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.
We have a nice mix of photos and a video today. First, reader Rick Longworth struck up a friendship with an African owl. His notes:
A few years ago my wife and I did a flying vacation (rented Cessna) across South Africa. We encountered dozens of species, mostly in parks and preserves.
We stayed for a few days at a lodge in Pongola Game Reserve. Settled in our cabin, we heard a commotion outside and upon investigating we found a spotted eagle-owl (Bubo africanus) with a dead bat dangling limply from her beak. She flew quickly through the open door with her gift as if to insist we take a greater interest in the bat. She seemed to think we were her brood of chicks and she wanted to keep us well fed. The next day we learned that Nandi, as she is called, had been raised by people at the reserve, and her generous behavior was no surprise to them.
And a reptile for good measure, sent by reader Tony Eales:
While out looking for little creepy crawlies to photograph I had an encounter with a very laid back Eastern Bearded Dragon (Pogona barbata)—either a female or a young male. It was so co-operative I was able to get in close with the macro lens and get close-ups of its eye and tree-climbing claws.
An astronomy photo from Tim Anderson, also in Australia:
This is a picture of the great Carina Nebula, which is adjacent to the Southern Cross and is one of the most intensely active star-forming regions in the sky.
Imaged in “narrowband monochrome” – sixty 60-second images each of emissions in Hydrogen alpha, Oxygen and Sulphur, plus a luminance layer. Made with a 10″ Newtonian telescope and an ASI1600MM camera.
Tara Tanaka has been busy, and we haven’t heard from her in a while. Here’s a novel video from her, in which she imagines what a baby eagle is saying (be sure to enlarge this by clicking on “vimeo,” and turn on the sound). And don’t miss the projectile defecation at 1:34.
It’s Friday, February 2, 2018, and a frigid 5° F (-15° C) outside, with snow predicted today and through the weekend in Chicago. It’s National Tater Tot Day. I suspect they have these in Canada, and Wikipedia says they’ve also infected Australia and New Zealand, but not elsewhere. Actually they’re not bad! If you haven’t seen them, here’s what they look like.
Tater tots are pieces of deep-fried, grated potatoes served as a side dish. They are recognized by their compact cylindrical shape and crispy colored exterior. “Tater Tots®” is a registered trademark of Ore-Ida (a division of the H. J. Heinz Company) that is often used as a generic term.
The product was created in 1953 when Ore-Ida founders F. Nephi Grigg and Golden Grigg were trying to figure out what to do with leftover slivers of cut-up potatoes. They chopped up the slivers, added flour and seasoning, then pushed the mash through holes and sliced off pieces of the extruded mixture. The product was first offered in stores in 1956.
Originally, the product was very inexpensive. According to advertising lectures at Iowa State University, people did not buy it at first because there was no perceived value. When the price was raised, people began buying it. Today, Americans consume approximately 70,000,000 pounds (32,000,000 kg) of tater tots, or 3,710,000,000 tots per year.
It’s also Groundhog Day, and the sky in Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania, where Phil makes his prognostication, is predicted to be partly cloudy. We won’t know for a while, then, whether Phil will see his shadow (that forecasts 6 more weeks of cold weather). I hope he doesn’t, because maybe my beloved duck Honey will return early!
On February 2, 1709, Alexander Selkirk, after being marooned for 4 years on a desert island, was rescued, inspiring Defoe’s book Robinson Crusoe. And on this day in 1887, in Punxsutawney, the very first Groundhog Day was observed, so it’s been going 131 years. On February 2, 1901, Queen Victoria died at age 81; she had reigned for 63.5 years. And on this day in 1922, Joyce’s great novel Ulysses was published. In 1943, the ferocious Battle of Stalingrad came to a close, with the last German troops surrendering to the Red Army. On this day in 1959, the Dyatlov Pass incident occurred, in which 9 experienced hikers and skiers died, having cut their way out of their tents. The cause of their death has never been determined. Finally, on February 2, 1990, South African President F. W. de Klerk announced that the ANC was unbanned and promised to release Nelson Mandela from prison. It was the beginning of the end for apartheid, and both de Klerk and Mandela won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993.
Notables born on this day include Hamnet Shakespeare, William Shakespeare’s only son. Hamnet died at only 11, but his twin sister Judith lived to be 77 and his eldest daughter Susanna lived to 66. On this day in 1882, James Joyce was born, so that Ulysses was published on Joyce’s 40th birthday. Also born on February 2 were Jascha Heifitz (1901), Ayn Rand (1905), James Dickey (1923), Stan Getz (1927), Evgeny Velikhov (1935), Tommy Smothers (1937; still with us), and Shakira (1977; hips don’t lie).
Getz and Coltrane, who had very different styles, were two of the greatest saxophone players of our time. Here they are playing together (with the Miles Davis Quintet) in a medley of three songs:
Those who died on February 2 include Dmitri Mendeleev (1907), John L. Sullivan (1918), Boris Karloff (1969), Bertrand Russell (1970), Sid Vicious (1979), and Philip Seymour Hoffman (2014, only 46).
Also, Buster Keaton, who died on February 1, 1966, had his death reported on the front page of the New York times on February 2. Note the second paragraph (h/t: Matthew):
I continue to get clippings about my family (just skip this if you’re bored!). Here’s the family returning from our 2.5 years in Greece, as reported in the Evening Standard (Uniontown, Pennsylvania) on July 15, 1957. I was seven then, and if you can make out the words below, I was reported to speak fluent Greek (something that I’ve been told several times, and which I believe, for I pick it up quickly when I visit Greece). The statements of my folks about Greece show that they enjoyed it, but were glad to get back the “old hometown”. My father was fond of such bromides.*
We had a sizeable mansion in Greece, living in the small town of Kiffisia—a suburb of Athens. (I still remember the address, 23 Pentelis Street, but when I went back some years ago the house was gone.) An Army captain could afford such luxury because everything was cheap. We had several acres of gardens, tended by two gardeners named Yiorgos and Bobby, and a maid named Despina. There were also lots of stray cats that my mother fed.
As my dad noted, he missed fresh fruit, and I remember that an orange was a hard-to-find treat, even though it was Greece. Remember, this was ten years after the end of WWII, and the country was still suffering the aftereffects of the war and occupation. I remember having to go down to the basement every morning to fetch two big cans of milk, as we weren’t supposed to buy fresh milk. Some of the canned stuff went to the cats.
I was able to make out the text below, but it took time. Note that I had a big grin, for these were the days before I became lugubrious.
Tomorrow: How my grandfather killed his cousin.
*Every night my father would tuck me in, and often dispensed a witticism or bromide at bedtime. I remember several; here’s one: “Jerry, I’ve only been wrong once in my life, and that was when I thought I was wrong but I wasn’t.”
These tweets, sent to me by Matthew, were collected and posted by Alastair McAlpine, who doesn’t seem to have a big internet presence. But these statements, which come from terminally ill children, are ineffably beautiful and poignant. They made me tear up hard.
There is nothing sadder than a dying child, who lose their lives before they’ve lived them. What a horrible thing it must be for a parent to think about that! But there’s an upside to be found below: these kids enjoyed themselves, and they’re telling us what we, who have much longer lives, should be enjoying too.
Read them all.
For an assignment, I asked some of my terminal paediatric palliative care patients what they had enjoyed in life, and what gave it meaning. Kids can be so wise, y'know. Here are some of the responses (Thread).
— Alastair ‘Wear a Mask’ McAlpine (@AlastairMcA30) February 1, 2018
MANY mentioned their pets: 'I love Rufus, his funny bark makes me laugh.' 'I love when Ginny snuggles up to me at night and purrs' 'I was happiest riding Jake on the beach.' /2
— Alastair ‘Wear a Mask’ McAlpine (@AlastairMcA30) February 1, 2018
ALL of them loved ice-cream. /4
— Alastair ‘Wear a Mask’ McAlpine (@AlastairMcA30) February 1, 2018
MANY wished they had spent less time worrying about what others thought of them, and valued people who just treated them 'normally'. 'My real friends didn't care when my hair fell out.' 'Jane came to visit after the surgery and didn't even notice the scar!' /6
— Alastair ‘Wear a Mask’ McAlpine (@AlastairMcA30) February 1, 2018
Almost ALL of them valued kindness above most other virtues: 'My granny is so kind to me. She always makes me smile.' 'Jonny gave me half his sandwich when I didn't eat mine. That was nice.' 'I like it when that kind nurse is here. She's gentle. And it hurts less' /8
— Alastair ‘Wear a Mask’ McAlpine (@AlastairMcA30) February 1, 2018
Kids love their toys, and their superheroes. 'My Princess Sophia doll is my favourite!' 'I love Batman!' (All the boys love Batman) 'I like cuddling my teddy' /10
— Alastair ‘Wear a Mask’ McAlpine (@AlastairMcA30) February 1, 2018
Take home message: Be kind. Read more books. Spend time with your family. Crack jokes. Go to the beach. Hug your dog. Tell that special person you love them.
These are the things these kids wished they could've done more. The rest is details.
Oh… and eat ice-cream. /End
— Alastair ‘Wear a Mask’ McAlpine (@AlastairMcA30) February 1, 2018
The Pecksniffs have descended on the town of Matthew Cobb; yes, the termites have dined their way to Manchester. For a lovely and famous pre-Raphaelite painting, “Hylas and the nymphs“, created in 1898 by John William Waterhouse, has been removed from display at the Manchester Art Gallery.
First, the story behind the painting (from Artble):
Taken from the story of Jason and the Argonauts, Hylas was an Argonaut warrior and the assistant and lover of Herlkas. He was also known to be a very handsome youth.
When Jason’s boat landed on an island during his search for the Golden Fleece, Hylas was sent to fetch water for the camp. Finding a pool in a clearing, he reached down and put his pitcher into the water. Before he could lift his pitcher he looked up to discover water nymphs encircling him. Drawn by his beauty, one of the nymphs reached up to kiss Hylas.
The tale stops there and Hylas disappeared without trace from that moment, it was said that Herlkas searched the island for his beloved, in fact such a time passed that the boat left without him.
It’s a lovely painting; I have a weakness for the pre-Raphaelites and their descendant Maxfield Parrish.
It is a painting that shows pubescent, naked nymphs tempting a handsome young man to his doom, but is it an erotic Victorian fantasy too far, and one which, in the current climate, is unsuitable and offensive to modern audiences?
Manchester Art Gallery has asked the question after removing John William Waterhouse’s Hylas and the Nymphs, one of the most recognisable of the pre-Raphaelite paintings, from its walls. Postcards of the painting will be removed from sale in the shop.
The painting was taken down on Friday and replaced with a notice explaining that a temporary space had been left “to prompt conversations about how we display and interpret artworks in Manchester’s public collection”. Members of the public have stuck Post-it notes around the notice giving their reaction.
Apparently its removal is an unfortunate byproduct of the recent (and laudable) movements against sexual harassment and predation:
Clare Gannaway, the gallery’s curator of contemporary art, said the aim of the removal was to provoke debate, not to censor. “It wasn’t about denying the existence of particular artworks.”
The work usually hangs in a room titled In Pursuit of Beauty, which contains late 19th century paintings showing lots of female flesh.
Gannaway said the title was a bad one, as it was male artists pursuing women’s bodies, and paintings that presented the female body as a passive decorative art form or a femme fatale.
“For me personally, there is a sense of embarrassment that we haven’t dealt with it sooner. Our attention has been elsewhere … we’ve collectively forgotten to look at this space and think about it properly. We want to do something about it now because we have forgotten about it for so long.”
Gannaway said the debates around Time’s Up and #MeToo had fed into the decision.
It’s dangerous to say that the influence of these movements have gone too far, as distinctions between various types of badness seem to have been effaced. And the censorship of paintings was not an aim of these movements: it’s collateral damage. But there’s nothing good about this kind of censorship, which I predict will spread. If we need to deep-six every painting in which a male artist “pursues” a woman’s body, then get ready for the censorship of many of the world’s great artworks—not only the pre-Raphaelites, but Titian, Rubens, Picasso, Rembrandt, Manet, and, well, the list goes on forever. Here are a few example of ideologically incorrect paintings.
Of course curator Gannoway denies that this is censorship, even though it clearly is:
Clare Gannaway, the gallery’s curator of contemporary art, said the aim of the removal was to provoke debate, not to censor. “It wasn’t about denying the existence of particular artworks.”
. . . Gannaway said the removal was not about censorship.
“We think it probably will return, yes, but hopefully contextualised quite differently. It is not just about that one painting, it is the whole context of the gallery.”
Excuse me, but this is what comes out of the south end of a bull facing north. They characterized the removal as an “artistic act”, but it’s really an act of censorship. And what Gannaway calls “contextualized quite differently” means that if the paiting returns, there will be a big placard next to it pointing out why it’s “problematic.”
Jesus God, what is happening? I want to eat a Tide pod.
My response is similar to that of Stig Abell, editor and publisher of the Times Literary Supplement (h/t: Barry for the tweet):
This is fine, as long as the conversation begins: "please put the painting back up and stop being so silly". https://t.co/zl3H7E3PDj
I’ve made no secret about my lack of affection for Bill “The Science Guy” Nye. Although at one time he may have been a great promoter of science for kids, he seems unable to survive out of the limelight. The result is that he’s engaging in all sorts of activities to keep himself in the public eye: debating Ken Ham about evolution, popping up at events like the Reason Rally (where he refused to sign my book for charity), and starring in his misnamed television show, “Bill Nye Saves the World.” It also rankles me that he pretends to be a scientist but he’s really not: he was an engineer at one time, but he hasn’t even done that for 32 years. I don’t care if science popularizers have science degrees so long as they can present the material cogently and engagingly, but I do mind when they pretend to be scientists.
The last straw was the incursion of politics into his science show, which proved horribly cringeworthy. Behold “My vagina has its own voice”, followed by “Ice cream sexuality”:
I can’t imagine Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson, or Richard Dawkins presenting any of those videos, which aren’t even science but ideology.
There are many other reasons I dislike Nye, but this will suffice. Others, of course, disagree, and love the laterally compressed man with the bow tie. Many of them were turned on to science by Nye when they were kids, and I can’t fault that. All I know is the man I see today, and he makes the soles of my shoes curl up.
This week, however, Nye decided to attend Trump’s State of the Union Address, which was fine, but what rankled people is that he went with Republican congressman Jim Bridenstine. Trump proposed Bridenstine as the new director of NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration), but the nomination has been held up because Bridensteine is unqualified, not having a science degree (though he’s a pilot and was director of the Tulsa Air and Space Museum), and, most important, he won’t say openly that human activity is the major cause of global warming. When examined in a confirmation hearing, Bridenstine admitted that global warming was in part anthropogenic, but wouldn’t say that human activity is the main cause.
To many that is heresy, but I think that a partial admission is a step in the right direction for the man, though of course he may have been lying. I don’t think he should be confirmed, for he’s simply unqualified, but in the end his failure to fully sign on to what is seen as settled science will probably be the main factor blocking his nomination. After all, most of Trump’s nominees are unqualified!
What bothered people a lot was that Nye went to the State of the Union as Bridenstine’s guest, which apparently they saw as Nye’s endorsement not only of Bridenstine’s views and Trump’s policies, but also, by proxy, of xenophobia, homophobia, misogyny, racism, ableism, and yes, anti-science. No matter that Nye accepts and speaks about the dangers of anthropogenic global warming, or that he dissociated himself from Bridenstine’s and Trump’s political views. As the New York Post reports:
“I will attend the State of the Union as a guest of Congressman Jim Bridenstine — nominee for NASA Administrator — who extended me an invitation in my role as CEO of The Planetary Society,” the science educator and engineer tweeted Monday night.
“While the Congressman and I disagree on a great many issues — we share a deep respect for NASA and its achievements and a strong interest in the future of space exploration,” he wrote.
“My attendance tomorrow should not be interpreted as an endorsement of this administration, or of Congressman Bridenstine’s nomination, or seen as an acceptance of the recent attacks on science and the scientific community,” he continued.
I don’t have a beef with Nye going to the speech with Bridenstine; I have a beef with him constantly pushing himself into the limelight, and he’ll do it in any way he can. I object to Nye’s rampant careerism, not to his politics. In this case, though, his self-promotion required him to go with a Republican.
Many others took issue with that, though, and pushback against Nye’s attendance was reported and/or promulgated by many places, including Salon, Geekwire, and CNN. The only temperate voice was reported at Geekwire:
The Planetary Society’s Casey Dreier volleyed back, saying that it’s important to acknowledge Bridenstine’s shift toward the mainstream on climate science.
“If pro-science activists want to see their policies succeed, by definition they will have to gain new supporters, and in so doing they will have to change people’s minds — and embrace it when it happens,” he wrote.
Nye is the CEO of The Planetary Society: one of the reasons he’s associating himself with the NASA mission.
But three other groups spoke out loudly against Nye’s actions. An online petition by Climate Hawks Vote, which says what’s below, has gathered more than 35,000 signatures:
President Donald Trump is a bigoted climate denier. So is Congressman Jim Bridenstine (R-OK), Trump’s embattled nominee for NASA Administrator. So why is Bill Nye “very pleased” to be Bridenstine’s guest at Trump’s first State of the Union address?
Bill, please be the Science Guy, not the Bigoted Climate Denial Guy. Cancel your plans to attend Trump’s State of the Union as Rep. Bridenstine’s guest.
You can be “very pleased” to be someone’s guest without endorsing Bridenstine’s policies, and Nye explicitly said he didn’t, and has emphasized human-caused global warming constantly.
Bill Nye has been a stalwart voice against the Trump administration’s climate denial in the past year. Meanwhile, Jim Bridenstine is exactly the opposite: a climate denying, fossil fuel-funded politician who has no business running NASA. As a member of Congress from Oklahoma, Bridenstine has already racked up $170,000 in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry. Even though he refutes the science of climate change and has no scientific background, he just moved one step closer to becoming the head of NASA.
NASA performs critical climate science research, and if the Senate confirms Bridenstine’s nomination he could work with Trump to end NASA’s earth science missions, and ground essential research satellites. With his controversial nomination heading soon to the Senate floor, Bill Nye’s tacit endorsement could be just what Bridenstine needs to get enough votes to be confirmed. We have to stop this in its tracks.
Tell Bill Nye today: Don’t support the Trump administration’s disastrous climate denial agenda by attending the State of the Union as Jim Bridenstine’s guest.
As scientists, we cannot stand by while Nye lends our community’s credibility to a man who would undermine the United States’ most prominent science agency. And we cannot stand by while Nye uses his public persona as a science entertainer to support an administration that is expressly xenophobic, homophobic, misogynistic, racist, ableist, and anti-science.
Scientists are people, and in today’s society, it is impossible to separate science at major agencies like NASA from other pressing issues like racism, bigotry, and misogyny. Addressing these issues should be a priority, not only to strengthen our own scientific community, but to better serve the public that often funds our work. Rather than wield his public persona to bring attention to the need for science-informed policy, Bill Nye has chosen to excuse Rep. Bridenstine’s anti-science record and his stance on civil rights, and to implicitly support a stance that would diminish the agency’s work studying our own planet and its changing climate. Exploring other worlds and studying other planets, while dismissing the overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change and its damage to our own planet isn’t just dangerous, it’s foolish and self-defeating.
Further, from his position of privilege and public popularity, Bill Nye is acting on the scientific community’s behalf, but without our approval.
That seems over the top to me, for Nye surely doesn’t endorse xenophobia, homophobia, and that whole slate of sins; in fact, he’s disavowed much of this (see above). Even though the videos about are cringeworthy, they nevertheless do attack homophobia and misogyny. So Nye’s supposed “implicit” support for these things has been rejected explicitly. I also question whether science at NASA, or anyplace else, cannot be separated from identity politics. There’s no logical connection between the two, except that most scientists are liberals, and most liberals don’t endorse homophobia, xenophibia, et al. Finally, does Nye need anyone’s approval to appear at the State of the Union message? He was not acting on the scientific community’s behalf, but on his own behalf.
There’s this, too:
The true shame is that Bill Nye remains the popular face of science because he keeps himself in the public eye. To be sure, increasing the visibility of scientists in the popular media is important to strengthening public support for science, but Nye’s TV persona has perpetuated the harmful stereotype that scientists are nerdy, combative white men in lab coats—a stereotype that does not comport with our lived experience as women in STEM. And he continues to wield his power recklessly, even after his recent endeavors in debate and politics have backfired spectacularly.
In 2014, he attempted to debate creationist Ken Ham—against the judgment of evolution experts—which only served to allow Ham to raise the funds needed to build an evangelical theme park that spreads misinformation about human evolution. Similarly, Nye repeatedly agreed to televised debates with non-scientist climate deniers, contributing to the false perception that researchers still disagree about basic climate science. And when Bill Nye went on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show to “debate” climate change in 2017, his appearance was used to spread misinformation to Fox viewers and fundraise for anti-climate initiatives.
There’s a bit of truth here, because Nye does “keep himself in the public eye”. More important, I too won’t debate creationists because it gives them credibility—but that’s not the only reason. Other reasons include creationists’ “Gish galloping” in these debates, and because rhetoric in a live debate is not, I think, the best way to let the public issues. But I don’t mind if some other folks debate creationists, so long as they’re prepared and know what they’re doing. But surely going on television and pushing for recognition of global warming is a good thing: we can’t always avoid our opponents, and sometimes debates, with the proper science advocates, can be useful.
I’ll leave you to judge for yourself whether Nye perpetuates stereotypes of science. If he does, people like Neil deGrasse Tyson, who is black and doesn’t wear a lab coat, must dispel them.
In the end, the way to make your point in this case is not to demonize Nye, but to defeat Bridenstine’s nomination. (His nomination seems a lost cause anyway.) Write to your senators and representatives! Write to the White House! This may seem like bawling up a drainpipe, but if that doesn’t do anything, surely calling out Nye will do even less.
I find myself in a strange position defending Bill Nye, as I don’t like him, don’t admire him, and don’t think he’s doing much for science. But I simply can’t get worked up about him going to the State of the Union address with a Republican nominee, especially when Nye has explicitly disavowed Bridenstine’s views on climate change.
Readers: please send in your GOOD wildlife (or landscape) photos, as I can use more.
Today is Duck Day! A “Festival of Ducks”, or so reader Karen Bartelt titled her group of photos. Her notes are indented:
“In line, in line, it’s all in line, my ducks are all in a row They do not change, they do not move, they have nowhere to go.”
—James Taylor, “Sun on the Moon”
Black-bellied whistling ducks (Dendrocygna autumnalis). All in a line at the Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge, on the Mexican border, where the “Wall” will be built first if there is ever any funding. And I know that ducks can fly over a wall, but the disruption to habitat in the Refuge if a wall were to be built is anyone’s guess. Picture also includes a few American coots (Fulica americana) and some sort of turtle.
Blue-winged teal (Anas discors). Big Bend National Park, Texas. Mexico is in the background. These are not Mexico’s best ducks. They’re bringing drugs (note that one duck has dropped its bundle of drugs into the Rio Grande). They’re rapists (of American ducks). Some I’m sure are fine ducks. But not these. [JAC: There are no ducks better than American ducks!]
Greater scaup (Aythya marila) all in a line at the South Shore Marina, Milwaukee, WI.
Common goldeneye (Bucephala clangula) in many lines, South Shore Marina, Milwaukee.
Bufflehead (Bucephala albeola, male), south of water treatment plant, Lake Park, Milwaukee. I did see a female, but the photo isn’t very good.
Reader Sean Crawford sent an ibex video; his notes:
Here’s a video of some Ibex [Capra ibex] in Monachil, Andalusia, which is just outside Granada Spain. I was on holiday there with my wife and kids (hence the background noise!). We were hiking and, lo and behold, suddenly a herd (group?) of Ibex crossed our path, one of which does an amazing jump from one boulder to another clear across the stairs of the path we’re on.
The main action takes place right at the beginning, in the first few of seconds, around 4 seconds in, and you have to look pretty closely first time around to see what’s happening. But once you get your eye in, on a second viewing it’s quite clear. The rest of the video is less dramatic as the group makes its way from boulder to boulder up the mountain.
