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’m getting ready for an R&R jaunt to California, and posting will be light for about 12 days. As always, I do my best. In the meantime, after that sad letter by Richard Feynman, let’s celebrate the creation of new life—hummingbird life.
These are rufous hummingbirds, as in the video this morning (Selasphorus rufus).
Richard Feynman’s first wife, his high school sweetheart Arline Greenbaum, died of a rare form of tuberculosis at age 25. He was crazy in love with her, and, when she was near death, he rushed from Los Alamos, where he was working on the Manhattan Project, to be by her side at the Albuquerque sanatorium. She died on on June 16, 1945. You can get a fuller account of their romance and her death at the Big Think and Brainpickings, both of which reproduce Feynman’s letter to the departed Arline.
The letter was written in 1946, a year and four months after Arline died, and was sealed in an envelope and stashed away. After Feynman’s own death from cancer, biographer James Gleick found the letter in a box of papers sent to him by Feynman’s widow, Gweneth. Imagine the poignancy of opening that envelope and reading this beautiful and tear-making postmortem farewell. At the end it also has a bit of his characteristic humor (Feynman was an atheist.)
October 17, 1946
D’Arline,
I adore you, sweetheart.
I know how much you like to hear that — but I don’t only write it because you like it — I write it because it makes me warm all over inside to write it to you.
It is such a terribly long time since I last wrote to you — almost two years but I know you’ll excuse me because you understand how I am, stubborn and realistic; and I thought there was no sense to writing.
But now I know my darling wife that it is right to do what I have delayed in doing, and that I have done so much in the past. I want to tell you I love you. I want to love you. I always will love you.
I find it hard to understand in my mind what it means to love you after you are dead — but I still want to comfort and take care of you — and I want you to love me and care for me. I want to have problems to discuss with you — I want to do little projects with you. I never thought until just now that we can do that. What should we do. We started to learn to make clothes together — or learn Chinese — or getting a movie projector. Can’t I do something now? No. I am alone without you and you were the “idea-woman” and general instigator of all our wild adventures.
When you were sick you worried because you could not give me something that you wanted to and thought I needed. You needn’t have worried. Just as I told you then there was no real need because I loved you in so many ways so much. And now it is clearly even more true — you can give me nothing now yet I love you so that you stand in my way of loving anyone else — but I want you to stand there. You, dead, are so much better than anyone else alive.
I know you will assure me that I am foolish and that you want me to have full happiness and don’t want to be in my way. I’ll bet you are surprised that I don’t even have a girlfriend (except you, sweetheart) after two years. But you can’t help it, darling, nor can I — I don’t understand it, for I have met many girls and very nice ones and I don’t want to remain alone — but in two or three meetings they all seem ashes. You only are left to me. You are real.
My darling wife, I do adore you.
I love my wife. My wife is dead.
Rich.
PS Please excuse my not mailing this — but I don’t know your new address.
You can hear actor Oscar Isaac read this letter aloud, fighting back tears, on a video at YouTube.
The government of Canada’s province of Ontario has given every publicly-funded university and college four months to create and put in place free-speech policies modeled on that of the University of Chicago (our policy here). The article below (click on screenshot) officially announces that policy:
Here’s what the schools have to do. Note that student organizations have to comply as well, or lose funding, that discipline must be imposed on students who violate the policy and, as the announcement adds darkly, universities that don’t comply with this order may face “reductions to their operating grant funding.” This is directly from the Ontario government’s announcement.
Free Speech Policy
The policy must apply to faculty, students, staff, management and guests, and it must meet a minimum standard by including the following:
- A definition of freedom of speech
- Principles based on the University of Chicago Statement on Principles of Free Expression:
- Universities and colleges should be places for open discussion and free inquiry.
- The university/college should not attempt to shield students from ideas or opinions that they disagree with or find offensive.
- While members of the university/college are free to criticize and contest views expressed on campus, they may not obstruct or interfere with the freedom of others to express their views.
- Speech that violates the law is not allowed.
- That existing student discipline measures apply to students whose actions are contrary to the policy (e.g., ongoing disruptive protesting that significantly interferes with the ability of an event to proceed).
- That institutions consider official student groups’ compliance with the policy as condition for ongoing financial support or recognition, and encourage student unions to adopt policies that align with the free speech policy.
- That the college/university uses existing mechanisms to handle complaints and ensure compliance. Complaints against an institution that remain unresolved may be referred to the Ontario Ombudsman.
As the Globe and Mail notes in the story below (click on screenshot), “Hate speech that violates Canadian law will not be allowed.” I wasn’t in fact aware that Canada had hate speech laws of this sort, but, sure enough, there’s a Wikipedia article on them. Here’s a summary:
There are two important phrases which are used in the different provisions: “identifiable group” and “hate propaganda”. The terms have the following meanings:
- “identifiable group”, used in the three offences in s. 318 and s. 319, is defined by s. 318(4) as “any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability.” (When originally enacted in 1970, the definition was limited to “colour, race, religion or ethnic origin,” but it has been expanded over the years, most recently in 2017 by the addition of gender identity and expression.)
- “hate propaganda”, used in s. 320 and s. 320.1, is defined by s. 320(8) to mean “any writing, sign or visible representation that advocates or promotes genocide or the communication of which by any person would constitute an offence under section 319.”
Section 318: Advocating genocide
Section 318 makes it an offence to advocate or promote genocide, which is defined as killing members of an identifiable group, or inflicting conditions of life on a group which are calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the group. The offence is indictable, and carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment not exceeding five years. There is no minimum punishment. The consent of the provincial Attorney General is required for a charge to be laid under this section.
Section 319(1): Publicly inciting hatred
Section 319(1) makes it an offence to communicate statements in a public place which incite hatred against an identifiable group, where it is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. The Crown prosecutor can proceed either by indictment or by summary process. The maximum penalty is imprisonment of not more than two years. There is no minimum punishment.
Section 319(2): Promoting hatred
Section 319(2) makes it an offence to wilfully promote hatred against any identifiable group, by making statements (other than in private conversation). The Crown prosecutor can proceed either by indictment or by summary process. The maximum penalty is imprisonment of not more than two years.
Section 319(3) provides specific defences to the offence of promoting hatred. A person will not be convicted if:
- the person establishes that the statements communicated were true;
- in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
- the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds the person believed them to be true; or
- in good faith, the person intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.
I have mixed feelings about these laws, which punish speech that would be permitted in the U.S. (For instance, in the U.S. you can advocate genocide or “hate likely to lead to a breach of the peace” so long as that speech doesn’t call for imminent violence. However, they’re sufficiently flexible that you can at least mount a defense for religion, though not “hatred” based on ethnicity or gender and the like. And if you’re trying to have a discussion “in the public interest”, like about affirmative action, that also might constitute a defense.
Although convictions for violating this law aren’t common, they have occurred with respect to anti-Semitic and anti-black speech.
And they’re a bit ambiguous.
For instance, Milo Yiannopoulos’s appearance at a university is likely to a). lead to him saying things the denigrate people’s sexual orientation or gender, and b). lead to a breach of the peace, but not by his supporters. As we’ve seen in Berkeley, the breach of the peace is often committed by opponents of those uttering hate speech. Does that make Yiannopoulos guilty of “publicly inciting hatred”? I’m not sure, but in my view if he’s invited to speak by students or faculty (that won’t happen any time soon!), he should be allowed to speak. That also goes for Steve Bannon, whose appearance at my University this fall may well lead to a “breach of the peace”. And people could construe Bannon as having spread “hatred.” At Chicago it’s certain that he will be allowed to speak, but what would happen in Canada isn’t clear.
The Globe and Mail article above recounts some pushback against this new policy:
Jim Turk, the director of Ryerson University’s Centre for Free Expression, called the policy an “unprecedented abuse of university autonomy.”
Universities, along with the media, are the foremost bastions of freedom of expression in the country, he said, adding it was “ironic” a government that set up a sex-ed “snitch line” and promised to prevent rallies critical of Israel would present itself as a protector of free speech.
“There’s an irony of the government trying to give the impression that they’re the ones defending free speech when they’ve been the critics of the exercise of free speech,” he said.
Dr. Turk said it was also troubling that the statement bans universities from recognizing or funding student organizations that refuse to follow the policy.
“That would seem to me to be a direct violation of the notions of free expression,” he said. “What if there’s a student group that was highly critical of the policy? Should they not have the right to exist and voice their criticism of it?”
Now I don’t know anything about the “snitch line” or prevention of rallies critical of Israel (those of course should be permitted), but there is a concern about university autonomy. The government here is not asking Canada to follow a constitutional provision, as it would be doing in the U.S. (public universities are considered arms of the government and should abide by our First Amendment.) Rather, it’s enforcing its own preference (ideology if you will) on universities. Further, the University of Chicago Principles themselves contravene Canada’s own “hate speech” laws. But I do approve of the policy in general and of students being disciplined if they violate it.
The withholding of funds from student groups that don’t follow the policy is fine by me, but banning such groups seems extreme.
Finally, the withholding of funds from universities themselves is a more problematic threat , since it’s the government’s call whether a university has conformed to its policy. In contrast, if the United States government were to require colleges and universities to follow the First Amendment, and to discipline students who violated it (they are, after all, citizens), I wouldn’t have much to beef about.
But this is Canada, not the U.S., and the laws are not the same. So let’s take a vote:
h/t: Diana MacPherson
Reader Rick Longworth sent a hummingbird video from Idaho. His notes are indented:
I’ve been watching my local hummingbird community since I arrived in Idaho in April. So far I’ve identified black chinned (Archilochus alexandri) and rufous hummingbirds(Selasphorus rufus). I was lucky to capture three types of feeding behavior shown in the attached film.
1. In addition to flower nectar, hummingbirds eat lots of tiny bugs. They are usually ambush predators, waiting on their favorite perch for insects of the right size to fly by. The clip shows a female rufous hummingbird detecting and attacking a moth overhead. The clip is shown in normal speed and then slowed down.
2. Another approach to gathering protein is to be fortunate enough to land next to a tasty morsel as seen in the second clip, also shown twice. It’s another female rufous.
3. Finally, a black chinned female demonstrates the familiar method of sipping nectar. A hummingbird visits about 2000 blossoms a day to get enough glucose.
Tony Eales from Australia sent some arthropods; check out the first two photos of the whip spider!:
A few more arthropods from around south east Queensland Australia
One of my favourite spiders, the Whip Spider (Ariames colubrinus). These are predators on other spiders and I think their extraordinary shape allows for camouflage against their dangerous prey.
Next is an exciting find for me, something I’d been hoping to observe for a while, a parasitic Drynid Wasp larvae attached to a Flatid Planthopper nymph. Wikipedia describes the life cycle:
“The female dryinid injects an egg into the host insect with her ovipositor. Females may also have front legs modified with a pinching apparatus which they use to restrain the hosts for their larvae during oviposition. The larvae are legless or have only vestigial legs. The larva feeds on the internal structures of the host, and as it grows larger it begins to protrude from the body. It develops a hardened sac (called a “thylacium”) around its body for protection. The host is eventually killed and the larva leaves the dead body and spins a cocoon.”
Next are three small predatory flies.
Coenosia sp. Sometimes known as Killer Flies, these are small flies in the House Fly family Muscidae. I find these amazing because they don’t seem to have any physical specialisation for their predatory lifestyle. The one in the photo has a minute little fly in its grasp that you can just make out.
Hybos sp. is another very small fly that catches prey on the wing. It’s in the Dance Fly family Hybotinae. These show some pretty good adaptation for its predatory lifestyle with large rear legs that superficially resemble the grasping arms of mantids.
Octhera sp. These are predators on mosquito larvae as maggots and flying mosquitos as adults. They’re a predatory branch of the Shore Fly family Ephydridae. I found this one among the mangroves.
And I present once again a photograph of the beautiful mallard drake (Anas platyrhynchos) named James Pond:
It’s Monday, September 3, 2018, and a holiday in the US (Labor Day). As per the day’s monicker, I will be laboring. There are ducks to feed and trips to prepare for.
Today’s Google Doodle celebrates the holiday with a montage of labor implements. When you click on the icon, you go to, well, do it and see:
It’s also National Welsh Rarebit Day, celebrating the food that repeatedly gave Winsor McCay’s characters weird dreams:
On September 3, 1189, Richard 1 of England, also known as Richard the Lionheart, was crowned at Westminster. On this day in 1658, the Lord Protector of England, Oliver Cromwell, died of an infection and was succeeded by his son Richard. Oliver himself was subject to “posthumous execution”: his body was dug up and hanged. On September 3, 1838, Frederick Douglass escaped from slavery; he was to become one of America’s most famous abolitionists.
On this day in 1933, Yevgeniy Abalakov became the first man to summit the highest mountain in the Soviet Union, Communism Peak (also called Stalin Peak but now called Ismoil Somoni Peak), situated in Tajikistan and 7495 m high. And in 1935, Malcolm Campbell became the first man to drive faster than 300 mph, attaining an average speed over two runs of 301 mph on the Bonneville Salt Flats in Utah. (The current record is an unbelievable 763.035 mph, set by Britain’s Andy Green in 1997—faster than the speed of sound.) Here’s a Movietone video of Campbell’s record:
And Green’s record, set in what’s basically a jet on wheels:
On this day in 1941, Karl Fritzsch, deputy camp commandant of the Auschwitz Lager, first experimented with the chemical Zyklon B producing cyanide, to gas Soviet prisoners of war. Zyklon B was, of course, later used in large-scale gassing of Jews and other “undesirables”.
Notables born on September 3 include the architect Louis Sullivan (1856), Loren Eiseley (1907), Alan Ladd (1913), Whitey Bulger (1929, still in jail), Al Jardine (1942), Malcolm Gladwell (1963) and Charlie Sheen (1965). Here’s a picture of my father (right) and Alan Ladd (left), taken in Greece in front of the Parthenon during the filming of the 1957 movie Boy on A Dolphin starring Ladd, Sophia Loren, and Clifton Webb (it was Loren’s first movie in which she spoke English). This was probably taken in 1956; my dad helped with arranging transportation for the cast and crew via the Army motor pool. (I also have photos of him with Loren.)
Those who died on September 3 include Oliver Cromwell (1658, see above), Ivan Turgenev (1883), Beryl Markham (1986), Pauline Kael (2001), and Sun Myung Moon (2012).
Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili, under an apple tree, remembers the apocryphal story of Newton discovering gravity (Hili doesn’t want to be beaned by an apple).
A: Why did you freeze?Hili: I remembered Newton’s dismal adventure.
Ja: Czemu znieruchomiałaś?Hili: Przypomniała mi się ponura przygoda Newtona.
Kuwaiti police has shut down a fish store that was sticking googly eyes on fish to make them appear more fresh than they are. 🙂
via Al Bayan newspaper, @bayan_kw. pic.twitter.com/CcPa73fDQh— Mohamed El Dahshan (@eldahshan) September 1, 2018
From reader Blue:
https://twitter.com/YouHadOneJ0B/status/1036229755685748736
From reader Barry, who calls this “a flying cat.” Warning: felinity red in tooth and claw. You probably saw the first tweet, involving a cat and a seal, yesterday.
— funny cats (@funnycat96) September 1, 2018
From Grania, the Duck O’ the Day. She wags her tail even more vigorously than does James Pond. Her quacks are also weird.
This duck wags her tail every day when mom gets home 🧡 pic.twitter.com/gEAkRtEs4b
— The Dodo (@dodo) September 2, 2018
Some physics for the day. They could also have used an ice skater doing her final spin and speeding up as she draws in her arms.
This is a demonstration of the conservation of angular momentum using a Hoberman sphere, a plastic sphere frame that can be contracted by pulling on a string [full video: https://t.co/8pGW9gWYj3] pic.twitter.com/CsQEq8YG22
— Massimo (@Rainmaker1973) August 30, 2018
Swimming kitty!
https://twitter.com/kengarex/status/1035052107915771905
. . . and a lazy panda.
https://twitter.com/BoringEnormous/status/1034850223963688962
We’ve probably all seen Sprinkler Raccoon, but one wag thought to put it to harp music:
So I saw @BoringEnormous 's raccoon tweet and swear I could hear music.
Can you? pic.twitter.com/c7so2m9mF4
— Claire Behind The Hair Blue Tick (@urmumsausername) August 29, 2018
I didn’t know that pigeons could be so aggressive, especially when they’re sitting on kittens.
When you take your cat-sitting job literally. pic.twitter.com/WngMi05B8z
— Earthling (@ziyatong) August 31, 2018
Here’s a male seal encountering his first butterfly. He’s in a tank at the Oregon Zoo, and the butterfly was fluttering outside the tank. Mashable explains in some purplish prose:
Kaya, a harbor seal at the Oregon Zoo, became transfixed by a butterfly flying near her enclosure — and it is the most perfect thing I have ever seen.
Senior Keeper Micah Reese captured the moment while cleaning her enclosure, and shared the footage on Facebook last week.
“Here’s something special that made my heart smile today,” Reese wrote in his caption. “I walked down to viewing before our next dive to check out our work after cleaning [the] seal exhibit this morning, and I found Kaya playing with her new friend.”
In the video, sweet sea angel Kaya can be seen following the butterfly as it flies by her tank.
Kaya, completely mesmerized by the butterfly presses her nose up against the tank to get a better look. She even waves at the fluttering bug toward the end of the video, and it’s almost too much to handle.
Well, I wouldn’t call a seal a “sweet sea angel,” but of course I would call my ducks “sweet pond angels,” so what do I know? (I can’t resist pointing out that, in contrast to seals, ducks have wings.)
Grania not only sent me this tweet, but answered the question.
The tweet:
Has anyone actually *literally* thrown a book they disliked across a room?
— Mac Rogers (@macwrites) September 1, 2018
Grania’s answer (brought up a Catholic, she didn’t capitalize “bible”—probably from disgust):
In my case it would be the bible.
Few Catholics read the bible. Communion, Confession, Mass are all considered far more important, and this is probably a clever tactic of Holy Mother Church given what is actually in the bible. However, I grew up among Protestants who are very big on the bible, or at least so they claim; so in my late teens I decided to give the bible an honest try, cover to cover. There were bits that were boring (the begats) and bits that were fanciful tales (most of the Old Testament). By the time I had gotten to Paul my patience had worn out and when he started to pronounce on women and their place in his ideal society my temper combusted and the tome went flying across the room.
Actually, I don’t think I’ve ever tossed a book across the room. If I don’t like it, I throw it away or return it to the library, depending on whether I own it. I couldn’t throw the Bible as I had to read the whole thing as a project, but I have to say I returned it to the bookshelf with great relief. (No, it is NOT a literary masterpiece; the lovely bits are few and far between.)
More recently, I’ve gotten extremely angry when reading Richard Prum’s The Evolution of Beauty, mostly when reading the bits about how human feminism is buttressed by observing the “sexual autonomy” of female birds who choose the showiest or more vigorous males. It’s wrong, it’s smug, it’s social-justice-y, and it’s a prime example of the naturalistic fallacy.
Your turn.