A highly polydactylous cat (name it!)

September 18, 2015 • 2:30 pm

Reader Taskin has a friend with a new kitten, one that has extra toes. There are 24, to be exact—six more than the normal number of 18 (five on each front paw, four on the rear). The cat, located in Canada, was obtained from the Humane Society, as it had been abandoned in an apartment building.

It has been tentatively named “Toad” by the youngest member of the staff, but you’re welcome to suggest alternative names below.

This little guy has six toes on each foot. First, a general view:

So tired!

Polydactyly is due to a single dominant gene: if you have one copy, you have extra toes. Unlike polydactyly genes in some other species, having two copies is not lethal, though I don’t think it increases the number of toes.

Mittens!

Play

Front feet:

Lots of Toeses

Back feet:

Lots of Toes

Don’t think that this little guy is even close to the world record for cat toes, though. The official record is held by one Canadian moggie, Jake, who was certified by Guinness in 2002 as having 28 full toes, though I once posted about Bandit, a cat that supposedly had 29 toes.

Here’s an oldie but goodie from the Cheezburger site:

toe-793378

Right wingnuts of the week

September 18, 2015 • 1:15 pm

Reader Naomi Fein clued me in to The National Memo, a online site that, as she describes, is “a news mag founded and edited by Joe Conason, a good journalist who used to edit the New York Observer. His politics are excellent.” (By that she means leftish). One of the good things at that site is Sam Reisman’s sporadic column “This week in crazy,” which collects a number of  lunatic antics by right-wingers. There are five bit of nuttery of them in this week’s column, but I ‘ll give just two:

The is from Roy Moore, the über-conservative chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court who tried to keep his Ten Commandments memorial on the courthouse grounds, and also announced he’d refuse Alabama clerks the right to honor the U.S. Supreme Court decisions to issue gay marriage licenses. Reisman quotes Right Wing Watch‘s report about Moore’s attempt to ape a famous theologian. The judge was speaking at the right-wing Eagle Forum, attacking the U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized gay marriage:

After reading Martin Niemöller’s poem “First They Came For The Socialists…,” Moore decided to write his own version in honor of Davis: “Ladies in gentlemen, we can say the same thing today. They came for the bakers, I didn’t bake cakes. They came for the florists, but I didn’t deal with flowers. They came for the little clerk down in Kentucky by the name of Kim Davis, but I’m not a clerk, I have nothing do with issuing licenses. Then they came for me, and nobody was left.”

Oy vey! And speaking of Yiddish, here’s Ann Coulter, reacting to what she saw as the Republican candidates’ pandering to Israel during Wednesday’s debate:

Screen Shot 2015-09-18 at 12.08.38 PM

Coulter backpedaled, saying that she was actually being pro-Semitic, but Reisman describes another conservative recounting tales of Coulter’s “virulent anti-Semitism.”

This is all par for the course. Nothing to see here folks; move along.

Are humans still evolving? Yes, both globally and locally.

September 18, 2015 • 11:30 am

The one question I’m inevitably asked after lecturing on evolution to a general audience is this: “Are humans still evolving?” What they really want to know, of course, is whether we’re getting smarter, taller, handsomer, and so on. Well, with respect to those traits I always say, “I have no idea,” but humans are still evolving, albeit in ways that don’t excite most people. I’ve posted about this twice (see here and here), and in recent times we have evidence for H. sapiens evolving to produce, in women, earlier age of first birth, later age of last birth and (also in women) increases in height in some places and decreases in others. Studies in the U.S., which haven’t been conducted elsewhere, show the recent evolution of reduced cholesterol levels and lower blood pressure, and an increased age of menopause.

The U.S-specific data brings up the question of whether even if the entire human species is not evolving in a given direction, individual populations or groups might be undergoing “divergent evolution” in response to their specific environments. And for that the answer is clearer: “Yes.” We’ve known this for some time. Tibetan and South American populations have evolved adaptations to low-oxygen conditions, pastoral populations (those keeping sheep, goats and cows for milk) have evolved persistent lactose tolerance (a trait normally turned off after weaning), and some African populations have evolved small stature, a trait thought to be useful in tropical environments. The smaller-stature trait is a bit questionable as an adaptation, but in all three cases mentioned above, researchers have pinpointed the genes responsible for the adaptive changes.

There are other cases of human populations adapting divergently to their unique environments, with genes for that adaptation tentatively identified. In a short “news and views” article in the latest Science (free access, link below), geneticist Sarah Tishkoff summarizes both the genetic data and trait data, producing the nice figure below showing where that evolution has occurred, which traits were involved, and which genes are implication in those adaptations. (Be aware that adaptations, even in these cases, are likely to involve more genes than are listed, as genes of small effect are hard to detect):

Science Magazine
(From the article): Global distribution of locally adaptive traits. Adaptation to diverse environments during human evolution has resulted in phenotypes that are at the extremes of the global distribution. Fumagalli et al. have integrated scans of natural selection and GWAS to identify genetic loci associated with adaptation to an Arctic environment. ILLUSTRATION: A. MEAGAN RUBEL/UNIV. OF PENNSYLVANIA

Tishkoff wrote her piece to highlight a paper by Matteo Gumagalli et al. (many collaborators!), which I’ve referenced below (link not free). That paper used population-genetic analysis of Greenland Inuits to discover regions of two chromosomes that seem to have experienced strong selection in the recent past. (We know this because we can see that those regions have increased in frequency compared to similar regions in other places.) Those regions also happen to contain genes involved in fatty acid metabolism; and the variants of the genes that have increased in frequency in Inuits are also associated with small stature and lower weight. (The small and stocky bodies of northern populations may also be an adaptation to reduce heat loss—Bergmann’s Rule, as observed in many animal species—or it could simply be a byproduct of a metabolism altered by selection to reflect a novel, fish-rich diet.)

So if you’re asked “are humans still evolving?”, the answer is this: “Well, there’s some evidence that our species is evolving as a unit for traits like age of reproduction, but there is much more evidence that different parts of our species are evolving in different directions, adapting to environments that are geographically different or changing over time.” Of course our culture has slowed some forms of selection, as doctors and dentists help people survive who would have been ruthlessly culled on the savanna. (I am one of these misfits.) But so long as there are genetic variants associated with different numbers of offspring, our species will continue to evolve.

_______

Tishkoff, S. 2015. Strength in small numbers. Science 349:1282-1283.

Fumagalli, M. et al. 2015. Greenlandic Inuit show genetic signatures of diet and climate adaptation. Science 349:1343-1347.

 

The humiliation of Ahmed Mohamed

September 18, 2015 • 10:15 am

Last Monday’s detention of 14 year old Ahmed Mohamed in Texas—a bright young man who was arrested, cuffed, and taken to police headquarters for bringing a “device” to school, which turned out to be an electronic clock that was a science project—has aroused tremendous discussion throughout the U.S. A lot of this discussion centers on whether he was detained because he was a Muslim, and we need to have this discussion (see below). But largely neglected is another point: whether, in the U.S., we have created such a climate of fear that kids of all stripes are being humiliated and mistreated for “infractions” that are trivial and dumb. But let’s back up and discuss three questions:

Was it proper to detain Mohamed?  Clearly not; it was reprehensible. The kid was humiliated, taken out of the school, and put in handcuffs. Having been arrested, cuffed, and thrown in a paddy wagon for protesting apartheid at the South African Embassy, I know how frightening that is, and I knew it was coming. But imagine how much more humiliated Mohamed was to have been perp-marched to jail in front of his school peers. The photograph of the cuffed child is heartbreaking: it shows a kid who has suddenly come into conflict with society for reasons he can’t fathom—a kid who in a matter of minutes lost his innocence.

The school and cops could have done many other things that would not have scared and humiliated Mohamed. They could have, as Cenk Uygar notes in the video below, simply taken him to the principal’s office and waited until the “device” was inspected and cleared. Then they could have apologized for what they did to him. They have not.

But there are two silver linings that came from his arrest. The first is that he’s garnered tremendous support from Americans, including President Obama, has prospective employers contacting him (he plans to go to MIT), and, I suspect, has a bright future. The second is that it may allow us to reassess what we’re doing to our schoolchildren with these draconian regulations, as well to continue our discussion of “Islamophobia” and do some soul searching about how we treat Muslims.

Was his being a Muslim the main reason he was detained? This is not yet clear, and may never be. The school and police have said that Mohamed was treated like any other child, regardless of who they are, but I’m not so sure about that. The anti-Muslim accusations are apparently based on a single statement by a policeman who, arriving at the scene, said this: ““Yup. That’s who I thought it was.”  That’s suspicious. And although the school and rest of police haven’t said anything that implicates the boy’s religion in their behavior, we don’t know what went through their minds, or whether the school acted as they did because they knew he was a Muslim. As skeptics, we shouldn’t immediately assume that this is what happened.

Of course it’s not just Muslims who have been treated horribly by schools for innocuous behavior. Ken White, a first-amendment attorney who writes at Popehat, gives some other chilling examples:

In his head, Ahmed lives in an idealized world he learned about in robotics club: a world where individuality and curiosity and initiative are appreciated. Or at least he did. But this week he found out that he actually lives in a different world, a grim real world controlled by school administrators and cops who are deeply suspicious of individuality, if not openly hostile. Ahmed lives in a world where children’s lives are limited by the stupid, ineffectual fear of the petty and the ignorant. He lives in a world where school administrators strip-search thirteen-year-old girls to look for ibuprofin and suspend eight-year-olds for making pretend finger-guns while playing cops and robbers. He lives in a world where police arrest seven-year-olds for bringing a nerf gun to class and perp-walk twelve-year-olds in front of their peers for writing “I love my friends” on a desk with a marker.

. . . Did the putative adults pestering Ahmed do it because his name is Ahmed Mohamed and he’s brown? Maybe. “Yup. That’s who I thought it was,” said one officer mysteriously upon seeing him. But on the other hand, this is the era of zero tolerance and of institutionalized paranoia and of petty little people using fear to hold on to power. This is what our kids’ lives are like, and we’ve decided to accept it. Schools are safer now than before, but we’ve decided to feed on the fear the media feeds us and accept that they are more dangerous, justifying harsher treatment of kids. Kids are safer than ever, but we’ve consented to being constantly terrified about various menaces to them. Cops are safer, but we’ve decided to accept their narrative that they are the targets of an unprecedented war, and hand them the power they say they need.

We need to stop detaining any kid for innocuous behavior under these stupid “no tolerance” policies. As White points out, perhaps Mohamed’s detention would have happened regardless of his race or faith, or perhaps it’s a simple example of racism: because his skin is a different color than that of most other kids. Or perhaps it’s a true example of “Islamophobia”: what I consider the demonization of individual Muslims because of their faith—not the criticism of the religion. I doubt we’ll ever know the answer, and we certainly shouldn’t rush to judgment with cries of “Islamophobia!” As atheists, we’re supposed to rely on evidence rather than preference. But we still need to search our souls about whether we harbor overt or covert bigotry against Muslims. (More on this below.)

Was atheism responsible for the “climate of fear” or “fear of Muslims” that led to  Mohamed’s detention? Here I say, “I think that’s a dumb and irresponsible accusation.” Yet some people have pinned the detention of Mohamed on anti-Muslim sentiments aroused by atheists. In the Young Turks video below, for example, Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian discuss the incident, and Kasparin says this at 7:50:

“. . . [Mohamed is] a victim of the fear-mongering we’re talking about now, Cenk. The same atheists who spend all their time debating about which religion is the worst and coming to the conclusion that Muslims are the most violent and they should be the most feared and we should put all of our attention on them—okay, that’s the kind of fear-mongering that leads to an innocent 14-year-old being arrested for doing a science project.”

Now Kasparin’s statement is palpable nonsense for several reasons. (The rest of Uygur’s and Kasparin’s discussion seems quite reasonable). First, the teachers who called the cops and the cops who arrested the boy were almost certainly not atheists (this is Texas, remember?). They may have been bigoted against Muslims, or acted out of racist rather than antireligious motivations, but I doubt that any of them have even heard of Sam Harris or Ayaan Hirsi Ali. If they were anti-Muslim, that almost certainly came from the kind of bigotry that arises from Christianity or xenophobia. But let’s not pin it on unbelievers. That is “atheistphobia.”

This brings up the distinction between dislike of Islam and dislike of Muslims. The latter is often called “Islamophobia,” but I’d prefer to call it something like “Muslimophobia” to draw a distinction between bigotry against individuals and criticism of the harmful tenets of Islam.

It seems the most rational (and effective) course of action to criticize the tenets of religions while avoiding demonizing believers.  On this site I criticize Christianity far more often than Islam, although I consider Islam at present the more dangerous faith. This is because I’m more familiar with the excesses of Christianity, which come to my attention more frequently (often from readers). Further, Christianity is in the process of discarding its pernicious doctrines, while Islam retains many of them, including institutionalized discrimination against women and gays, and the belief by many that it’s proper to kill apostates or nonbelievers. But make no mistake about it: I dislike all forms of religion, which I see as superstitions. But let us not say that all faiths are exactly equal in how much hatred and discrimination they inspire.

And let us not discriminate against people simply because of their faith. That is true “Muslimophobia,” and is not becoming to atheists or secularists. If humans do something bad in the name of their faith, we can criticize them, arrest them, and so on. And if we think that religion makes people do bad things, by all means criticize that religion and its effects on the human psyche. But remember that there are plenty of good religious people, Muslims and non-Muslims, and they deserve the same individual treatment and respect as does everyone else.  So yes, I stand with Ahmed Mohamed, I stand against anti-Muslim bigotry, and I stand against the culture of fear that is making us suspect that any innocent child with an aspirin, a clock, or a nerf gun is a terrorist.

h/t: Robert D.

The Airtalk debate from yesterday

September 18, 2015 • 9:00 am

My interview about faith versus fact on KPCC, Southern California Public Radio, has now been archived here (click on “Listen to this story” below the picture). It’s 18 minutes long and, as usual, I can’t bear to listen to it.

But I do know that both the interviewer, Larry Mantle, as well as all of the questioners, were hostile, and Mantle wanted to concentrate solely on the benefits of morality that derived from religion. That’s his call, of course, but I didn’t consider him a very even-handed interviewer So be it: I’m used to this kind of hostility, for it’s what you get when you try to take the security blanket of faith out of people’s hands.

I did look at the comments though. Many of them are also hostile, but remember that this is conservative southern California. I was, though, heartened by several people who agreed with me. A selection of comments:

Screen Shot 2015-09-18 at 8.14.42 AM

That’s ME he’s talking about! Seriously, “fundamentalist scientist”? At least I don’t call for the murder of those who aren’t scientists, or those who have left science. 
Screen Shot 2015-09-18 at 8.14.28 AM

One caller unwisely told me there was no evidence for evolution. I simply referred him to Why Evolution is True. 
Screen Shot 2015-09-18 at 8.13.25 AM

The old trope of eugenics is still being offered up as evidence that science itself does bad things. My response, which I stole from Steve Pinker, is that that’s about as useful as blaming architecture for the Nazi gas chambers.
Screen Shot 2015-09-18 at 8.15.57 AM

Screen Shot 2015-09-18 at 8.15.39 AM

Friday: readers’ wildlife photos

September 18, 2015 • 7:15 am

If you have good photos, please send them to me while I’m on my trip, which will begin next Monday and end on Oct. 19. But today please enjoy a selection of bird photographs—plus one gratis mammal—by Colin Franks (Facebook page here, photography website here):

Western Sandpiper (Calidris mauri):

7D__11209

Western Kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis):

7D__11624

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus):

7D__11781

Barred Owl (Strix varia):

7D__11799

Bonaparte’s Gull (Chroicocephalus philadelphia):

7D__12227

Greater Yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca):

7D__12461

Rhinoceros Auklet (Cerorhinca monocerata; I shot this from a kayak):

7D__12669

Harbour Seal (Phoca vitulina):

7D__13032

 

Friday: Hili dialogue (and Leon lagniappe)

September 18, 2015 • 6:30 am

It’s the end of the week, and at this time next week, with luck, I’ll be posting the Hili dialogues with the Princess herself asleep on my chest. It’s raining in Chicago (I can hear the thunder right outside), and will do so tomorrow as well. And, exactly one year ago, Scotland voted against independence from the UK. Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, The Furry Navel of the World and her BFF Cyrus take pleasure in the fact that, unlike the many Catholics who inhabit her land, they can still have noms on Friday (in Poland, “fasting” for Catholics means not eating meat).

Hili: Do you like Fridays?
Cyrus: Yes, with atheists, without any fasting.

z

In Polish:
Hili: Czy lubisz piątki?
Cyrus: Tak, z ateistami, bez postu.

 

And, as Friday lagniappe, we have Leon on his harness, also thinking about noms. (I will get to see Leon, too, on my visit to Poland):

Leon: I wonder whether mice have a developed sense of aesthetics and would come to admire heather.

11143324_1024572107563390_1218440645306453225_n

 

IgNobel Prizes awarded (and livestreamed) this evening

September 17, 2015 • 3:00 pm

“It’s like the weirdest f-ing thing that you’ll ever go to… it’s a collection of, like, actual Nobel Prize winners giving away prizes to real scientists for doing f’d-up things… it’s awesome.”Amanda Palmer

Reader Diane G. informs me that the annual IgNobel Prizes will be awarded at Harvard this evening, with the awards handed out by Genuine Nobel Laureates. The ceremony is always a hoot, and this year’s gala is described here. The ceremonies begin at 6 p.m. Eastern US time, and you can see them livestreamed at this site