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.
I don’t know how I missed it this morning, but it was five years ago today that Christopher Hitchens (born only a few months before me) died of throat cancer. After he died, the readers and I offered several tributes, including a musical number. There were seven posts, and some lovely and moving sentiments; see them here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. This was my own inadequate tribute:
I met Hitch only once—at the Ciudad de Las Ideas meeting in Puebla, Mexico in 2011. He was smoking a cigarette outside the entrance to the auditorium, and I was surprised, for I thought he announced in Vanity Fair that he’d given up the ciggies. He hadn’t. They and the booze would, of course, kill him.
I was on the bus waiting to go back to the Mexico City airport, but got off it to go chat with Hitch for a minute. I introduced myself, and we talked about this and that, including our mutual dislike of Robert Wright’s goddycoddling (Wright was at the meeting). I then snapped Hitch’s photo. He was wearing a Kurdish flag and a poppy in his lapel. I never saw him again.
I learned of the anniversary this morning from a general email sent to Sam Harris’s subscribers. Here’s what Sam put up today, a short piece called “Missing Hitch.”
It has been five years, my friend.
Five short years since you taught us how to die with wisdom and wit. And five long ones, wherein the world taught us how deeply we would miss you.
Syria. Safe spaces. President Trump.
What would you have made of these horrors?
More times than I can count, strangers have come forward to say, “I miss Hitch.” Their words are always uttered in protest over some new crime against reason or good taste. They are spoken after a bully passes by, smirking and unchallenged, whether on the Left or the Right. They have become a mantra of sorts, intoned without any hope of effect, in the face of dangerous banalities or lies. Often, I hear in them a note of personal reproach. Sometimes it’s intended.
You are not doing your part.
You don’t speak or write clearly enough.
You are wrong and do not know it—and it matters.
There has been so much to say, and no one to say it in your place.
I, too, miss Hitch.
I also think often of “What would Hitch have to say about this?” when there’s some political or social event. What would he make of Social Justice Warriors? Trump? Who knows? All we know is that there’s a huge void in the ether where his essays would have been.
There was no other humanist or atheist who so excelled in all the skills of oratory, writing, and thinking—and the man was ferociously eloquent and literate. There’s nothing else to say except I wish he were here.
We just had an animal post (below) and now some lovely ferns from reader Marilee Lovit:
These are ferns I collected last summer into my plant press, and now have mounted on herbarium paper (using methyl-cellulose for glue). I photographed the mounted specimens before attaching herbarium labels. (I will attach labels with all the collecting information before giving the specimens to an herbarium.)
The genus Dryopteris has a lot of hybridization. The first photo is Dryopteris intermedia, which is diploid. The second photo is Dryopteris cristata, which is tetraploid. And the third is Dryopteris x boottii, a sterile triploid hybrid of the first two.
Here are 2 more ferns. Dryopteris carthusiana is a tetraploid.
It hybridizes with Dryopteris intermedia (diploid, photo above), and the result is a sterile triploid named Dryopteris x triploidea.
These several species of the genus Dryopteris were collected from one area in Maine. Another Dryopteris species occurs very nearby, Dryopteris campyloptera.
This was called to my attention by reader Douglas Swartzenruber, who put it on his website, “A View from Planet Boulder”. (Do not click the link yet).
First, there are these “moguls” made by skiers; Douglas explains:
For any non-skiers out there, moguls are formed on steeper slopes when numerous skiers follow the same route down and push snow to the side on each turn. The snow begins to stack up and as more skiers follow the same line, the moguls grow, sometimes reaching heights of over 6 feet. I have never been a fan of skiing moguls [not enough talent], but if you want to be impressed with mogul skiing, watch these incredible folks ski the bumps.
But then there are these moguls—on a fence. Who made them? Now you can click the link to see the answer:
It’s December 15, 2016, already Thursday, and only ten shopping days till Christmas. It’s also the Day for Two Weird Comestibles: National Gingerbread Latte Day and National Lemon Cupcake Day. Don’t talk to me about flavored lattes, which have turned coffee into a milkshake, just as bottled water is becoming soda and granola bars became candy. Fortunately, it’s also a non-fake holiday: International Tea Day.
On this day in 1791, the Bill of Rights—the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution—became law after ratification by the Virginia legislature. In 1933, the 21st Amendment was affirmed, repealing the ill-fated 18th Amendment, which prohibited the manufacture and sale of alcohol and gave rise to the miserable era of Prohibition. Exactly six years later, the movie “Gone With the Wind” premiered in Atlanta, listed by Wikipedia as still the highest-grossing film of all time—when adjusted for inflation. On this day in 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders in the DSM compilation. On December 15, 1961, Adolf Eichmann was sentenced to Death (btw, I’ve finished The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich). And on this day in 1978, Jimmy Carter severed diplomatic ties with Taiwan and recognized the People’s Republic of China.
Notables born on this day include Nobel Laureate Maurice Wilkins (1916), Max Yasgur (1919; and you better know who he is!), and Freeman Dyson (1923). Those who died on this day include Sitting Bull (1890). Fats Waller (1943), Glenn Miller (1944), Wolfgang Pauli (1958), Walt Disney (1966), and William Proxmire (2005). I’m a Waller fan; although he mugged and played the clown, he was an absolutely terrific stride piano player and entertainer. Here he is playing his most famous song, “Ain’t Misbehavin'”. This is from the movie “Stormy Weather” with Lena Horne; accompanists on this song include Benny Carter on trumpet and Zutty Singleton on drums:
And since we’re doing this movie, here’s the “Jumping Jive” sequence with Cab Calloway and the fabulous Nicholas Brothers, a scene that Fred Astaire called the greatest movie musical number he had ever seen. I have to agree it’s up there (and Astaire knew what he was talking about). The Nicholas Brothers’ performance (starting at 1:33) is beyond belief. (I know I’ve put this up before.)
Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili set up headquarters in the wood basket next to the fireplace, but its salubrious location also made her uncomfortable:
Hili: After long deliberation I’ve come to a conclusion.
A: What conclusion is that?
Hili: That it’s not very comfortable here.
In Polish:
Hili: Po głębszym namyśle doszłam do wniosku.
Ja: Jakiego?
Hili: Tu nie jest bardzo wygodnie.
Physicist Lawrence Krauss, always a writer, has now in the Age of Trump become a pro-science activist as well. Wearing that hat, he published two articles just yesterday, one in the New Yorker and the other in the New York Times, both about Trump’s missteps in choosing his cabinet. The New Yorker piece, “Donald Trump’s war on science,” details what most of us know, but what might be outside the radar of New Yorker readers. The cabinet is loaded with people whose mission is to undermine each post, including the denial of human-caused global warming, the desire to produce more fossil fuels, and do it on public land, reduce earth-monitoring for temperature and other variables, and, as seen in Betsy DeVos (the next Secretary of Education), a general dislike of science that might extend to evolution. Although DeVos’s husband is a creationist, I’m not sure whether she is, but there’s plenty of cause for worry:
Along with her husband, DeVos is an active member of the Christian Reformed Church in North America, a small Protestant denomination with the stated belief that “all scientific theories be subject to Scripture.” According to the church’s official statement on science, “Humanity is created in the image of God; all theorizing that minimizes this fact and all theories of evolution that deny the creative activity of God are rejected.” DeVos attended Calvin College, which is owned and operated by the Christian Reformed Church. She majored in business administration and political science. (She does not have a degree in education.) And although she has not spoken out directly on issues such as evolution and the Big Bang, her husband advocated teaching intelligent design alongside evolution in science classes during his 2006 gubernatorial campaign. “I would like to see the ideas of intelligent design—that many scientists are now suggesting is a very viable alternative theory—that that theory and others that would be considered credible would expose our students to more ideas, not less,” he said. Given her strong support of his campaign, and their joint investment in both conservative and religious causes, as well as her own religious background, it is reasonable to expect that her views do not significantly diverge from his. (DeVos did not respond to requests for comment.)
Mr. DeVos’s view:
Well, Krauss is probably right here, but before we go all Chicken Little, the press should ascertain what DeVos’s actual views are. Apparently the New Yorker tried, without response, but her confirmation hearing could include such inquiry. And, at any rate, teaching creationism given present law is not legal in public schools. What a 5-4 conservative-majority Supreme Court could rule, however, is another issue.
Krauss goes on to express a view familiar to readers here: “teaching the controversy” is not fruitful when there isn’t a real controversy, just a bunch of religionists who want Jesus taught in the classroom. That is not a scientific controversy, but a fight between faith and fact.. And if you’re going to teach ID and creationism, why not astrology in a psychology class, or acupuncture and prayer-healing in medical schools? Have a look at the article that Richard Dawkins and I wrote in the Guardian in 2005—”One side can be wrong”— about what the real controversies in evolutionary biology are.
Krauss goes on.
There is nothing respectable about the idea of “teaching the controversy,” as intelligent-design advocates describe it. We don’t teach modern astronomy by suggesting to students that they feel free to decide for themselves whether the sun orbits Earth or vice versa; instead, we teach them how scientists discovered the realities of our solar system, despite considerable pressure to renounce their own discoveries. Similarly, students should be encouraged to understand that evolution is not some principle laid down on high by a conclave of scientists; they should explore the various empirical tests to which it has been subjected for more than a hundred and fifty years. The purpose of education is not to validate ignorance but to overcome it. It should be easy, therefore, for Congress to make sure that DeVos isn’t planning to drive our educational system off a scientific cliff. During her confirmation hearings, DeVos should be asked whether she thinks it’s appropriate to teach intelligent design alongside evolution in biology classes, or whether young-Earth creationism should be presented alongside the reality of a 4.5-billion-year-old solar system in physics class. An answer in the affirmative to either question should disqualify her as the highest federal government official overseeing public education in this country. If Congress doesn’t exercise its obligation to insure the competence of Presidential appointees like DeVos, then voters need to hold them accountable in the next election.
But look at this data (a slide I use in some lectures). It shows the result of a Harris poll in 2005:
Given that, it’s unlikely that most voters (or even the benighted Congress) would give a rat’s patootie about what DeVos said. Yet Krauss is right: the new Trump cabinet is not only made up of ill-qualified plutocrats, but shows no sign of being on board with science. What we can do about that, though, only Ceiling Cat knows.
One distressing characteristic of the Left, at least as far as science is concerned, is to let our ideology trump scientific data; that is, some of us ignore biological data when it’s inimical to our political preferences. This plays out in several ways: the insistence that race doesn’t exist (and before you accuse me of saying that races do exist, read about what I’ve written here before: the issue is complex), that there are no evolutionarily-based innate (e.g., genetically based) behavioral or psychological differences between ethnic groups, and that there are no such differences, either, between males and females within humans.
These claims are based not on biological data, but on ideological fears of the Left: if we admit of such differences, it could foster racism and sexism. Thus. any group differences we do observe, whether they reside in psychology, physiology, or morphology, are to be explained on first principle as resulting from culture rather than genes. (I do of course recognize that culture can interact with genes to produce behaviors.) This ideological blinkering leads to the conclusion that when we see a difference in performance between groups and genders, the obvious explanation is culture and oppression, and the remedy is equal outcomes rather than equal opportunities. Yet in areas like most sports, where everyone agrees that males are on average larger and stronger than females, it’s clear that the behavioral differences (i.e., performance) result from biological differences that are surely based on evolution (see below). In sports like track and field or judo, nobody would think of making males compete with females.
But that’s not a good way to act. The Left has historically been characterized by respect for the facts, and the refusal to even consider that such differences could be based in part on genes is an unwelcome and unhealthy departure from our traditional embrace of rationality. Yes, phony biological data has been used to support racism and sexism, but remember that that is the fault of human prejudice, cooked data, and an inability to do proper experiments that have all resulted in terrible data being used to support human prejudices. Finally, of course, culture can influence behavior, including reinforcing biologically-innate behaviors if they are seen as “normal.”
To claim that there are no evolutionary differences in behavior and psychology between men and women is fatuous. The data show otherwise, though of course for most traits we don’t know if it’s genetic. But the default hypothesis, based on observation of other species (especially primates) is that at least some psychological and behavioral differences will be based on genes that evolved via selection in our ancestors. Why is the brain immune to evolved, sex-specific differences but the body is not?
Thus, to claim, as does P.Z. Myers in a new post, that higher testosterone levels in males have minimal influence on their aggressiveness compared to the effects of culture, is a claim based not on data—which show that he’s wrong—but on ideology. And so he and his commenters try to refute the testosterone-effect notion using anecdotes: some males aren’t aggressive, Myers himself is not aggressive (!), aggression is due “mostly” to cultural difference (the “patriarchy”) rather than to biological differences, and so on. To read the comment thread is to see a bunch of progressives desperately squirming to avoid the obvious.
Well, I’m not an expert on testosterone, but what I do know is that levels of that hormone are not only correlated with aggression within and among the sexes, but that injecting it into both men and women also makes their behavior and psychology more aggressive. Thus the correlation at least partly reflects causation.
But let’s look at some data showing prima facie that there are biological differences in behavior between males and females, and that those differences reflect the working of natural selection—in the form of sexual selection—in our ancestors. To do this, we’ll use body size as an index of behavior. I’ll try to be brief.
It’s well known that in virtually all species of primates (there are a few exceptions in lemurs), and in other groups such as pinnipeds, males are larger than females. That is not cultural, but genetic; if you rear gorillas in any habitat, the males are going to grow up larger than females. You can see the data among species yourself in a 2006 paper by Adam D. Gordon (reference and free link below), showing an almost universal trend for the male/female body mass to be larger than 1 in primate species (in every species there are of course some small males and large females, but we’re talking about averages).
Why is this? It reflects evolved male behavior: the tendency of males to compete for females, and the advantage of large body size in that competition. Whether the advantage be in direct competition, so that the larger you are the more you can fight off other males (gorillas, elephant seals), or in female choice, so that females choosing large males can gain protection for her young from marauding males (also gorillas), the difference in size reflects something almost universal among animals: males, who have cheap gametes, must compete for females who have expensive gametes and invest more in reproduction. And that is why, in study after study in humans, male sexual behavior shows promiscuous mating, while females are more selective. That’s not necessarily all biological, but some of it surely is given that our closest relatives show the same behaviors and that there is no such thing as The Gorilla and Chimpanzee Patriarchy.
Here’s further evidence that the larger size and strength of males is reflected in their behavior—and was almost certainly promoted by sexual selection:
In human societies studied by Richard Alexander, those societies that are more polygynous (in which males compete more intensively for females) show greater sexual size dimorphism than societies that are more monogamous. This was a prediction made before the data were acquired—a prediction derived from sexual selection theory. And it was fulfilled.
Among species of primates, there’s a good correlation between the polygyny of a species and sexual dimorphism: those species in which males have a higher variance in offspring number, and in which males thus compete more intensely for females, also show a greater ratio of male/female body size, even when corrected for phylogeny. (Too, in primate species in which males fight each other over females, the relative size of the canine teeth, used in battle, is larger than in species showing less direct male-male competition.)
In humans, as in many other species in which males compete for females, the sex ratio at birth favors males. They then die off at a higher rate due to higher risk-taking and exploratory behavior, until at reproductive age (about 25), the sex ratio is equal. Then, as males continue to die off, the sex ratio reverses, becoming female-biased at greater ages. This is exactly what evolutionary theory predicts: if there are biological differences in mortality rates, then evolution will adjust the sex ratio so it’s equal at the time of reproduction.
In line with the above, in humans and other primates, males show from the outset great exploratory and risk-taking behaviors, and as adults show many other behaviors that differ from those of females, such as greater dispersal. Is this due to the Primate Patriarchy? Probably not, given that these differences in behavior are shown in many species besides ours and make evolutionary sense.
As I said, some of this is in our own species may be due to culture, for culture can reinforce pre-existing biological differences that have come to be seen as “natural.” (I don’t need to emphasize here that I don’t think that what is “natural” in other primates, or what has evolved in our own species, should be accepted as the right way to behave!). Further, some have suggested that the size differences between men and women reflect ecological rather than reproductive differences—say in foraging behavior. But the data don’t support that, and they do support predictions made from the sexual-selection hypothesis. And even if ecology does play a role, that still reflects evolutionarily produced changes in some aspects of behavior.
All this is to say that body size is a proxy for behavior in our own group—primates—and that body size correlates with behavior: sexual behavior. To deny that the differences between human males and females in size and strength are evolved is to deny at the same time that differences in behavior between males and females is evolved. Only the blinkered ideologue would do that. Sadly, these ideologues continue to promote antiscientific ideas on the Internet.
I am not making claims here about other behaviors differing among the sexes, since there are no morphological correlates with other behaviors as clear as that between body size and sexual behavior. But the male/female difference in body size does reflect differences in psychology—psychology of mate acquisition. This alone shows an evolutionarily-based difference between men and women, one that is almost certainly does not rest entirely on culture, for we see the same differences in species lacking our culture. There is no Primate Patriarchy outside our own species.
And if all this be true, then it would be foolish to deny prima facie that there are other evolved differences in psychology between men and women, some reflected in morphology (why are men hairier than women?). The conventional wisdom should never be that men and women are biologically identical in their psychology and behavior, amiable as that may be to Leftist ideology. The primacy rests not with ideology, but with data; and while we can act against what the evolutionary data tell us (as we do when we use contraception), we should not deny that the data exist, or exercise confirmation bias so we try to dismiss data that contravene our ideology while welcoming data that support it. What we need to do is accept the data, but then adjust our society so that we realize the outcomes we want from our (partly evolved) morality. And that doesn’t mean structuring our society so that morality parallels biology.
And you can bet your tuchas that the ideologues will do their best to undercut (or ignore) the data adduced above. And for similar arguments but a lot more data, see Steve Pinker’s book The Blank Slate, which has a new Afterword with a detailed update on gender.
Gorilla female and male. Females weigh about half as much as males.
Here’s the latest Jesus and Mo strip, called “false.” A note in the email said “If you believe this, you’ll believe anything,” and below the cartoon it says this:
Expecting a big bonus from my Zionist paymasters for this one.
All of us must die, and the only solace that animals have is that they have no idea it’s coming. (I still think that we’re the only species whose members are aware of their own personal mortality.) Reader Ed Kroc sent a series of photos detailing the death of a common murre. Such tragedies happen by the millions every day, but most animals die alone, undocumented, and unmourned. This is a tribute to all of them—and to Ed, who hiked three kilometers with the injured bird and then drove 100 km to try to get her help.
Ed’s notes are indented:
Here’s a set of wildlife photos with a sad but important accompanying story. On a trip to Port Renfrew on the west coast of Vancouver Island, I encountered this ailing Common Murre (Uria aalge). She was swimming slowly around a small corner of Botany Bay, trying periodically to leap up to the rocky ledges, but flailing and falling back into the water each time. We had just experienced rough storms and I thought she might be exhausted from the wind and surf. I watched her for about 20 minutes from a distance, taking pictures. But then she saw me and started to paddle over to the rocks where I was crouched alone.
The rocks sloped down into the water, and I was right at the edge. She swam right by me and beached herself about 2 metres from where I was, paddling right onto the rocks and letting the ebbing tide wash her ashore. She stared right at me while I was busy taking pictures, and I soon realized this was no accident. She could not stand or walk. Her body was limp, exhausted from struggling against the tides for hours, maybe days. Her wings hung lifelessly, and her eyes looked heavier than solid iron. I do think that she had beached herself hoping for an intervention. Likely, she saw me as a large mammal, like a bear or a wolf, and hoped that I would simply offer relief in the form of a quick death.
I sloshed through the tide and stumbled down beside her. She did not move or show distress, just looked right at me. So I picked her up and placed her in my toque. She did not struggle, but just closed her eyes and held her head up high to the sun.
I carefully clambered back around the cove and hiked the 3 kilometres back to my car with her in hand. The sun had set by the time I reached the parking lot. It was a weekend and the only place for help still open was the Central Victoria Veterinary Hospital 100+ kilometres away.
I tucked her into the back seat, using my scarf and a spare towel to secure her as best I could for the winding drive back to Victoria. The usual 2 hour drive took closer to 4 hours since I had to take each curve slowly so she wouldn’t roll helplessly around the back seat. When I made it to the hospital, she gave me a tired but unafraid look as I picked her up and brought her in for treatment. It was only then that I found out that her pelvis was shattered, completely crushed, either by a predator or by debris from the earlier storms, and she had been languishing for several days in the bay. Unable to dive for fish, she had been slowly starving and withering away (she was less than half her healthy weight). The kind veterinary staff kept her warm and peacefully ended her too brief life in the presence of other empathetic animals.
Life is often cut short and there is much suffering that we cannot control. But when we act on a chance to ease pain, even – and perhaps especially – if it is only to end hopeless suffering that cannot be cured, we can in a way transcend the capriciousness of existence. Any chance to ease suffering should be seized, unapologetically. This is a major reason why I detest religious intrusion into matters of morality. While most people are fine with prescribing euthanasia for non-human animals in the throes of hopeless suffering, the line is always drawn with humans. Protecting the “soul”, the selfish “sanctity” of human life, even when that life is steeped in hopeless agony, and then revelling in that suffering – this is moral bankruptcy and religious depravity at its zenith.
This murre was beautiful and unique, and though her life ended with too much pain, I am extremely grateful to have helped ease that final suffering a bit, to have helped her go in warmth instead of waste. It continues to be a major failing of most modern societies that we refuse to extend that same decency to our own species. (Thankfully, Canada at least is on the right track.)
That’s all for now, and sorry for the downer. But some of the pictures are not bad and that murre was certainly beautiful.
*********
Here is a healthy murre and the species’ range map, both from the Cornell site:
