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.
Every December 31, WordPress sends me a summary of the year’s statistics for this site, which I’ll include here for your information.
The Mother Teresa post continues to be the most popular I’ve ever posted (over 300,000 views on one day) a bit depressing since it’s was simply my summary of someone else’s paper that critical of Mother Teresa. It was originally posted here on March 5, but got all the views on July 8, when someone put it on reddit. Nevertheless, Catholics continue to find me and beleaguer me with both private emails and angry posts (which I delete) decrying me for besmirching the nun’s reputation.
Visits:
Worldwide readership:
I have replaced their yearly summary of country views with the one on my dashboard, which is more informative. For obvious reasons the greatest readership is in Anglophone countries; but except for three countries in central Africa, we have them all.
I’m particularly curious about the two views from North Korea, where there is no international internet access. It must be Kim Jong Un—though I’ve published nothing on basketball.
Here, from my own states, are the countries from which we got fewer than 10 views. LOL: we got eight from Vatican City!
And, finally, no surprise here:
Finally, a stat from today’s Amazon that pleases me immensely, especially since my book is four years older than Meyer’s ID screed. Suck it up, Discovery Institute:
Martin Stevens, aka @SensoryEcology, who posted yesterday’s moth/tree ogre quiz, just tw**ted another camouflage quiz pic, of a Mozambique nightjar. Click to see a hi-res version, if you think that will help you. We’ve previously featured @ProjectNightjar, which Martin is involved in, here and a particularly interesting piece here. BTW I have not the slightest idea where the damn bird is!
UPDATE by JAC: Dan Kahan of the Cultural Cognition Project of Yale Law School has further analyzed this survey and finds some problems with it: some data are missing in both the summary and the full report, and this makes it impossible to determine whether the pro-creationist tendencies of Republicans reflects a shift in ideology or merely a transfer of creationist Democrats into the G.O.P. or a move of evolutionist Republicans into the Democratic Party. I haven’t had time to analyze this in full, but what disturbs me is the big disparity between the Pew and the Gallup Polls. I don’t know which one gives the correct data about Americans, but one thing I’ve noticed is that Pew polls always give results more favorable to liberal religion than Gallup Polls. (In this case, Pew shows far less acceptance of both creationism and theistic evolution than does Gallup.) If Pew releases more data I’ll try to give an update.
As expected, religion had a large effect on evolution acceptance: white evangelical Protestants are decisively anti-evolution while white mainline Protestants even more decisively accept evolution; in fact, acceptance is slightly higher among the latter than among the “unaffiliated”. “Unaffiliated” people include the non-denominationally religious as well as the non-religious.
Also among what must be considered expected results are the following, as summarized by Pew:
Younger adults are more likely than older generations to believe that living things have evolved over time. And those with more years of formal schooling are more likely than those with less education to say that humans and animals have evolved over time.
The results by age bode well for the future (we may be able to say of creationism, “this too shall pass”), while the results by educational attainment suggest that education is not entirely powerless against superstition. [JAC: An alternative explanation is that it is largely those who accept evolution that seek or are successful in higher education.]
As you can see in the table below, Pew actually asked two different questions, one about “humans and other living things”, the other about “animals and other living things”. Each version was asked of about half of the total sample (about 4000, so 2000 for each version). The results are largely the same, although evolution acceptance is slightly higher for the “animal” version. [JAC: As Greg notes the differences are small; still, in 4 of 4 age groups, acceptance of animal evolution is higher than of human evolution. That is almost significant using the sign test, showing that people are probably less likely to think that our species evolved than did other species. ]
This shows the effect of exact phrasing of survey questions on the results obtained (an effect highlighted in a New York Timesarticle on a different subject from Monday: see the 3rd and 4th paragraphs).
The Pew release highlights the divergence in views along political party lines:
There are sizable differences among partisan groups in beliefs about evolution. Republicans are less inclined than either Democrats or political independents to say that humans have evolved over time. Roughly two-thirds of Democrats (67%) and independents (65%) say that humans have evolved over time, compared with less than half of Republicans (43%).
The size of the gap between partisan groups has grown since 2009. Republicans are less inclined today than they were in 2009 to say that humans have evolved over time (43% today vs. 54% in 2009), while opinion among both Democrats and independents has remained about the same.
Differences in the racial and ethnic composition of Democrats and Republicans or differences in their levels of religious commitment do not wholly explain partisan differences in beliefs about evolution. Indeed, the partisan differences remain even when taking these other characteristics into account.
Back in April, Jerry noted this partisan divide in the Gallup data. Gallup had Republicans favoring creationism by a 22 point spread (58% creationism to 36 % evolution), while Democrats favored evolution by a 10 point spread (51% evolution to 41% for creationism), and independents favored evolution by a 14 point spread (53% evolution to 39% for creationism). In the Pew data, the comparable figures are Republicans with a 5% spread for creationism, while Democrats favor evolution by a 40% spread and independents favor evolution by a 37% spread. There is thus a large divergence between the Pew and Gallup data, with Pew showing Democrats, Republicans, and independents all much more favorable to evolution than do the Gallup data. Why might this be so?
To get at this question, let’s first unpack the Gallup data. Like Pew, Gallup asked about “human” evolution, and thus this part of the poll does correspond to what half the Pew sample was asked (and whose responses are the ones given in the colored graphs above). Gallup, however, gave respondents three choices: humans developed over millions of years withoutGod guiding the process, humans developed over millions of years withGod guiding the process, or humans appeared just as they are within the last 10,000 years. We may roughly call these three possibilities naturalistic evolution, theistic evolution, and creationism. Gallup has asked this same question going back to 1982:
Naturalistic evolution (the lower line) varies from 9 to 16%, with some hint of an upward movement; theistic evolution (middle line) varies from 32 to 40%, with not much hint of a trend; and creationism (the upper line) varies from 40 to 46%, again without much evidence of a trend.
Even though Pew’s first question only had two choices, we can find comparable data to Gallup in the Pew poll by looking at one of their follow-up questions. Respondents who accepted evolution were asked by Pew if they thought evolution was due to naturalistic processes or guided by a supreme being. This divides the Pew respondents into three groups based on what they accept, just like in the Gallup poll: naturalistic evolution, theistic evolution, and creationist. The results are these:
(The religious breakdown in the original Pew table has been omitted, so that the overall result, which is comparable to the Gallup results, is emphasized; the full table is given below.)
For those who were asked the “animals” version of the question, the theistic/naturalistic breakdown was 24/35, again slightly less religious than those asked the “human” form of the question. So for the most recent polls, Gallup (2012) and Pew (2013) give the following breakdown for the American public as a whole:
Naturalistic evolution: Gallup 15% ; Pew 32%
Theistic evolution: Gallup 32% ; Pew 24%
Creationism: Gallup 46% ; Pew 32%
Even allowing for a what is perhaps a random uptick of creationism in the latest Gallup poll (see Gallup graph above), there is a striking difference between the results of the two polls.
There are a number of differences in the wording of the questions that might account for this. First, Pew suggested that one of the naturalistic processes might be natural selection. Perhaps hearing the name of a familiar evolutionary mechanism encouraged more people to choose this response, as opposed to the Gallup phrasing, in which the absence of God was emphasized, and no natural mechanisms were mentioned in the naturalistic evolution choice.
Second, the time frame of the Gallup question on human evolution was “within the last 10,000 years”, while Pew’s asked about “since the beginning of time”. At first, I thought the Gallup anti-evolution response was the more extreme choice: in April, Jerry equated it to young Earth creationism (YEC), which is indeed associated with the 10,000 year figure. However, the Gallup question asked only about humans, so a respondent who is generally accepting of evolution, but thought that something special happened fairly recently in human evolution (ensoulment?), might have selected this answer. Thus, someone who put a high premium on human uniqueness, but would otherwise be a theistic evolutionist, might have chosen what on the face of it appears to be a YEC response in the Gallup poll.
Also, the Pew phrasing, “Humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time” may have been too strong for some varieties of creationists, who believe that a certain amount of change has occurred in some animals, and that humans have ‘degenerated’ since the fall of Adam in the Garden, leading some of them to not pick the ‘creationist’ response. However, the alternative response in the Pew poll explicitly uses the phrase “Humans…evolved”, which I think few creationists, of any stripe, would have chosen.
None of these suggestions about how the wording may have shifted the responses seems fully convincing to me, and in the end I’m not really sure why the responses diverge between the two polls.
And finally, let me leave you with the full table of responses by religion to Pew’s follow up question on evolutionary processes. I would point out here that the “unaffiliated” are by far the group most strongly favoring naturalistic evolution, even though white mainline Protestants are slightly more accepting of evolution overall.
(For the latest Pew poll, the margin of error was about 3%.)
Creation “scientists” (an oxymoron if ever there was one) have long pondered the problem of how Noah could fit all those species on the Ark. One solution was that the Ark contained only a subset of species, the Biblical “kinds”—whatever those were—and that subsequent “microevolution” produced the 7+ million species on Earth today. This suggestion gave rise the ludicrous “science” of baraminology, the futile attempt of creationists to determine what “kinds” comprised. Given the continuity of the evolutionary process, such divisions are of course completely arbitrary, which is why that field is so loony.
But now, in a spectacular and felicitous combination of science and faith, the problem of getting every extant species on the Ark has been solved. To save long-winded explanation, I’ll just put the answer in diagram form. To me it represents a spectacular success for accommodationism:
If you think “baraminology” is a joke—and I’ve met some biologists who can’t believe the discipline exists—have a look at the schedule for the first conference on baraminology, held at Liberty University (the religious school founded by Jerry “Matchbox” Falwell) in 1999.
It’s New Year in Poland, and fireworks are going off like crazy!
I managed to make it to 2014, thanks to the stimulation of company and many treats, so for the rest of my homebound countryman, I beat you! Have a great 2014 and I’ll leave you this year not with a cat, but with a naked mole rat, tw**ted by Ricky Gervais:
UPDATE: Over at Science Sushi, Christie Wilcox, a grad student in marine biology, discusses this behavior in more detail, and doesn’t buy the “let’s get stoned” explanation, if for no other reason than tetrodotoxin doesn’t cross the blood-brain barrier, so couldn’t possibly alter perception. She imputes the pufferfish play as simple curiosity. In retrospect, I think she’s right, but time will (may, actually) tell. But toad-licking in dogs still remains a mystery! (Thanks to a reader and Matthew Cobb for pointing out her piece.)
______
More evidence on the intelligence of dolphins: like humans, they occasionally like to alter their consciousness with drugs. Since there’s no booze or dope underwater, they do it, according to an article in the Independent, by nomming on puffer fish:
In extraordinary scenes filmed for a new documentary, young dolphins were seen carefully manipulating a certain kind of puffer fish which, if provoked, releases a nerve toxin.
Though large doses of the toxin can be deadly, in small amounts it is known to produce a narcotic effect, and the dolphins appeared to have worked out how to make the fish release just the right amount.
Carefully chewing on the puffer and passing it between one another, the marine mammals then enter what seems to be a trance-like state.
The article isn’t clear about this, but perhaps they’re referring to the famous toxin in several genera of pufferfish that are known to the Japanese as fugu. As many of you know, fugu sashimi is a great delicacy in Japanese cuisine, partly for the reason that its liver and ovaries are deadly poisonous, so special chefs must be trained to prepare this dish. Not a small number of Japanese have been killed by foolhardiness and incompetent chefs.
Statistics from the Tokyo Bureau of Social Welfare and Public Health indicate 20 to 44 incidents of fugu poisoning per year between 1996 and 2006 in Japan (a single incident may involve multiple diners). Each year, these incidents led to between 34 and 64 victims being hospitalized and zero to six deaths, an average fatality rate of 6.8%.
. . . Much higher figures have been reported for earlier years, peaking in 1958 when 176 people died. According to the Fugu Research Institute 50% of the victims were poisoned by eating the liver, 43% from eating the ovaries, and 7% from eating the skin. One of the most famous victims was the Kabuki actor and “Living National Treasure” Bandō Mitsugorō VIII who in 1975 died after eating four servings of fugu kimo (fugu liver), whose sale was prohibited by local ordinances at the time. Bandō claimed to be able to resist the poison, but died several hours after returning to his hotel.
Tetrodotoxin
Note that it is the young dolphins who exhibit this behavior. I’m sure adult dolphins decry pufferfish as a “gateway drug” to harder stuff like jellyfish toxins.
Rob Pilley, a zoologist who also worked as a producer on the series, told the Sunday Times: “This was a case of young dolphins purposely experimenting with something we know to be intoxicating.
“After chewing the puffer gently and passing it round, they began acting most peculiarly, hanging around with their noses at the surface as if fascinated by their own reflection. [JAC: “Have you ever really seen the surface, man? Wild!”]
“It reminded us of that craze a few years ago when people started licking toads to get a buzz, especially the way they hung there in a daze afterwards. It was the most extraordinary thing to see.”
Well, when I was a young dolphin, I ate nutmeg, smoked banana peels, and took all the regular psychedelics of the Sixties, but I have to say that I never licked a toad.
Toads of the genus Atelopus do contain tetrodotoxin (including, I presume, my eponymous species Atelopus coynei), but the toads that people licked were probably various species of “psychoactive toads” that contain other poisons and hallucinogens. One of these is the cane toad, Bufo marinus, whose skin is poisonous. Nevertheless, Australia d*gs have been reported to lick these toads as a way to get high. LiveLeak has a report and a video of such a toad-licking d*g, who nearly licked his way to D*g Ceiling. Thus the behavior of these dolphins may not be unique, although its social aspects seem limited to cetaceans and humans.
The dolphins’ behavior was filmed by using artificial turtles containing cameras (videoa below):
The documentary makers used spy cameras hidden in fake turtles, fish and squid to film 900 hours of footage showing dolphins in their natural habitats.
The one above is apparently not viewable from the U.S., but this one is:
The first episode of the two-part BBC One program, “Dolphins: Spy in the Pod”, will be shown Thursday at 20:00 (description here). The dolphins’ consciousness-altering use of puffer fish will be shown in the second episode. I expect a report from readers.
Okay, okay. I was going to ask Matthew (who produced this graphic) to post it later, but so many people are demanding to know where the moth is that I’ll show it now. If you’re in the U.S. and aren’t up by 8 a.m. anyway (exclusive of Hawaii and Alaska), you’re a slacker if you haven’t seen the original photo.
Now, if you’re really good at insects, tell us what kind of moth it is.
[UPDATE: Martin Stevens, who took the photo, sent me this version of the reveal (the moth has its wings spread flat and its head is pointing to 8 o’clock (ish)):
For those of you who couldn’t see it (and that includes Jerry), don’t beat yourselves up. Martin tw**ted me: “It is hard to see! I show it in lectures and in outreach etc and few people find it without help or the close up version!” – Matthew Cobb]
SECOND UPDATE: (by JAC): Reader Amy noted this, as did I when I looked closely. There’s a hidden ogre in the tree, circled in the picture below, leading Amy to wonder if that’s why the moth was trying to hide: