Dear BBC: Yes, we are descended from monkeys. And no, evolution and religion are not compatible.

September 26, 2018 • 8:45 am

Yesterday I wrote a bit about the BBC’s new seven-question “Test your knowledge of evolution quiz” (quiz here, my posts here and here), which was (and is) larded with ambiguous questions and wrong answers. They’ve now changed the irrelevant religion question (#7), which originally said, “Evolution and religion are incompatible. True or false?” (the answer was “false,” of course). It now reads “Evolution and religion are not necessarily incompatible. True or false?”. Now that’s a confusing double-negative question, but the answer still touts compatibilism:

Well, we all know that the Beeb is soft on faith (note their “daily affirmation,” or whatever they call the prayer they broadcast each morning), so it’s no surprise. But the question itself palpably does not test one’s knowledge of evolution. It tests whether one is soft on faith. Depending on your definition of “incompatible,” either answer could be right.

Further, they now say that “evolution is not about the origins of life”. First, that’s not necessarily true, since life emerged from nonlife through an evolutionary process, probably involving something like natural selection on combinations of chemicals. But the statement itself implies that if one does consider the origin of life as part of evolution, then evolution is incompatible with religion.  Now why is that? Presumably because evolution is incompatible with the origin story told in Genesis I and II.  If so, then evolution does become incompatible with religion, since Genesis also tells the story of how animals and plants came to be. This is a real confusion on the part of the BBC. At the very least, they have to admit that the story of life—and methodological naturalism—are incompatible with religion.

Further, the Beeb changed the question without any indication that it did so. It was my impression that when a journalist changes an article, the change from the original piece must be indicated on the piece, as an addendum. That’s not done here: more irresponsible (and sneaky) journalism.

At any rate, the question below is still alive, as shown by the tweet below it:

Matthew, Greg and I all think the Beeb got it wrong here. If you’re a strict cladist, you might say that, no, humans did not descend from monkeys; but under the common usage of “monkeys”, yes, our common ancestor would have been recognizable as a monkey.

But the BBC wasn’t thinking of cladism here; it was trying to refute the old creationist trope: “If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?”

Here’s a refutation of the BBC’s answer as tweeted by a paleontologist:

 

I’ve enlarged the phylogeny so you can see it.

Finally, one more plaint. The answer to the question, below, even as given by the BBC, is ambiguous. For the answer notes that, if you define progress as “improved abilities to survive and reproduce” under exigent conditions, then yes, evolution does result in progress. It’s only not progressive when you define progress as “getting more complex”, “getting more like humans”, or moving toward some specified goal. The whole question and answer is deeply ambiguous and, like most of the other questions, the BBC should have deep-sixed it.

They missed a good chance to educate people about what evolution is and what the theory says.

Readers’ wildlife photos

September 26, 2018 • 7:45 am

Please send in your good wildlife photos, as the tank is diminishing. We have two contributors today, though:

Reader Lorraine sent some photos taken by (and published with permission of) her friend Doug Hayes. Doug’s captions are indented.

Great blue heron (Ardea herodias) at Forest Hill Lake, plus a male Northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis).

Black vultures, AKA American Black Vultures (Coragyps atratus) at the Richmond [Virginia] Flood Wall Saturday morning, September 1.  Just hanging out and watching us.

It’s been a while since we had photos from Diana MacPherson in Ontario, but she recently sent two (her captions are indented):

I finally offloaded my chipmunk picture when I took this picture of a Black-legged Meadow Katydid (Orchelimum nigripes) today [Sept. 2].

Eastern Chipmunk (Tamias striatus) on deck railing – I like the way his tail curls around the railing….

 

 

 

Wednesday: Hili dialogue

September 26, 2018 • 6:50 am

It’s the first Hump Day of fall: Wednesday, September 26, 2018, and National Pancake Day (didn’t we just have a Pancake Day?).  In the U.S. it’s National Good Neighbor Day, though I don’t know how to celebrate it. (I am a good neighbor. Won’t you be my neighbor?)

As reader Su points out, it’s opening day of zucchini season. And it can’t come soon enough, as I despise this “vegetable”. The slaughter of zucchini is approved even by cats:

Why is the worst-tasting vegetable also the one that grows the best?

On September 16, 1580, Sir Francis Drake finished his circumnavigation of the Earth, the first captain to do so (Magellan’s expedition had succeeded earlier, but Magellan didn’t make it all the way back.) A sad day for archaeology: it was on this day in 1687 that the Venetians, attacking the Ottoman Turks in Athens, who had turned the Parthenon into a powder magazine, fired a mortar at the structure. It blew up, destroying the roof and three of its four walls. It’s now a sad remnant of its former self. On this day in 1789, Thomas Jefferson was appointed the first U.S. Secretary of State and John Jay the first Chief Justice of the United States. On this day in 1905, Albert Einstein published his first paper on the special theory of relativity. Here’s the first page of that paper, “The electrodynamics of moving bodies”:

On September 26, 1950, UN troops recaptured Seoul from the North Korean military during the Korean War. Exactly three years later, rationing of sugar in the UK ended. I was surprised to learn that it took eight years after the end of World War II for Brits to regain unrestricted access to sugar, but I’m sure there are some older readers who remember rationing. On this day in 1960, the first televised Presidential debate took place in the U.S.: Nixon debated Kennedy, and Nixon lost. Nine years later, the Beatles released their album Abbey Road (nearly 50 years ago!). On September 26, 1973, the Concorde made its first nonstop crossing of the Atlantic. As the BBC notes:

The French model of the supersonic airliner flew from the US capital, Washington, to Orly airport in Paris in three hours 32 minutes. The pilots, Jean Franchi and Gilbert Defer, cut the previous record for a transatlantic airliner journey in half, flying the plane at an average speed of 954 mph (1,535 kph).

On this day in 1981, Nolan Ryan threw five no-hitters, setting a major league baseball record for pitchers. Finally, on this day ten years ago, as Wikpedia notes, “Swiss pilot and inventor Yves Rossy becomes first person to fly a jet engine-powered wing across the English Channel.” The “wing” is basically a backpack, and here’s his device and his flight, which took all of 13 minutes.

 

Notables born on September 26 include Johnny Appleseed (1774), Thédore Géreicault (1791), Ivan Pavlov (1849), cartoonist Winsor McCay (1867), Lewis Hine (1874) T. S. Eliot (1888), Jack LaLanne (1914, died 2011), Marty Robbins (1925), Andrea Dworkin (1946), Olivia Newton-John (1948). Chunky Pandey (1962), and Serena Williams (1981). Those who fell asleep on this day include Juan de Torquemada (1568), Daniel Boone (1820), Levi Strauss (1902), Bessie Smith (1937), and Byron Nelson (2006).

Lewis Hine took heartbreaking photos of child labor. Here’s a spinner in a Massachusetts Mill around 1908:

Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili is getting irritated by Cyrus’s favorite hobby:

Hili: I’m getting tired by your running after the ball.
Cyrus: Why?
Hili: I can’t see any sense in it.
In Polish:
Hili: Męczy mnie to twoje bieganie za piłką.
Cyrus: Czemu?
Hili: Nie umiem znaleźć w tym żadnego sensu.

Some tweets from Grania; the first is of special interest to scientists:

Read this article by Shelby Steele (from Hirsi Ali’s tweet below). A snippet:

Today’s left lacks worthy menaces to fight. It is driven to find a replacement for racism, some sweeping historical wrongdoing that morally empowers those who oppose it. (Climate change?) Failing this, only hatred is left.

Hatred is a transformative power. It can make the innocuous into the menacing. So it has become a weapon of choice. The left has used hate to transform President Trump into a symbol of the new racism, not a flawed president but a systemic evil. And he must be opposed as one opposes racism, with a scorched-earth absolutism.

For Martin Luther King Jr., hatred was not necessary as a means to power. The actual details of oppression were enough. Power came to him because he rejected hate as a method of resisting menace. He called on blacks not to be defined by what menaced them. Today, because menace provides moral empowerment, blacks and their ostensible allies indulge in it. The menace of black victimization becomes the unarguable truth of the black identity. And here we are again, forever victims.

Of special interest to those, like me, who think the Labour Party is infested with anti-Semitism:

Look at this sad little kitten! I think it’s a Somali breed:

https://twitter.com/EmrgencyKittens/status/1044181210073829376

Tweets from Heather Hastie, including a possessive owl:

https://twitter.com/BoringEnormous/status/1043634574281113601

I’ve always thought this bird was surreal:

https://twitter.com/AMAZlNGNATURE/status/1044014293740650497

What a kick! Even Messi couldn’t do that.

We need MORE COWBALL!

https://twitter.com/JohnBick4/status/1043476189346717696

And a cat pulls a good wrestling move on the d*g. Takedown: two points!

https://twitter.com/m_yosry2012/status/1043828574447435777

 

The world’s loneliest duck

September 25, 2018 • 2:45 pm

BOTANY POND DUCK UPDATE:  James and Honey aren’t in the pond today. I don’t know if they’ll return, as they may be scoping out the staging area to see if other ducks have taken off again. But I’m heartened that, unlike several days ago, they left together, and I’m hoping they’ll travel together till next spring.

************

This is a sad story, but not overwhelmingly sad; you can read about it from several sources (e.g., here, here, here, and here,). The upshot is that on the tiny island of Niue, (261 km²), a self-governing state that’s associated with New Zealand, a lone mallard drake appeared. The locals named it Trevor. Here’s where Trevor is:

 

Because it’s a coral island without free-standing water, there are no ponds, and Trevor was stranded high and dry. He eventually found a small puddle, and sticks to it closely, though it’s not nearly big enough for a duck. Moreover, there’s no food for Trevor. The locals started feeding him bread, but quickly realized that Trevor needs better noms. Now the locals not only bring him good food like bok choy, but carry buckets of water to fill up the puddle as it dries out. Even the local fire department has volunteered to keep Trevor’s puddle going. Still, it’s a lonely life, and Trevor’s now being harassed by a ROOSTER, for crying out loud.

Niue is a coral atoll without wetlands or ponds, so this duck has had to make do with a large puddle.

No one knows where it came from, or quite how it got there — and for that very reason it has become somewhat of a celebrity.

“Everybody knows about the duck,” said Randall Haines, who has lived on Niue for several years.

“We drive into town every few days and you can’t help yourself, you just sort of look over and see if it’s still in the puddle, and it is.

PHOTO: Trevor the duck has been having an increasingly miserable time of it lately. (Supplied: NZ Herald/Claire Trevett)

“Someone said, ‘Turn right past the duck’ and then the whole story came out, the only duck on Niue,” she said.

The duck — which appeared earlier this year — is widely known as “Trevor”, after New Zealand’s speaker of the House of Representatives, Trevor Mallard.

Niue is a self-governing state, but Niueans are citizens of New Zealand.

Despite its isolation it is not short of food. Trevett said it was being fed by locals, including offcuts of bok choy from the former New Zealand high commissioner.

The fire service has also been topping up its puddle.

PHOTO: Locals seem to agree the duck cannot stay in its ever-vanishing puddle forever. (Supplied: NZ Herald/Claire Trevett)

How did the drake get to Niue? The theories, which are not mine, are that he stowed away on a ship (unlikely) or flew there (not all that likely, but more likely).

Poor lonely duck! I’m hoping that Jacinda Ardern, New Zealand’s Prime Minister, will take pity on Trevor and have him moved to the main islands of New Zealand, where he can swim to his heart’s content and also find a mate. That would be in keeping with the animal-loving nature of my second homeland.

Here’s an 8-minute show about Trevor from Radio New Zealand (click on the screenshot). Heartbreaking!

h/t: Phil, Keith, Sue, Barry

University of Wisconsin develops tough policy to ensure free speech

September 25, 2018 • 1:40 pm

Last year the University of Wisconsin’s Board of Regents mandated that each of the University’s campuses must develop a policy codifying what constitutes a disruption of speech, and also to specify the possible punishments for disruptors. The flagship campus, UW Madison, has now put out a tough but fair policy that, for the first time I know of, specifies exactly what constitutes a disruption (as well as describing “gray areas”) and outlining what punishments will be meted out to those proven to have disrupted freedom of speech or expression. You can find the pdf of that document, prepared by the University Police Department and the Division of Student Affairs, by clicking on the screenshot below.

It’s a thorough document, laying out in detail the University’s principles of free expression (similar to those of the University of Chicago), what constitutes a disruption of that expression, how it is to be documented and adjudicated, who is responsible for protecting students (both protestors and speakers), how people will be trained to deal with potential and actual disruptions, how security will be notified in advance, and what the punishments for disruption could be.

Here, for instance, are the guiding principles (note that UW is a state school and thus subject to the stipulations of the First Amendment to the Constitution):

UW-Madison endeavors to educate students to become responsible citizens of the world who exercise critical thinking. Our mission calls on us to provide a learning environment in which faculty, staff and students can discover, examine critically, preserve and transmit the knowledge, wisdom and values that will improve the quality of life for all and help future generations thrive. This mission is advanced by ensuring a pursuit of learning and exchange of ideas that extends to every corner of our diverse human experience.

Protecting and promoting freedom of speech and expression is not only a fundamental constitutional right, it is the very bedrock of learning and is central to the University experience. It is vital to our University community that members of the community feel free to express their views, regardless of how unpopular those views may be. But while the First Amendment protects the right to express one’s views, it also allows the University to place reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on that expression. The First Amendment does not guarantee the right to say anything, any time, or in any place. To this end, protests and demonstrations that impede or that disrupt the academic mission, threaten research, interfere with the free speech of others or threaten campus/personal safety will prompt a swift and coordinated response to ensure compliance with UW rules.

That sounds pretty good to me, and I have no beef with the statement itself.

Here are some things that constitute “likely disruptive” behavior (there’s also a category of “likely non-disruptive” behavior, which includes stuff like “pictures or words on clothing”):

Likely Disruptive

• Blocking the vision of others in any manner. (Examples: a sign, certain clothing, a prop, a person’s body, etc.)

• Producing noise that interferes with events and activities.

• Laser pointers.

• Turning off lights in the room.

• Setting off alarms on phones.

• Facsimile weapons.

• Signs where event doesn’t permit such signs.

No more chanting, holding up signs in front of the room, or turning on fire alarms. Yay!

As far as documenting disruptions, the one complaint I have is that the documentation seems to be largely the responsibility of the event organizers, who are asked to “document the disruption with pictures, videos, and witnesses.”  The cops are used only as a last resort. But it seems to me the UW police can also testify about disruptions rather than relying on organizers, who already have their hands full with an event. Also, this doesn’t seem to require the university police to disband a prohibited disruption or to make disrupting students leave the venue.  In other words, the sanctions consist largely of punishments post facto, which may not prevent an event from being “shut down.”

That said, students identified as disruptors will be judged according to the University’s non-academic code of conduct. A single instance can be punished, though punishments are unspecified, but a second instance can carry suspension for a minimum of one semester, and a third incident seems to require mandatory expulsion.

This all seems fair to me. What’s different about it is that the rules are clearly codified, the disruptions specified, and the punishments largely stipulated. To date, many universities have paid only lip service to free speech, and I’m aware of only a handful of cases in which students disrupting a talk have been punished even slightly. It’s time that students learn how free speech works in this Republic.

 

The BBC changed the religion/science accommodationism question on its evolution quiz

September 25, 2018 • 1:00 pm

As reader Eric astutely pointed out, the BBC has now changed question #7—the “accommodationism” question—in the evolution quiz I described this morning. It previously read this way:

Now it reads this way:

I’m fairly sure, but not positive, that calling attention to this question by myself or others has led to the change. It’s an improvement for sure, but I emphasize again that this question has no place in a quiz about evolution. It’s a theological or philosophical question that doesn’t test anybody’s knowledge about evolution. What gives, Beeb? You in bed with Templeton?

Further, the “right” answer depends on what you mean by “incompatible”. If you construe “compatibility” as “some people can be both scientists and religious,” then of course they’re compatible. But if you construe it as “compatible in using comparable methods to ascertain what’s true”, then it’s false. My whole book Faith Versus Fact is about this issue.

But the entire quiz is very shoddy, as several readers pointed out. Virtually every question is ambiguous or wonky. I don’t follow BBC science reporting much, but letting this quiz slip by without some vetting by good British evolutionists (e.g. our own Dr. Cobb) is bad journalism.

So it goes.

 

Woke Leftists embarrass liberals again: heckle Ted Cruz and his wife in a D.C. restaurant

September 25, 2018 • 9:15 am

Can we please stop harassing Republicans who dine out with their families, even if we hate their politics? The latest incident was when Ted Cruz (and yes, his views are über-odious) dined out with his wife last night in a Washington, D.C. restaurant. As the Connecticut Post reports:

Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and his wife were accosted at a restaurant in Washington, DC, on Monday night after several protesters criticized his support of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, President Donald Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court.

As Cruz and his wife, Heidi, began leaving the restaurant, hecklers referred to the sexual misconduct allegations against Kavanaugh and chanted “we believe survivors.”

“Beto is way hotter than you, dude,” one of the hecklers said at one point, in reference to Democratic Rep. Beto O’Rourke, his opponent in the midterm elections.

“God bless you,” Cruz said.

“God bless you too,” a heckler shouted back.

. . . Cruz, like the majority of Republican lawmakers, has supported Kavanaugh’s nomination. Although Cruz described Kavanaugh as “unquestionably qualified” during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing earlier in September, he admitted that the allegations were severe enough to warrant a closer look.

“The allegations … are serious, and they deserve to be treated with respect,” Cruz said during a debate with O’Rourke on Friday.

Apparently Cruz and his wife were forced to leave the restaurant.

Here’s a video showing the louts and thugs harassing Cruz. This comes from the “Smash Racism DC” site, and apparently they’re proud of this behavior. But really, what have these people accomplished? Did they change Ted Cruz’s mind? I doubt it. Did they help ensure Kavanaugh’s withdrawal as a candidate for the Supreme Court? I doubt that, too: that will happen or not happen regardless of restaurant harassment. Did they draw people to the Left? Probably the contrary: this just makes liberalism look bad, and this particular group look like inconsiderate goons who need an anger management course . They have, as Grania pointed out, crossed the line between standing up for what you believe and being a jerk.

This is bullying and virtue signaling, pure and simple. And it’s not the way we should behave. If you think it’s okay, then you must also think that Republicans have a right to bully Barack and Michelle Obama when they dine out. “No socialistic healthcare! No socialistic healthcare!” Christians, too: “No killing babies! No killing babies!” No politician immune!

You’re not going to change my conclusion that this behavior by the Left is reprehensible and counterproductive. If you agree with these thugs, take a number, get in line, and. . . 

https://twitter.com/SmashRacismDC/status/1044408830564683776

I actually emitted a tweet on this disruption this morning, and Seth Andrews backed it up (thanks to Grania for calling my attention to his response):

On the other hand, evolutionary biologist Dan Graur claims that holding certain views (i.e., the views that Dan Graur doesn’t like) mean that a person fofeits his right to privacy.  Graur is apparently He Who Decides who Gets Privacy. He can take a number as above, as my tuchas awaits osculation.

I guess those who (unlike me) are against abortion and consider it murder, also have the right to disrupt the privacy of those who are pro-abortion. If not, why not? Who decides who gets harassed in public? I guess it’s Graur, but I don’t want him as my Decider.