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.
It’s June 15, which one would think is halfway through the year, but it’s really only the 166th day, not the 182nd. On this day in 1775, George Washington became commander of the Continental Army, leading to the freedom of a nation that bows down to no king or queen. On this day in 1937, sixteen people died on an avalanche on Nanga Parbat, making it the worst climbing disaster ever on an 8000-meter peak.
Notables born on this day include Erroll Garner (1921), Waylon Jennings (1937), Johnny Halliday (1943), and Leah Remini (1970), who recently exposed Scientology’s inner workings. Those who died on this day include Ella Fitzgerald (1996) and Casey Kasem (2014). Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, the anxious Cyrus wants to be sure that Andrzej has brought his favorite toy on the walkies:
Cyrus: Did you take my ball with you?
Hili: He has a mania for this ball.
In Polish:
Cyrus: Zabrałeś moją piłkę?
Hili: On ma bzika na punkcie tej swojej piłki.
And out in Winnipeg, Gus gives his staff the raspberries:
If you remember your first-year biology or genetics, you may also recall the name “Landsteiner,” for it was Karl Landsteiner (1868-1943) who discovered the famous A, B, and O blood groups. And, in much of the world today—but not in the U.S.—Google is celebrating his 148th birthday with this Doodle:
These four blood groups represent combinations of three alleles, an A, a B, and an O allele (the A blood type is AA or AO, the B blood type is BB or BO, the AB blood type is AB, and the O blood type is the double recessive OO). The genetics were not worked out by Landsteiner, nor did he know that the alleles code for antigens: glycoproteins on the surface of the red blood cell. A has one antigen, B another, and O has neither. That means that ABs are the “universal recipients”, since they don’t produce antibodies to the A and B alleles, and can get anybody’s blood, while Os are the “universal donors”, since they express no antigens at all and don’t stimulate the immune system to reject the donor blood. If you’re an O, like I am, your blood is the most useful of all four types. But if you have the additional “negative” Rh type, you’re even more useful (I’m O positive), because there’s incompatibility of Rh types, too. Know your blood type, and put it in your passport and in your wallet. The rules above are a guideline, as there can still be some incompatibility, so doctors often do a cross-check by mixing bloods before transfusion. But in an emergency they rely on the ABO and Rh rules.
At any rate, although Landsteiner didn’t know the genetics and biochemistry, he did know which blood mixed with which without agglutination, and this led to the first successful blood transfusion based on Landsteiner-group compatibility in 1907. (Note to Wikipedia: this was not the first recorded and successful human-to-human transfusion; that was done in 1818 by James Blundell.)
It’s not well known that Landsteiner, along with Erwin Popper, also discovered and isolated the polio virus—in 1908.
I’ve posted before about the Italian-born artist Johannes Stötter, who does absolutely unique art that uses bodypainted people to create animals. I’ve previously written about his fabulous parrot as well as the frog that made him famous. Now he’s created an amazing wolf using three painted women. WARNING: NSFW, for the women are nude. But though it’s hardly titillating, it’s stunning.
Although there are still a few regressive Leftists who can’t bear to utter the word “Islam” in the same sentence as words like “terrorism,” “homophobia,” or “misogyny,” I sense that the previously clueless are beginning to see the connection, a connection palpably obvious to those who don’t hold that having pigmented skin guarantees moral virtue. Hillary Clinton, with a reporter holding her feet to the fire, mentioned the connection yesterday. And on the Internet I’m beginning to see some bloggers (you know who you are) begin to call out Islam for its homophobia.
I think this may be a watershed moment, though, tragically, it took the deaths of fifty people to bring it on. And we want to have a discussion of the connection between religious ideology and oppression, for if liberals don’t, Donald Trump gets more votes from frustrated people who can’t stand the pervasive ignoring and exculpation of Islamic ideology.
The discussion about conservative Christianity and homophobia, as well as the marginalization of women, has been going on for some time (remember l’affaire Kim Davis?) We all recognize the connection, and I don’t hear people asserting that religion had no part in Kim Davis’s bigotry. But Islam has so far been immune, and in the first sentence of this piece I told you why.
No longer, or so I think—and hope. Today three major newspapers have published editorials underlining the religously-based homophobia of Islam; and a liberal Muslim, Maajid Nawaz, published an even more explicit article on The Daily Beast website. It’s time we had a conversation about Islam, just as we’ve had it about the malfeasance of evangelical Christianity and Catholicism.
Why is the horrible mass murder in Orlando inciting this discussion? Is it the fact that it was gays that were murdered, and in the United States rather than Iran or Iraq? Why haven’t the murders of atheists in Bangladesh stimulated a conversation about Islam’s pervasive demonization of infidels and apostates? Why weren’t the mass sexual attacks in Cologne enough to begin a conversation about Islam and the oppression of women? Why didn’t the state-sponsored hatred against Jews, which appears regularly in Middle Eastern media, start a similar conversation about Islam and anti-Semitism?I don’t know, but somehow what happened in Orlando seems to be a tipping point. It’s early days, of course, but I hope I’m right, and that from now on those who discuss the dangers of extreme Muslim ideology won’t immediately be written off as bigots or racists.
Here are the four articles you should read, with a tiny excerpt from each. All seem to be written by either religious Muslims, ex-Muslims, or descendants of Muslims, and all are good. The pieces by Hirsi Ali and Nawaz are especially worth reading.
I’ve spent more than a decade researching Islamic masculinities, including five years living and teaching in Florida before I moved last year. I have heard some Western Muslim leaders step haltingly toward acceptance. But most of what I have heard, when Muslim leaders speak to the LGBT believers in their midst, is callous disregard or deafening silence.
. . . As I have monitored the evolving statements of Western Muslim leaders — most of whom are straight — over the years, here’s what I have heard: a slight movement with regard to LGBT issues by some. Many are silent, but some have realized that the issue must now be publicly addressed, especially with the rise of countries adopting same-sex-marriage bills.
There are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Muslims who stand proud in their understanding that they have a God-given right to claim their gender and sexuality. But the religious leaders who speak out at all on LGBT issues say only this — reluctant and guarded — “Hate the sin and not the sinner.” From the discussions I have had informally with these leaders, this is as far as they think they can go without losing their own followers.
No religion has a monopoly on homophobia. The track record of exclusion and outright abuse of gay men and women in the name of God is a depressing reality across faiths. But we cannot use those analogies to excuse our own shortcomings. Omar Mateen went on a rampage at a gay club out of hatred he attributed to his faith. He shot and massacred Americans for thriving in their safe space, for being among those they love and were loved by, and he did it during both Ramadan and a Pride Month that epitomizes self-love in the face of hate. The toxic cocktail of gun violence, unchecked mental illness and deranged ideology that propelled the massacre at Pulse is a threat to all Americans.
We must stand up against the anti-Muslim responses that come so easily in this current political climate. But for Muslims, this is also a moment to reflect more deeply on how we feel about living in a country where gay rights are central, where marriage equality is real and coexistence is the only way forward.
The Orlando massacre is a hideous reminder to Americans that homophobia is an integral part of Islamic extremism. That isn’t to say that some people of other faiths and ideologies aren’t hostile to members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender, or LGBT, community. Nor is to say that Islamic extremists don’t target other minorities, in addition to engaging in wholly indiscriminate violence. But it is important to establish why a man like Omar Mateen could be motivated to murder 49 people in a gay nightclub, interrupting the slaughter, as law-enforcement officials reported, to dial 911, proclaim his support for Islamic State and then pray to Allah.
I offer an explanation in the form of four propositions [read them in her piece].
. . . Following the horrific attack in Orlando, people as usual have been rushing to judgment. President Obama blames lax gun laws. Donald Trump blames immigration. Neither is right. There has been comparable carnage in countries with strict gun laws. The perpetrator in this case was born in the United States. This is not primarily about guns or immigration. It is about a deeply dangerous ideology that is infiltrating American society in the guise of religion. Homophobia comes in many forms. But none is more dangerous in our time than the Islamic version.
Finally, from Maajid Nawaz in the Daily Beast, “Admit it: These terrorists are Muslims” (if the link sends you to a paywall, just try putting the title into Google, which should give you a link that works fully). He points out the palpable dangers of refusing to discuss Islamist ideology, and offers a solution. An excerpt:
It is time that we liberals took the fabled red pill and accepted reality. Just as this clearly has something to do with outdated gun laws, and just as those laws need reform, this also has something to do with Islam, which also needs reform today. No other stance makes any sense.
. . . Liberals who claim that this has nothing to do with Islam today are being as unhelpful and as ignorant as conservatives who claim that this represents all of Islam. The problem so obviously has something to do with Islam. That something is Islamism, or the desire to impose any version of Islam over any society. Jihadism is the attempt to do so by force. This ideology of Islamism has been rising almost unchecked among Muslims for decades. It is a theocratic ideology, and theocracy should no longer have any place in the world today.
But it is as if we liberals will stoop to anything to avoid discussing ideology. We will initiate state sanctioned presidential kill lists and launch unaccountable targeted assassinations. Yet, no amount of drone strikes under Obama—at a rate that far exceeds Bush—will ever solve the problem. We cannot shoot our way out of an ideology. We cannot arrest our way out of an insurgency. Yes, law and war have their own place, but they will never solve the problem.
. . . What happens if we don’t name the Islamist ideology and distinguish it from Islam? We leave a void for the vast majority of Americans—who are unaware of the nuances in this debate—to be filled by Donald Trump and the Populist Right. They will go on to blame all versions of Islam and every Muslim, and their frustration at not being able to talk about the problem will give in to rage, as it has done. By refusing to discuss it, we only increase the hysteria. Like “he who must not be named”—the Voldemort Effect, I call it—we increase the fear.
. . . This September will mark 15 years since the 9/11 attacks, and we still haven’t devised a strategy to address Islamist extremism, let alone identified voices who can do so globally. Not al Qaeda, not ISIS, nor any other theocratic jihadist group that may emerge in the future, but a strategy that recognizes we are in the middle of a Cold War against theocracy. If we refuse to isolate, name and shame Islamist extremism, from fear of increasing anti-Muslim bigotry, we only increase anti-Muslim bigotry. If the rise of Trump has not convinced us of this yet, then nothing will.
Perhaps the days of Ostrich Leftism are over.
This is, of course, a myth—but it’s a good metaphor.
Mimicry is rife not just among animals, but among plants. But one group that’s been neglected in such studies is the juvenile stages of marine organisms. (This isn’t the case for juveniles of terrestrial animals, as seen by the numerous studies of caterpillar mimicry.)
This has begun to be remedied by a brand new study by Adam Greer and his colleagues published in Marine Ecology Progress Series (free pdf here). The authors give pretty convincing evidence that the larval stages of many fish have evolved to resemble either invertebrate zooplankton that are unpalatable or dangerous (larvae of tunicates and ctenophores), or don’t offer much of a food reward (the larvae of crustaceans). The mimicry, which involves shapes, ornamentation, and behavior of the larval fish, would be a form of Batesian mimicry, in which an edible species (the larval fish) comes to resemble either a distasteful, dangerous, or nutritionally worthless prey item (crustaceans and some invertebrates), because this kind of resemblance reduces your chance of being eaten. That, of course, is mediated by fish predators, who learn to avoid the worthless or dangerous prey and thereby select for larval fish to resemble those prey. It is a phenomenon that requires a learning predator.
Here are two examples of the “models” (“salps” are free-swimming larval tunicates) and putative mimics (larval fish), taken from the paper:
Here’s a figure with photographs, and I’ve put the caption below the figure. All the models on the left are invertebrates, and all the mimics on the right are larval fish. The authors note the various features of fish that presumably have been molded by natural selection to resemble the models: elongated body shape, stalked eyes, long fin rays, guts that trail behind the animal, and so on. The paper notes the various traits of fish that have evolved to look like invertebrates:
The resemblances of different larval fishes to members of the gelatinous zooplankton community are striking when viewing general body shape, transparency, and positioning of fin rays. Gelatinous zooplankton often have long, delicate tentacles that can be readily observed using in situ imaging. These tentacles typically contain pigmented or translucent ‘notches’ that are budding cormidia or nematocysts in siphonophores and hydromedusae or, in ctenophores, branches that increase cross-sectional area and improve prey capture ability. Many larval fishes have evolved delicate and elaborate fin ray extensions that closely resemble the tentacles of siphonophores and ctenophores, including small swellings that resemble the ‘notches’ (Fig. 1A−D). In the Liopropoma genus of groupers, these long fin rays have been taken to an extreme, with 2 rays extending sev- eral times the body length (Fig. 1D). The general shape and positioning of the dorsal fin ray on many flatfishes resemble salps and the projection of their tunics (Fig. 1E,F). The closest resemblance between fish larvae and gelatinous zooplankton is seen in the leptocephalus larvae that are almost identical to a cestid ctenophore (Fig. 1G,H).
Fig. 1. Example images of morphological and behavioral mimicry showing less palatable models (from the perspective of a vi- sual predator) and corresponding mimics in their natural orientation: (A) ctenophore Euplokamis dunlapae; (B) calycophoran siphonophore; (C) flatfish larvae (Paralichthyidae), note pigmented swellings similar to A and B; (D) grouper larva (Liopropoma spp.), note pigmented swellings similar to A and B; (E) salp (Thalia spp.); (F) flatfish larva (Bothidae); (G) cestid ctenophore; (H) leptocephalus eel larva (Muraenidae); (I) leptocephalus larva in curled posture with similar appearance to a salp; (J) narcomedusa Solmundella bitentaculata; (K) flatfish larvae in curled posture; (L) chaetognath (Sagitta spp.); (M) anchovy larva (Engraulidae); and (N) clupeid larva (Clupeidae) vertically orienting. Note changes in scale bars among images
The extensions and ornaments that make the fish resemble the larvae are thought to be costly, because they reduce swimming ability. But if the fitness loss due to slower swimming is more than offset by the survival advantage of resembling an animal that predators avoid, then the mimicry will evolve.
The authors also note that some of the mimicry, as it often does, involves behavior: larval fish that are mimics like these tend to float around like their models, with their bodies curled, something that nonmimetic larval fish don’t do.
Now the evolution of mimicry is inferred, but there’s pretty good evidence for it. First of all, the larval fish are located in the same areas as the models, generally (but not always) a requirement for Batesian mimicry to evolve (predators must apply their learned avoidance to fish evolving mimicry). In this case, the models and mimics were trawled from the ocean in the Gulf of Mexico as well as off New England in the U.S. Second, predation by fish has led to other cases of mimicry (camouflage) in adult rather than juvenile fish, so the selective pressure—fish predation—is present. Further, there is high abundance of the invertebrate zooplankton in the place where mimetic fish larvae live, and a high density of models is usually thought to be necessary in most cases of Batesian mimicry (predators must encounter the model fairly frequently, so that their aversion is reinforced compared to when they encounter the tasty mimic, which reduces aversion).
As I said, the mimicry hypothesis is intriguing but tentative. One experiment that could be done, but hasn’t been, is to expose predatory fish in the laboratory to some of the nutritious models as well as to palatable prey, let them learn to avoid the former, and then test the schooled fish (pardon the pun) by putting them with mimetic larval fish. If this is truly mimicry, predators will then avoid the larval fish mimics a lot more than they would avoid non-mimetic larval fish. In control experiments in which fish haven’t learned, they should nom up the mimetic fish larvae.
Finally, the authors do a computer simulation to show that even a tiny selective advantage of fish larvae, making them more closely resemble the models, will lead to a rapid evolution of mimicry. (We already knew this from early work on population genetics, but it’s useful to reprise.) Since larval fish are produced in huge numbers, with the vast majority dying before reproduction, the authors assumed a mortality of 0.999999 among 1 million larvae released. They they added two traits, a behavioral one and a morphological one, that reduced the mortality slightly—to 0.9999937 when both traits were present. Running this simulation over only 5000 generations showed a rapid increase in the frequency of both traits. (We used computer simulations like this one in my evolution course: you just plug in the survival values and generation numbers, and get a printout of the results.) 5000 generations, of course, is just an eyeblink in evolutionary time.
While the evidence for Batesian mimicry in larval fishes isn’t absolutely conclusive, it’s pretty strong based on the strong resemblance—involving both morphology and behavior—and the fact that the models are, according to the authors, avoided by predators. A few laboratory experiments like those I suggest above would make the argument nearly watertight—excuse the second pun.
Note first the conflation between Muslims and Islam, which is the conflation between “criticizing religion” and “being a bigot against its adherents”.
But the claim to investigate is the characterization of “peaceful and tolerant” adherents. Here are data from the 2013 Pew Survey:
“Together, the surveys involved more than 38,000 face-to-face interviews in 80-plus languages and dialects, covering every country that has more than 10 million Muslims except for a handful (including China, India, Saudi Arabia and Syria) where political sensitivities or security concerns prevented opinion research among Muslims.” These also include Iran.
Conclusion: “Peaceful”: perhaps. “Tolerant”: no. Perhaps Clinton should amend her statement to say “Islam in America” is peaceful and tolerant. Clearly, tolerance is not on the menu in much of the Muslim world. And, as I said yesterday, the rest of the world really is important here, for that’s where the impetus for American Islamic terrorism comes from. It is ISIS recruiters, it’s the imams preaching in the Middle East, who inspire both immigrants to America, as well as citizens with Muslim ancestry, to commit acts of terrorism. You can’t ignore the views of Muslims worldwide when considering the behavior of American Islamists.
I’d amend Clinton’s statement to say “Virtually all religions are adversaries of rationality, democracy, and Enlightenment values.”
Finally, it behooves us to note that when a CNN reporter held her feet to the fire yesterday, Clinton conceded, in a somewhat mealymouthed way:
I have clearly said that we face terrorist enemies who use Islam to justify slaughtering innocent people, and you know, whether you call it radical jihadism or radical Islamism, I think they mean the same thing; I’m happy to say either.
She then clarifies a bit by saying that she won’t demonize a whole religion.
Today we’re highlighted a young wildlife photographer who has taken some nice photos, Jamie Blilie, the 12-year-old son of James Blilie, whose own photos we’ve featured regularly. It’s time for the next generation:
Here are some photos my 12-year-old son took. He just got a Canon Powershot SX530 (super-zoom camera) and he loves it! He’s very interested in photographing birds right now.
Tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor) preening on our back fence (they are nesting in one of our birdhouses):
House finch (Haemorhous mexicanus) feasting on the oranges we put out for the orioles:
Red-bellied Woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), bothering our neighbors’ house. Red-necked seems a more appropriate name!
It’s June 14th, which means the year has exactly 200 days to go. On this day in 1777, the U.S. adopted the Stars and Stripes as its official flag, and, in 1822, Charles Babbage published a paper describing his “difference engine”, now recognized as the world’s first computer. Finally, on June 14, 1907, Norway finally granted women the right to vote.
Notables born on this day include Boy George (1961; he should probably be called “Man George” now) and Steffi Graf (1969). Those who died on this day include Edward Fitzgerald (1883), the great translator of the Rubiyat of Omar Khayyam; Mary Cassatt (1926), G. K. Chesterton (1936), Jorge Luis Borge (1986); and Anne Nicol Gaylor (2015), founder of the Freedom From Religion Foundation and mother of Annie Laurie Gaylor, its current co-President. Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Andrzej inquires of the Editor about her plans for work. It’s amazing that, with a cat at the helm Listy can even function as a website.
A: What are your plans?
Hili: First I will take a nap and then I will eat something.
A: And work?
Hili: Don’t worry, everything will get done.
In Polish:
Ja: Jakie masz plany?
Hili: Najpierw się prześpię, a potem coś zjem.
Ja: A praca?
Hili: Nie martw się, wszystko będzie zrobione.
And, we have a new reader’s cat, shown in a photo sent by his staff Nick C.:
I’m a reader of your website and I thought you might enjoy the attached picture. My wife opened our linen cupboard to put away some towels and was greeted by our black and white cat Nelson (we’re sure he prefers Lord Nelson), who had decided the the gap left for said towels suited him rather nicely.
