Jeweled caterpillar becomes gorgeous orange moth

December 11, 2012 • 1:41 pm

Never in my life did I imagine that there could be caterpillars that looked like these. But that’s the great part about being a biologist—or even following biology.  As Rudyard Kipling put it, “The wildest dreams of Kew are the facts of Katmandu,” but just invert the places!

From the Scientific American website “Observations“, in a post by Ferris Jabr, we get these wonderful pictures of a caterpillar and its moth. Rarely does a beautiful caterpillar turn into a beautiful adult, but this is an exception. The caterpillar photo immediately below was taken by Gerardo Aizpuru this March on a mangrove tree near Cancun. The creature to the left, looking for all the world like a Gummi Bear, is probably the caterpillar stage of Acraga coa, the lovely orange moth to the right:

66022_501909919840685_77670446_n

Jabr notes:

Although it’s not 100 percent certain that the “jewel caterpillar” Aizpuru photographed is Acraga coa, it almost definitely belongs to the same family of moths, known as Dalceridae. Scientists have identified around 84 different species of Dalceridae moths, whose larvae are sometimes called “slug caterpillars” because they are so gooey. If you search for “Dalceridae” in Google Images, you’ll see different larvae with the same roly poly bug shape and gumdrop spines, but different colors and patterns. Dalceridae larvae reminded me immediately of nudibranchs, a group of strikingly colored mollusks whose appearance is perhaps best summarized as “trippy.”

Here are some other images from the article.  The one below is another view of the caterpillar above; the photo was taken by the famous biologist/naturalist Dan Janzen:

1

These would seem to be “aposematic” (brightly colored reflecting the fact that the larva is noxious or toxic), but there’s no evidence one way or another right now.

Below is another Dalceridae larva (Credit: artour_a, flickr):

2

This one is gorgeous, like a coalition of dewdrops (Acraga hamata larva, also of the Dalceridae family, photo again by Daniel Janzen):

Acraga-hamata

What are the crenulated and gelatinous “points” for? The article notes:

Biologists do have some ideas about the function of larvae’s gumdrop spines, however. The glutinous cones break off extremely easily—one can gently tweeze them off or even pull them off by accident—suggestive of the way some lizards’ tails snap off in a predator’s mouth. Janzen says this trick might help the larvae escape from hungry insects and birds, but researchers have not yet confirmed this.

When ants are put together with the caterpillars in the lab, they try to nom them but back off because their mouthparts get gummed up by the gelatinous covering.

Here’s another Dalceridae larva, again photographed by Dan Janzen.

4

Frank Bruni touts secularism in the New York Times

December 11, 2012 • 12:22 pm

Frank Bruni (who, by the way, was the first openly gay op-ed columnist at the New York Times), has a wonderfully refreshing op-ed piece in yesterday’s paper called “The God glut. ”

The topic is the relentless incursion of religion into American politics and secular institutions. One of these institutions is the Army’s military academy, West Point. I knew that the Air Force Academy in Colorado has had problems with forcible Christian proselytizing, but Bruni tells a similar tale about West Point, and about a cadet who left because he couldn’t take the preaching:

The cadet, Blake Page, detailed his complaint in an article for The Huffington Post, accusing officers at the academy of “unconstitutional proselytism,” specifically of an evangelical Christian variety.

On the phone on Sunday, he explained to me that a few of them urged attendance at religious events in ways that could make a cadet worry about the social and professional consequences of not going. One such event was a prayer breakfast this year at which a retired lieutenant general, William G. Boykin, was slated to speak. Boykin is a born-again Christian, and his past remarks portraying the war on terror in holy and biblical terms were so extreme that he was rebuked in 2003 by President Bush. In fact his scheduled speech at West Point was so vigorously protested that it ultimately had to be canceled.

Page said that on other occasions, religious events were promoted by superiors with the kind of mass e-mails seldom used for secular gatherings. “It was always Christian, Christian, Christian,” said Page, who is an atheist.

Where’s the FFRF on this?

Bruni goes on (I have to repress the urge to echo the congregation’s refrain in black churches, “Tell it, brother!”):

Every year around this time, many conservatives rail against the “war on Christmas,” using a few dismantled nativities to suggest that America muffles worship.

Hardly. We have God on our dollars, God in our pledge of allegiance, God in our Congress. Last year, the House took the time to vote, 396 to 9, in favor of a resolution affirming “In God We Trust” as our national motto. How utterly needless, unless I missed some insurrectionist initiative to have that motto changed to “Buck Up, Beelzebub” or “Surrender Dorothy.”

We have God in our public schools, a few of which cling to creationism, and we have major presidential candidates — Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum — who use God in general and Christianity in particular as cornerstones of their campaigns. God’s initial absence from the Democratic Party platform last summer stirred more outrage among Americans than the slaughter in Syria will ever provoke.

God’s wishes are cited in efforts to deny abortions to raped women and civil marriages to same-sex couples. In our country God doesn’t merely have a place at the table. He or She is the host of the prayer-heavy dinner party.

And how often do you see this admission?

And there’s too little acknowledgment that God isn’t just a potent engine of altruism, mercy and solace, but also, in instances, a divisive, repressive instrument; that godliness isn’t any prerequisite for patriotism; and that someone like Page deserves as much respect as any true believer.

There’s more, but go read it.  Bravo for Bruni, a refreshing palliative for the likes of Ross Douthat.

Festive zoological make-up for the holidays

December 11, 2012 • 9:16 am

From the website Woot! Finger Tips, with the painting and conception by Paige Thompson.  I’m tempted to offer a book to the reader who does the best zoological make-up, but I’m running out of books! (Those who have been promised one, don’t worry: you’ll get it.) But here’s what’s possible:

image 113

Foxy lady:

foxy_lips_by_andrussi-d4kmp9a-1

h/t: Grania

A Marshall McLuhan moment with creationist Paul Nelson

December 11, 2012 • 5:38 am

Even if you haven’t seen “Annie Hall,” you need to watch this video showing a wonderful scene from the movie. Woody Allen and Annie Hall (Diane Keaton) are in line for a movie, and a pompous academic behind them pontificates about the film in an extremely annoying way, mentioning Marshall McLuhan (a Sixties cultural icon). After Woody has had enough of the pomposity, he drags McLuhan out from behind a movie sign (yes, that’s the real McLuhan), and confronts the academic with him. McLuhan proceeds to tell the chastened academic that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and that he knows nothing of McLuhan’s work. Allen turns to the camera and says,  “Boy, if life were only like this!”

But it can be! Last week I received an email from young-earth creationist Paul Nelson, who works for the Discovery Institute, taking me to task for what he saw as my unfair denigration of Jim Shapiro. Nelson’s beef was my contention that Shapiro is an outlier among biologists in minimizing the importance of natural selection in evolution. Nelson maintains that there are many other reputable biologists who “have frank doubts about selection” and wouldn’t agree with me. Here’s Nelson’s email, published with permission:

Dear Jerry,

…I’m sending this email.  I’d post this in the comments of the new Shapiro thread, but I’m now persona non grata at WEIT. [JAC note: he’s never been banned; he just feels unwelcome.]

Skepticism about the efficacy of natural selection is widespread within evolutionary biology (see below).  Jim Shapiro is hardly alone in this regard.  So when you tell your WEIT audience that natural selection is the only game in town for building complex adaptations, you can expect two consequences:

1.  Readers who already know about the thinking of workers such as Eric Davidson, Michael Lynch, Andreas Wagner, John Gerhart & Marc Kirschner, or Scott Gilbert (all of whom, among many others, have recently expressed frank doubts about selection) must discount what you say about the centrality of natural selection to evolutionary theory — because they know that just isn’t so.

2.  Readers who do not already know about Davidson, Lynch, etc. — upon coming across their ideas — must wonder why you told them that natural selection is the sine qua non of evolutionary explanation.

Either outcome is bad.

Last Sunday, I gave a talk to several thousand people at Rick Warren’s church in southern California, where I made a case (a) that natural selection is quite real, but (b) that the process faces genuine limits, set by the logic of selection itself, to explain macroevolution.  I’d be curious to have your reaction to the presentation:

My title was “Darwin or Design: The Evidence of Nature and the Nature of Evidence.”  The talk also touches on atheism, at the opening and ending, in close connection to the role of natural selection in scientific understanding.

My remarks about the reality of selection occur at about 11:40 and following.

All the best,
Paul

I haven’t yet watched Nelson’s talk (some reader please do it and report back). But I do have Davidson, Lynch, Wagner, Gerhart, and Kirschner right here behind this sign!  I either know them or have read their work, and realized that Paul was talking out of his nether parts in his email. True, I’ve had scientific disagreements with Davidson, Gerhart, and Kirschner about theories of “evolvability” and “modularity,” but I never saw them claiming that natural selection is unimportant in forging the adaptations of organisms.

So I pulled all these guys out from behind the sign by sending them this email, which was designed not to support selection, but to solicit, without imposing bias, their opinions about the importance of selection (I enclosed Nelson’s email with mine):

Gentlemen:

I’m writing just to let you know that you were mentioned in an email sent to me by Paul Nelson, a Discovery Institute Fellow and young-earth creationist. His email was written in response to a post on my website criticizing Jim Shapiro’s contention that natural selection is relatively unimportant not just in evolution, but in accounting for adaptations. My post is here and links to Shapiro’s.

At any rate, if you wanted to comment on what Nelson says about your views of selection, I’d be glad to listen (if I can post them on my website, I’ll do so, regardless of what they are, but I would need your permission).  I have read the papers of many of you, and while I know that several of you question aspects of modern evolutionary theory, I wasn’t aware that any of you denied the efficacy of selection in accounting for adaptations.

I’m not speaking here of the prevalence among episodes of evolutionary change of selection versus other mechanisms such as drift, but of the prevalence of selection in explaining obvious adaptations like mimicry, the speed of cheetahs, and so on.  So, for example, from what I know of Lynch’s views, he advocates processes like drift in genomic change but doesn’t question selection as the impetus for the evolution of things that everyone regards as adaptations on the morphological level. But I may be wrong.

At any rate, if Nelson has accurately characterized your views, do let me know. And again, I won’t make anything public without your permission.

Thanks,
Jerry

All of them graciously responded and agreed to let me publish their responses (as did Paul with his original letter).  And here they are. None of them agree with Nelson’s characterization. But it’s typical of creationists to distort the views of evolutionists. Read for yourself.

Eric Davidson (developmental biologist at CalTech; member of the National Academy of Sciences):

Dear Jerry

Of course I would not disagree for one second about the importance of adaptive selection for species specific characters of all kinds, whether on protein or regulatory sequences.

I admire your willingness to take on creationists in public; I find their views so antediluvian that I can only ignore them.

Eric

*****

Michael Lynch (evolutionary biologist at Indiana University; member of the National Academy of Sciences):

Thanks for calling my attention to this. I don’t consider myself to be in the camp of those who question the legitimacy of “modern” evolutionary theory. On the other hand, I do question the motivations of those who argue that the modern edifice has been patently unsuccessful and needs to be dismantled so that a new evolutionary synthesis can be erected to save the day. Not much drives me crazier than folks who make such statements without providing any evidence of ever having attempted to read a single paper in evolutionary theory. I find this attitude about as defensible as ID. The ID crowd tends to misinterpret my embracing of what I call “nonadaptive” mechanisms of evolution (drift, mutation, and recombination) as implying a rejection of Darwinian processes.

You are correct that it is wrong to characterize me as someone who doesn’t believe in the efficacy of natural selection. Although I have pushed for a role for genetic drift a good deal more than other folks in evolution, my general stance is that the relative power of drift (and mutation) dictates the paths down which natural selection can (and cannot) proceed in different lineages. There is still a lot to learn here. In my mind, there is little question that drift plays a central role at the level of genome architecture (despite some of the nutty statements by the Encode crowd). I’m now trying to understand the extent to which this might also be true at the level of protein architecture and cellular features, although there is a lot that remains to be done in these areas. Getting this resolved should help us understand whether those who work at the level of outward phenotypes in multicellular organisms (i.e., most evolutionary biologists) have little to gain by thinking about the details at the molecular level.

*****

Andreas Wagner (evolutionary geneticist/developmental biologist, University of Zurich):

Dear Jerry (if I may),

just to avoid any misconceptions in response to the letter below and to Nelson’s letter.

I do believe that natural selection is essential for evolutionary adaptation. I also believe that we can understand the diversity of life through entirely natural causes, natural selection being an important one of them. I therefore do not espouse young earth creationist or intelligent design creationist views. As in any active research field where progress is fueled by new data, there may be reasonable disagreement within a community. That creationists try to use such disagreement to drive a wedge into the community is unfortunately not new, but merely a cheap ploy which reveals that their agenda is built on a weak foundation.

Regards,
Andreas Wagner

*****

John Gerhart (developmental and evolutionary biologist, University of California at Berkeley, member of the National Academy of Sciences):

I haven’t tracked down what Dr. Nelson said we said about natural selection—presumably that we don’t think it’s important. We do think it’s important, and our writing about the means by which organisms generate phenotypic variation wouldn’t make any sense without it. We emphasized contemporary models of cis-regulatory evolution, in which changes of DNA sequence lead to new times and places of expression of long-conserved protein coding genes. Then we wrote about ways in which this process of generating variation might improve in the course evolution as a result of repeated episodes of canalization of traits, during which episodes various genes become connected in synexpression groups and various multicomponent processes gain regulatory robustness and adaptability, the consequence being that further cis-regulatory changes can lead to new times and places of expression of larger groups of genes and of more compatible processes, our “facilitated variation” as a form of evolvability. For all of this, we assumed natural sepection was operating. How could we not? Perhaps Dr. Nelson thought we were belittling natural selection when we said we thought variation should be understood more deeply than it has been, if we are to gain a full understanding of the evolutionary process.  But that’s not the case.

*****

Marc Kirschner (cell and developmental biologist, Harvard Medical School, member of the National Academy of Sciences):

Dear Jerry,

I really do not know why any thinking person would believe that I question natural selection or the role of genetic change in evolution as agreed upon by population biologists.  I am not enough of an expert to opine on current developments in the field of population biology.  I am deeply impressed by what the fossil record has told us.  I see no role for other strange supernatural forces at work.  My only point of departure from population biologists  is to try add to our present knowledge of genetic change and selection something we now are beginning to know of how the phenotype is generated in development.  I believe this tells us something about the kinds of ways things might change more easily, all of course under selection, all of course requiring changes in the genes.  As for the genes, the definition must take into account changes in timing and level of expression, all of which are under selection.  RNA can play a role as a gene product (ribosomal RNA, tRNA, etc) and now to some degree as a product that regulates other genes (micro-RNAs).  I do not see why this poses any more of a problem than having genes encode transcription factors.  I think a lot about the facility of change can be understood in how the phenotype is constructed.  Most population biologists have not had the kind of background I have had, which deals with the processes of development and cell biology.  John Gerhart and I thought we could add something here to evolutionary biology about phenotypic change.  We did not write about genotypic change because others have written well about that, not because we doubt it in any way. Whether evolutionary biologists dismisses what we write as beside the point, I still endorse the basic idea of genetic variation and selection.  It is just that to go beyond the genes to the phenotype, which after all is under selection, we may want to learn how the phenotype is created.  People have written, hoping to see some wedge that we provide against the theory of evolution.  I have considered them simply  misinformed. I have not encouraged any of them.  If anything, our writings give a different kind of support to natural selection and evolution.  Maybe our work is more akin to paleontology, describing history and processes.  I think Darwin would have liked it.  We can now argue so much better as to how organs of perfection like the eye arose.

Best wishes.
Marc

_______________

Nelson can consider himself pwned, though of course he’ll take the above and somehow make it seem that they agree with him. Creationists are good at that kind of distortion, as we see from Nelson’s original email.

My object here was not to establish the hegemony or importance of natural selection by surveying the opinions of five biologists. That’s not how scientific consensus comes about. My object was simply to show that Nelson is either an outright liar or is completely ignorant of the views of these biologists. Nelson either hasn’t read their work, hasn’t understood it, or has read it and understood it but distorted it.  Regardless, it’s ignorance, willful or not. But this is what creationists must do if they want to make their ridiculous views seem respectable.

Expect to see Nelson defending himself in the comments below or at the Discovery Institute website.  I won’t ask you to be deferential to him, but I will ask you to be civil, though I’ve had a hard time myself, as you see above. I don’t deal well with people lying about evolution. But, of course, you can go after creationism and the tactics of its adherents as much as you want.

The world’s wonders, and “Sophie’s choice”: a request for readers

December 11, 2012 • 3:47 am

First, for children who want to learn about wonderful beasts, a cartoon from bird and moon (h/t: Matthew Cobb). Click to enlarge:

nonmythical

The sea unicorn, by the way, is this.

Later today I’ll post about an animal at least as wondrous as these.

Now, Sophie Roell, who works for The Browser (she conducted my interview about evolution books), and is now living in China, writes with a request:

I am trying to introduce my kids  (aged 6, 5 and 4) to the concept of evolution, as I think it’s a nice thing to grow up understanding. They love animals of course, so quite a receptive audience. Though my daughter did cry at the idea of her forefathers being apes.  Given the holidays coming up, I thought it might be a good WEIT post to canvas people’s opinions of good books to teach kids evolution? After all, if you grow up understanding it, you’re unlikely to suddenly start believing in Adam and Eve later on….

So, as a favor to Sophie, I’d like to ask readers who have children, and who have given them books on evolution, to recommend the ones they like in the comments below.

kthxbye!

Monkey in furs loose in Ikea

December 10, 2012 • 1:27 pm

According to the Guardian (and many other sources), a fur-clad monkey was found in the parking lot of an Ikea store in Toronto.

In an incident which would defy belief had it not been well witnessed and, more importantly, captured on Instagram, shoppers at an Ikea store in suburban Toronto were greeted on Sunday by the sight of a tiny, confused and seemingly lost pet monkey running round the entrance lobby. If this was not enough, said monkey was clad in a close-fitting, button-up sheepskin jacket and wearing a nappy.

Picture 3

Toronto police believe the animal was inside a cage in a car parked at the store in North York but somehow managed to free itself. “It was pretty scared. It was a tame monkey,” Staff Sergeant Ed Dzingala was quoted as saying by the Globe and Mail newspaper.

“Nobody got hurt. The monkey was a little scared, that’s all.”

The paper quoted a Toronto city spokesman as saying the creature appeared to be a rhesus macaque. These are not permitted as pets in Ontario, thus generating the Globe and Mail’s headline: “Stylish but illegal monkey found roaming Toronto Ikea.”

Picture 4

The owners have since come forward to identify themselves, and have been fined for possessing an illegal animal.

Here’s a news report:

Monkeys are never good pets, but at least this one was stylishly attired.  DO NOT try this at home! (BTW, my dad had a squirrel monkey named Chippy when he was a kid.)

More denialism of a science-religion conflict

December 10, 2012 • 11:21 am

One of the biggest accommodationists among historians of science has been the respected academic Ronald Numbers, now a professor of the history of science and medicine at the University of Wisconsin. He has been much honored, and specializes in the historical relationship between science and religion.  Wikipedia notes that “Numbers is the son of a Seventh-day Adventist preacher, and was a Seventh-day Adventist in his youth, but now describes himself as agnostic.”

Numbers has done some excellent work, but I’ve found him very soft on science and religion, to the extent of leaning over backwards to maintain that the two do not conflict. In the book edited by James Miller I’ve been reading, Numbers was interviewed about his views on the relationship between science and faith. Here’s one of the questions asked him, along with his answer (reference at the bottom):

Does not all of the controversy surrounding evolution suggest that there is an inherent conflict between science and religion?

First, I should say that I do not believe that the image of ongoing warfare between science and religion accurate describes what has happened historically. Of course, there have been many battles—psychological, professional, disciplinary—involving scientific and religious claims. But rarely, if ever, have they simply pitted scientists against religionists.  The battles have often erupted between scientists (remember, for example, Louis Agassiz and Asa Gray) or between members of the same church (Asa Gray and Charles Hodge were both Presbyterians). In some contexts you see groups struggling for cultural authority, with both sides appealing to science.  Occasionally, you’ll even find poignant evidence of of struggles that go on in the individual minds of scientists or religionists, wrestling with the competing claims of science and religion. Although issues related to science and religion have generated a great deal of conflict and unrest, there has been no inevitable warfare between the two. And in many instance, science and religion have been mutually reinforcing.

Let’s take this answer sentence by sentence, starting with the second one:

Of course, there have been many battles—psychological, professional, disciplinary—involving scientific and religious claims. But rarely, if ever, have they simply pitted scientists against religionists.

“If ever?” Really? What about the biggest battle of all, at least in modern times: creation vs. evolution. If that doesn’t pit scientists against religionists, I don’t know what does. So did, for example, the Galileo affair.  To make such a statement means completely ignoring history in favor of accommodationism.

The battles have often erupted between scientists (remember, for example, Louis Agassiz and Asa Gray) or between members of the same church (Asa Gray and Charles Hodge were both Presbyterians).

Louis Agassiz, a gegologist, was a staunch opponent of Darwin’s theory who nevertheless believed that Noah’s Flood was a local rather than a worldwide phenomenon, that Adam and Eve were the progenitors of Caucasians only, and that there were multiple centers of God’s creation throughout the world. Asa Gray, a botanist, was a big supporter of Darwin but claimed that evolution was theistic, with God creating the variations necessary to create humans and other species.  Charles Hodge, a theologian and principal of the Princeton theological seminary, rejected most of Darwin’s theory outright, equating it to atheism.  And he got into a famous kerfuffle with James McCosh (who became president of the nearby Princeton University), who accepted “Darwinism” based on evidence and said that Christians must accommodate their faith to the facts of science.  Three of these men were indeed scientists, but so what?—the conflict was based on religious interpretations or rejections of evolution!  To imply that these conflicts were not involving science versus faith is to ignore history again, an odd tactic for a historian of science!

In some contexts you see groups struggling for cultural authority, with both sides appealing to science.

Yeah, like “scientific creationists” versus evolutionists or “intelligent design advocates” versus evolutionists! These all appeal to science, but of course creationism (“scientific” or otherwise) and ID are not established science: they are attempts of religion to hijack science so that God can be snuck into public-school classrooms!  This is certainly a fight for cultural authority, but again stems from the incompatibility of evolution with forms of Christianity.  This is a weaselly tactic, appealing to “a cultural struggle” while ignoring its roots!

Occasionally, you’ll even find poignant evidence of of struggles that go on in the individual minds of scientists or religionists, wrestling with the competing claims of science and religion.

And is not that evidence of a conflict between science and religion? The implication here is that there is no “external” conflict because individual minds can experience such dissonance. But that’s simply dumb.  Remember this: 64% of Americans forced to choose between their faith and a scientific fact that contravenes their faith will choose to reject the fact and embrace their faith.  And remember, too, the sad story of Kurt Wise, Dawkins’s “honest creationist,” who was trained as a paleontologist (B. A. University of Chicago, Ph.D. Harvard!) but became a staunch young-earth creationists and jettisoned what he had learned—and believed, taking a job at fundamentalist Bryan College.  Wise said this:

Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.

Now, Dr. Numbers, is that not a conflict between science and religion?

Although issues related to science and religion have generated a great deal of conflict and unrest, there has been no inevitable warfare between the two. And in many instance, science and religion have been mutually reinforcing.

Indeed, warfare is not inevitable on all fronts because there are accommodationists like Numbers who simply proclaim harmony or even amiability.  But where the claims of religion come into conflict with science—as they must when theistic religion (as it must) makes claims about what exists in the universe—there will be warfare. That is inevitable, and will persist until religion surrenders or retreats into a watery deism.

As for science and religion being “mutually reinforcing,” it means this:  science tells religion that its claims are wrong, and the smart religionists accept the claims of science. Those determined to stay religious then engage in duplicitous forms of reconciliation.

Religion, on the other hand, has never reinforced science—except for the common claims that early scientists did their work to reveal God’s ways.  But that doesn’t operate any longer, and science doesn’t need religion. In fact, we’d be much better off without it, especially the evolutionary biologists!

_________

Quote is form p. 52 of Numbers, R. L. 2004. Darwin and Darwinism in America: an interview. In Miller, J. B. (ed), The Epic of Evolution: Science and Religion in Dialogue. Pearson/Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.