbon-14 (radioactive carbon) in the nuclei reflect the amount of carbon-14 present in the water when the shark was an embryo. (The carbon in those proteins comes from the fish eaten by mom, and the carbon in the fish ultimately comes from the carbon in the water.)
This fact was combined with the fact that a pulse of radioactive carbon was injected into the atmosphere (and oceans) by nuclear bomb testing in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Although carbon-14 decays radioactively, its half-life is about 5700 years, so its levels in the ocean remain high compared to before the bomb testing. Here’s a graph from the paper showing the C-14 spike in the early 1960s in inorganic (carbonates) and organic (dietary) bits of northern Atlantic fish and sharks:
(From the paper): Radiocarbon levels (pMC) of different origin (inorganic and dietary) over the past 150 years are shown. Open symbols (connected) reflect radiocarbon in marine carbonates (inorganic carbon source) of surface mixed and deeper waters (26, 36–38). Solid symbols reflect radiocarbon in biogenic archives of dietary origin (11, 14, 22, 24). The dashed vertical line indicates the bomb pulse onset in the marine food web in the early 1960s.
If a Greenland shark’s eye nuclei showed the high levels of “spike” C-14 attained by the species above, then, it must have been a fetus in the early 1960’s; that is, it must be less than about 60 years old. Without the spike, it must be older than 60 years.
But how much older? It turns out that there’s a “Marine13” age curve in which levels of carbon-14, which fluctuate naturally over time, can be correlated with past times by using data from tree rings, corals, plant “macrofossils”, and other carbon-containing materials of known age. That data was used to determine the ages of sharks of various sizes.
The age estimates were themselves given error estimates using Bayesian methods, with these limits incorporating estimates about growth rates, size at birth, and age estimates from one shark (#3 in the graph below) that had an intermediate level of C-14 between past background levels and bomb-testing “spike” levels. Old #3 was thus considered to be about 50 years old when it was sampled in 2012.
The graph below shows the estimated ages of the 28 sharks with 95.4% Bayesian confidence intervals (shown in dark blue) plotted against the length of each shark, so there are 28 graphs. As expected, the bigger sharks are older. (Ages are given by estimated dates of birth, which go back several hundred years).
(From paper): Fig. 3 Bayesian age ranges of prebomb sharks. The estimated year of birth against total length (TL) for prebomb sharks (nos. 4 to 28) is shown. Light blue shows the individual age probability distributions for each shark, and modeled posterior age probability distributions are shown in dark blue. Fixed age distributions (model input) of one newborn shark (42 cm, 2012 ± 1) and of shark no. 3 (220 cm, born in 1963 ± 5) are shown in orange. The red line is the model fit connecting the geometric mean for each posterior age probability distribution. (Inset) The model output; i.e., Amodel, Lmax, and range of birth year for shark no. 28. Also see the supplementary materials.
The upshot is that these things can get old: the age estimates (with error limits) of the two biggest sharks were 335 ± 75 years and 393 ± 120 years, which suggests that some sharks could be as much as 500 years old. But we can be confident that the big ones are about 300 years old.
Further, because we know that females don’t reproduce until they’re about 4 meters long (this is presumably because no sharks smaller than that have had fetuses),the age of first reproduction would be about 156 ± 22 years.
These estimates show that the Greenland shark is the longest-lived vertebrate known to science. What about the runners-up? Well, the paper gives that information at the end (the quahog is of course a mollusc, but it appears to be the longest-living animal):
Our results demonstrate that the Greenland shark is among the longest-lived vertebrate species, surpassing even the bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus, estimated longevity of 211 years). The life expectancy of the Greenland shark is exceeded only by that of the ocean quahog (Arctica islandica, 507 years). Our estimates strongly suggest a precautionary approach to the conservation of the Greenland shark, because they are common bycatch in arctic and subarctic groundfish fisheries and have been subjected to several recent commercial exploitation initiatives.
If sharks really can live 500 years, they would have been youngsters when Erasmus was writing and plagues of dancing mania broke out in Europe.
Today I’ll put up photos from one reader and a video from another.
The video comes from Rick Longworth, who also sent a photo montage from that video. His comments are indented:
In early September, with night temperatures into the high 40s, the rufous hummingbirds (Selasphorus rufus) begin to pack up for Mexico. Their numbers peaked here in the first week and I was able to get some final shots using several different lenses. A wide angle lens allows a wide view and greater depth of field. I used a macro lens for some close-ups. These are female and immature rufous. Much of the footage is slo-mo. The chirping sounds are the birds alarm calls. They are always fighting over the feeders.
Note: the pollen dutifully carried on the beak at 1:24.
An eye blink at 1:40.
Now that they are gone, I’m getting that “abandoned” feeling, but I am leaving my feeders with nectar because the local birders told me that Anna’s hummingbird(Calypte anna) may stop by in the fall.
The photos:
I tried to keep track of who was who around the feeder by compiling mug shots. Unfortunately, the cast of characters shifted too fast to make that of much use. Note the immature male black-chinned hummingbird
(Archilochus alexandri) with one tiny blue feather on his throat – BC2.
And some New Zealand photos from Will Savage:
Here a few more for your tank, all of marine mammals and taken in New Zealand during my one and only visit there in 2007.
A pod of Hector’s Dolphins (Cephalorhynchus hectori), one of the smallest dolphins in the world, averaging about 4 feet long, and endemic to New Zealand waters. These are members of the sub-species found in waters to the south of the South Island.
Well, it’s Professor Ceiling Cat, Emeritus, back again doing the HIli Dialogues. Thanks once again to Grania for taking over this onerous task in my absence.
On this day in 1533, conquistador Francisco Pizarro arrived in the Incan capital of Cuzco, completing his conquest of Peru. In 1939, Franklin D. Roosevelt laid the cornerstone of the Jefferson Memorial; it was officially dedicated 3½ years later. And on this day in 1942, the Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal ended with the Japanese scuttling their ships or absconding, leading to an Allied victory. Exactly one year later, SS leader Heinrich Himmler order that the Gypsies (Roma people) were to be treated as were the Jews and sent to concentration camps.
On November 15, 1949, two of the conspirators who plotted Gandhi’s assassination, Nathuram Godse and Narayan Apte, were executed. It was Godse who pulled the trigger on January 30, 1948, sending three bullets into Gandhi’s chest. Exactly a decade later, four members of the Clutter family in Holcomb Kansas were murdered by Richard Hickock and Perry Smith, leading to Truman Capote’s famous mostly-true book, In Cold Blood. Finally, it was on this day in 1969 that Nascent Professor Ceiling Cat and between 249,999 and 499,999 other demonstrators (estimated attendance 250,000-500,000) marched in Washington to end the Vietnam War. It didn’t work then, but the anti-war movement got a huge shot in the arm.
Notables born on this day include William Pitt (1708, a PM of the UK), August Krogh (1874, Nobel Laureate), Felix Frankfurther (1882), Marianne Moore and Georgia O’Keeffe (both 1887), Erwin Rommel (1891, forced to commit suicide in 1944), Curtis LeMay (1906), Claus von Stauffenberg (1907, shot by the Nazis for [like Rommel] conspiring against Hitler), and Petula Clark (1932). O’Keeffe was a cat lover, and here’s a photo of her, taken by John Candelario, with her beloved Siamese kitty:
Those who expired on this day include Énuke Durkheim (1917), Nathuram Godse (1949, see above), Lionel Barrymore (1954), Tyrone Power (1958), Alger Hiss (1996), Stokely Carmichael (1998), and Lil Peep (last year).
Wickedly handsome and a favorite of the ladies, Power was married three times, but also had a torrid affair with Lana Turner. These two never married, but Turner reported that she became pregnant with his child and had an abortion. Here’s a brief documentary about the affair of two great stars:
Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili shows off her biological knowledge (while hunting). Hili, of course, is the apex predator.
A: What do you see or hear?
Hili: I’m hearing the sound of a link of the food chain.
In Polish:
Ja: Coś tam widzisz, czy słyszysz?
Hili: Słyszę dźwięk ogniwa łańcucha pokarmowego.
Tweets from Heather Hastie, the first being a cat who chose the wrong vehicle:
Heather says she wants this kitty, but she’s already got the perfect cat: a neglected cat of her neighbor who spends about 90% of its time at Heather’s place.
Matthew is once again hung up on an optical illusion.
Can you explain what this is supposed to be doing? Are you saying that the left eye is the same colour as the jewel in the hair, but that it looks darker? Because the text doesn't say that.
But that isn't the case. If you block the right side of each image, the left eye is still coloured, because it is – it isn't grey (and the right eye isn't coloured!)
I have tried copying and pasting the left eyes onto the right side of the face and part of the problem which often occurs in convincing people is that the compression protocols of jpgs mean that the colours aren't pure. So ppl think they are being diddled.
In 1842 Mizuno Tadakuni instituted the Tenpō Reforms that banned illustrations of kabuki actors and geisha to improve public morals. The artists found a loophole – the reforms never banned the illustration of cats pic.twitter.com/XCBobb671p
Yep, there’s a whole one-hour PBS show on sciurids, “A Squirrel’s Guide to Success” (including chipmunks and other relatives) on PBS tonight. Go here to see when it’s playing in your area. It’s also available here after it airs.
To whet your appetite, here’s an excerpt demonstrating squirrel intelligence:
From Melissa Chen, who wrote about this issue on her Facebook page, we learn that Colorado State University has put the familiar phrase “Long time, no see” (meaning, “I haven’t seen you for a while”) onto a list of offensive “non inclusive” phrases (click on screenshot to go to the article). But below that you can read the original piece, by CSU student Katrina Leibee, who writes at the CSU student newspaper The Rocky Mountain Collegian (the piece has a disclaimer by the paper that it doesn’t represent the stand of the editorial board).
The original report:
Leibee reports that words like “freshman” is sexist and should be replaced by “first-years”. I have no problem with that, because I can see how women would take offense at the repeated use of “man” to imply “people,” as with “mankind.” Likewise, the phrase “you guys” seems a bit sexist; would anybody not see this if it were replaced with the phrase, “you girls” directed at everyone?
I try not to use such phrases myself. But Leibee also reports more innocuous phrases that have been swept up in the Pecksniff Net:
After getting involved in residential leadership, I was told not to use the word “dorms,” and replace it with “residence halls.” Apparently, dorm refers to only a place where one sleeps, and residence hall refers to a place where we sleep, eat, study and participate in social activities.
A countless amount of words and phrases have been marked with a big, red X and defined as non-inclusive. It has gotten to the point where students should carry around a dictionary of words they cannot say.
In a meeting with Zahra Al-Saloom, the director of Diversity and Inclusion at Associated Students of Colorado State University, she showed me an entire packet of words and phrases that were deemed non-inclusive. One of these phrases was “long time, no see,” which is viewed as derogatory towards those of Asian descent.
Al-Saloom believes inclusive language is important at CSU.
Melissa, a Singaporean who speaks Mandarin, informed her Facebook friends that the “long time no see” phrase is not (as Wikipedia implies) derived from mocking Chinese or Pidgin speakers using broken English. The phrase is a literal translation of the Mandarin. It’s not like the phrase often used to mock the Chinese who ran laundries in America, “No tickee, no washee.”
As Melissa pointed out:
There must be a great deal of projection going on if you find “long time no see” racist to Asians.
It’s literally a direct translation of Mandarin syntax (好久不见) and has become a common turn of phrase.
Two other Mandarin speakers piped in:
“好 can also translate as ‘very’ so it would be ‘very long time, no see’ as well.”
and
“It’s more like “Good (好) Long-Time (久) No (不) See (见) , but that’s a negligible difference.”
It’s curious that that phrase, whose origins really are unknown, doesn’t seem to be objectionable to any Chinese people, just as Kimono Day at Boston’s Museum of Fine Arts wasn’t objectionable to many Japanese, some of whom demonstrated in its favor. And I doubt that more than 0.01% of people who use the “long time no see” phrase even know that its origins may be a direct translation from the Chinese.
All too often it’s those who aren’t ethnically “qualified” to judge the degree of offense produced by a phrase—like Zahra Al-Saloom—who make these lists. But just to be sure that Ms. Al-Saloom isn’t Chinese and has a Middle Eastern name, here’s her photo from her Linked In profile, which has mysteriously disappeared:
