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.
This is the kind of heartwarming news that we like to hear: when adherents to diverse and often opposing faiths cooperate to battle bigotry. After the murders in Copenhagen directed at Jews and critics of Islam, a group of Norwegian Muslims have vowed to form a “ring of peace” around an Oslo synagogue this coming sabbath (Saturday). As the Washington Post reports:
Islam is about protecting our brothers and sisters, regardless of which religion they belong to. Islam is about rising above hate and never sinking to the same level as the haters. Islam is about defending each other. Muslims want to show that we deeply deplore all types of hatred of Jews, and that we are there to support them. We will therefore create a human ring around the synagogue on Saturday 21 February. Encourage everyone to come!
According to the Times of Israel, Ervin Kohn, a leader of Oslo’s small Jewish community, had agreed to allowing the event on the condition that more than 30 people show up — a small gathering would make the effort look “counter-productive,” Kohn said. Close to 1,000 people have indicated on Facebook that they will attend.
“We think that after the terrorist attacks in Copenhagen, it is the perfect time for us Muslims to distance ourselves from the harassment of Jews that is happening,” 17-year-old event organizer Hajrad Arshad said in an interview with Norwegian television.
“If someone wants to attack the synagogue, they need to step over us first,”posted another of the event’s organizers on Facebook.
Now I think that both Islam and Judaism are delusions, but if we’re going to have religion around for a while, this is the way they should be acting. I suppose that appeasers will say that this behavior is really what “true Islam” is all about (as do the organizers of this event) and I devoutly wish that were the case, but there is no such thing as “true Islam.” There are just different versions of the faith. Regardless, kudos to those Muslims of Norway who will show up, and I hope a thousand or more will.
Today we have photos from the U.S. and the Neotropics.
First, a single picture from reader Michele in Arizona:
Princess finds a desert kingsnake (Lampropeltis getula). I suspect it was here to eat some lizards, which my small backyard is full of. Princess has also found spadefoot toads and even a baby diamondback rattlesnake. She just observes them.
Yeah, but maybe the snakes will not just observe Princess! What if the rattler were an adult?
Reader Lou Jost, a biologist in Ecuador, sent photos of local animals and scenery (the notes are mine, not Lou’s). His first pictures are of one of the world’s weirdest birds, the hoatzin (Opisthocomus hoazin). Although I’ve been birding in Central and South America several times, and with experienced birders, I never got to see these:
I’ll interject some biology here. It’s well known that hoatzin chicks have claws on their wings, and when I was in school these were thought to be atavisms—the evolutionary remnants of the ancient toes of their dinosaurian ancestors that developed in chicks and then disappeared, much like the transitory coat of hair (the “lanugo”) that covers the human fetus but then is shed before birth. (Unlike the lanugo, though, the claws are actually useful; see below.)
But now, at least according to that unimpeachable source Wikipedia, these claws are not thought to be “atavisms,” or at least they don’t seem to represent the re-activation of long-suppressed genes for foreleg digits. But they are still used handily by the chicks. The Wikipedia discussion below is pretty confusing, for it implies that the claws are both “autapomorphies” (that is, unique traits derived in the hoatzin lineage) and “an atavism toward the dinosaurian finger claws,” implying that they use the same genes that built the fingers of dinosaurs. It’s further confusing because the article further says that “the hoatzin’s claws are of more recent origin.” I’m not sure whether they’ve studied the development and genetics of these claws. If they do appear only in hoatzins, as they do, but still involve the same genes used in reptiles to make fingers on the forelegs, then they would be genuine evolutionary atavisms and, at the same time, unique atavisms that appear only in hoatzin chicks. But at least how they’re used is understood, and it’s very cool:
The chicks, which are fed on regurgitated fermented food, have another odd feature; they have two claws on each wing. Immediately on hatching, they can use these claws, and their oversized feet, to scramble around the tree branches without falling into the water. When predators such as the great black hawk attack a hoatzin nesting colony, the adults fly noisily about, trying to divert the predator’s attention, while the chicks move away from the nest and hide among the thickets. If discovered, however, they drop into the water and swim under the surface to escape, then later use their clawed wings to climb back to the safety of the nest. This has inevitably led to comparisons to the fossil bird Archaeopteryx, but the characteristic is rather an autapomorphy, possibly caused by an atavism toward the dinosaurian finger claws, whose developmental genetics (“blueprint”) presumably is still in the avian genome. Since Archaeopteryx had three functional claws on each wing, some earlier systematists speculated that the hoatzin was descended from it, because nestling hoatzins have two functional claws on each wing. Modern researchers believe that the young hoatzin’s claws are of more recent origin, however, and may be a secondary adaptation from its frequent need to leave the nest and climb about in dense vines and trees well before it can fly.
Here, from The Birds in my Beard, is a series showing the chicks clambering about with their claws:
Reader jbillie, in the comments below, called our attention to a David Attenborough video (of course) showing hoatzin chicks using their claws. Is there any evolutionary marvel Attenborough hasn’t filmed?
Back to Lou’s photos. Here is the cryptic potoo. I’m not sure what species this is, and Lou can weigh in, but I suspect this is the common potoo, Nyctibius griseus. But there’s nothing common about these birds, for they’re incredibly cryptic. They sit atop branches with their heads up and eyes closed, and look for all the world like a piece of wood. I’ve seen them in Costa Rica, but only when our guide pointed them out. Spot the potoo!:
Anacondas, one of several neotropical and aquatic species in the genus. I’m guessing that this is the green anaconda, Eunectes murinus, whose name means “good swimmer and mice-y”, referring to its aquatic abilities and presumed fondness for rodents. If you know your languages, you’ll recognize that its “Latin” binomial is actually a hybrid of a Greek word (“Eunectes”) and a Latin one (“murinus”). If I got the wrong species, never mind. . .
Adorable squirrel monkeys in the wild (Saimiris ciureus). My dad had one of these as a pet when he was young; its name was “Chippy”:
Well, at -8ºF yesterday, Chicago set a record low temperature for this date. And the Niagara Falls have largely frozen over, though some water is still running. If you get a chance, find a picture of the Falls on the Internet; it’s stunning (try here). You won’t see that with Igazu or Angel Falls! Fortunately, the weather will warm up over the next few days, though I think it’s still to early to say that this is the final march into spring.
Harping on the cold, I sound like an old man, but cold doesn’t really bother me. Still, it’s all over the news. I’m just grateful I’m not living in Boston. Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili is worried about something intangible. When I asked what concerned her, since she (unaccountably) likes Cyrus, Malgorzata replied:
According to precautionary principle even if there is nothing to be worried about, you should still worry, as you never know what might happen. So when GMOs were shown beneficial in many aspects, people still worried that something would go wrong.
(I would call that the Jewish principle.) This is relevant to a pro-GMO discussion that will appear on Listy (a day late for this dialogue!) tomorrow. But on to the dialogue:
Hili: What’s hiding behind this armchair?
A: Nothing, there is just Cyrus’s empty bed.
Hili: But precautionary principle says that something dreadful can appear there.
(Photo: Sarah Lawson)
In Polish:
Hili: Co się kryje za fotelem?
Ja: Nic, tam jest pusty materac Cyrusa.
Hili: Ale zasada ostrożności mówi, że tam może się pojawić coś strasznego.
Oh dear—this is so sad. Oliver Sacks, who was treated for a melanoma of the eye nine years ago, has just discovered that the cancer has metastasized to his liver, and there is no cure. He’s written a short piece in the New York Times op-ed section, “My own life,” which is incredibly poignant and moving.
We all must face this some day, and my own hope is that I die quickly, preferably in my sleep. Sacks is now saying The Long Goodbye, and I’ll miss him. Do have a look at his piece.
All I know about this is that I’d like to be the guy; and we have some brief YouTube notes below:
A breeder in China’s Sichuan Province wants to take this panda down from a tree, but the lovely panda wants a reward. So it asks the breeder for a hug before moving!
It’s never a pleasure to criticize the views of someone I admire, especially if they’ve been active in the fight against creationism, like Jonny Scaramanga. He started calling out creationism in the Guardian and Salon (and creationism’s vehicle, “Accelerated Christian Education”) when he was a student at London University; I’ve posted favorably about his activities several times before; and he runs a good, solid atheist website at Patheos, “Leaving fundamentalism.” (Scaramanga was raised as a fundamentalist.)
But I think that his two recent post on creationism, “Why creationism matters” and “Creationism is inherently homophobic and misogynistic” miss the mark. Scaramanga’s argument is simple: those people who are creationists also tend to hate gays and oppress women. That makes it all the more important to fight creationism.
Here are quotes from both of his posts:
It’s not some mystery why organisations that oppose women’s rights and trample on LGBTQ people also frequently happen to be creationists. The foundational texts of creationism, read literally, point to a world where men rule over women, where people who don’t fit into the gender binary don’t exist, and marriage is between one man and one woman. Creationism is evil because it encourages discrimination and oppression.
To avoid being anti-religious, organisations like the National Center for Science Education, which campaigns for evolution education in schools, usually insist that the argument is purely about science. Don’t get me wrong: it is partly about science. As science, creationism is junk. But most people are not professional scientists, and it’s possible to be creationist and also have an adequate understanding of science for many purposes.
Creationism matters, and not only because of science. It matters because it harms people in society who are already marginalised. Teaching creationism in school means teaching homophobia and misogyny. That’s why it needs to be opposed.
And of course the Bible is indeed full of references to the inferiority of women, and occasional references to the sinfulness of men lying with men. Raised as a Christian fundamentalist, Scaramanga knows and gives these quotes. And he’s right: the Bible certainly sees women as an inferior group and doesn’t have much truck with gay behavior, either.
Scaramanga makes a similar point in the “Why creationism matters” post:
In sum, here’s my argument about why creationism in schools is a major problem, leaving aside the scientific problems:
Creationism requires that the Bible is entirely and (for the most part) literally true
Further, it means there is a huge body of received wisdom which cannot be challenged, because questioning it is questioning God. This is the opposite of education.
I think the problem with this logic is obvious. Yes, of course the same people who accept creationism by and large favor a secondary role for women and promote discrimination against gays. But that doesn’t make creationism any worse than it already is; all that means is that it’s a symptom of a larger syndrome.
That syndrome is called religion, and its instantiation in this case is fundamentalist Christianity and much of Orthodox Judaism. But just because creationism is linked to these other symptoms doesn’t make it matter more. It’s like saying that because nerve damage, frequent thirst, and slow healing of cuts are all symptoms of diabetes, the frequent thirst matters more than it did when we were unaware of the other symptoms.
What matters is the underlying cause of all three conditions, and that is religion. The Biblical connection between these three forms of bigotry and ignorance means that we should fight harder against religion, not fight harder against creationism. If we prohibit the teaching of creationism in schools, will that efface the homophobia and misogyny of its adherents? I don’t think so. Now Scaramanga would be right if by concentrating on creationism, rather than on religion in general or on homophobia and misogyny, we could get rid of religion faster. But I’m not sure that’s the case. You cure the disease by attacking the disease, not by treating one of its symptoms.
Why do I care about this logical fallacy? Because I see the evolution/creation battle as separate from the other battles about “social justice” that currently sunder the atheist “community” (if there is one). While I think all atheists are opposed to creationism, and most of us see religion as harmful, there are huge schisms in the movement about matters of social justice—more often about “misogyny” (a word sometimes applied to feminists who don’t agree with other feminists) than about homophobia, which all of us despise. I don’t want to have my battles against creationism subsumed into the “atheist wars”.
In fact, oppression of women and of gays are matters of greater import than is the teaching of creationism, and if I could wave a magic wand I’d make the first two disappear before the third. But it’s important to recognize that the bigger battle for social justice, however you define it, is the battle against religion, not against its symptoms. Those symptoms can and should be fought individually, but just as we can’t say that homophobia becomes more important because it’s philosophically linked to creationism, so we can’t say that creationism is more important because it’s philosophically linked to homophobia. There’s that unrecognized third variable in the mix!
Reader Barry sent me a couple of bizarre tw**ts emitted yesterday by Reza Aslan, and when I went over to verify them, I saw this:
Blocked! Aslan is, as far as I know (and I don’t know very far), the first person to block me on Twi**er, even though I don’t read tweets and don’t follow anybody. I’ve never directed a tw**t at the man, or anyone else for that matter, though I have posted about him, and those posts automatically go to my Tw**er feed.
Fortunately, Aslan’s tw**ts were retweeted by Sam Harris, so I can verify their authenticity. What I find bizarre is this: I am a very small fish compared to Sam, and my skirmishes with Aslan have been minor compared to Sam’s. So why am I blocked and not Sam? Well, never mind: it’s not that I care if I’m blocked, for, as everyone knows (so I’m told), you can see tw**ts from someone who’s blocked you by simply signing out of Twi**er.
Anyway, here are Aslan’s tw**ts; he is responding to Harris’s podcast about the Chapel Hill murders, in which Harris accuses Aslan not only of intellectual dishonesty (I agree), but also of making life more dangerous for people who criticize Islam (I agree with that, too).
This is no way to have a rational, much less intellectual, discussion, but I’ve come to expect this from Aslan. Like Chopra (who, by the way, has not blocked me), Aslan is afflicted with Chronic Maru’s Syndrome (inability to not enter any box he sees), and responds to disagreement with childish and ad hominem insults. This is not exactly what I’d call a response to what Sam said. Further, who is obsessed with whom? Aslan takes every opportunity he can to go after Sam and also Richard Dawkins, for he knows that he can dine out on attacking the New Atheists. And the stuff about not giving Harris a second thought is simply a lie: Aslan talks about him constantly.
Here is Harris’s response:
Well, this is all internet drama, but there’s also a larger purpose here: I see Aslan as a dangerous man, one who tries to pretend that Islam has no fangs and, by minimizing the very real dangers that some of its adherents pose to the West, makes people less aware of those dangers. Now we see that he’s not only wrongheaded, but narcissistic and immature as well. That makes him even more of what they call a “useful idiot” for religious appeasers.
But of course we know how to deal with people who have Maru’s Syndrome. . .
\
