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.
When we pose a question, like the identity of the bizarre furry animal posted yesterday, we always answer it in an update. But you’re not reading, folks! It is a LION HEAD RABBIT.
Go see the update (at the bottom of the original post) for links to this bizarre excrescence of artificial selection.
by Matthew Cobb
Earlier on today, UK comedian Robin Ince tweeted:
“Damn, broke my Charles Darwin mug. years of tiny errors to get it like that, now destroyed. Oh life”
Here’s a picture of Robin’s mug, before The Accident (of which he has remained mysteriously silent):
For those of you who don’t know of Robin, amongst other things he is co-presenter of the excellent BBC Radio 4 science-based comedy programme The Infinite Monkey Cage, along with my University of Manchester colleague Professor Brian Cox. There are 18 episodes of this Sony Award winning programme available for you all to listen to. Highly recommended for anybody with a funny bone.
(I admit it, I was on the last series, and will be on the next. Despite this, it is still very funny.)
Robin has a great blog (NOT a website) just down the wordpress corridor.
Okay, guess what kind of animal this is (I’ve edited out the source so you can’t cheat).
No argumentum ad googlem, please.
Update: ———————————————————————————————————————————-
As many of you have guessed, it’s a rabbit, specifically a Lionhead rabbit which is a fairly new breed that apparently originated in Belgium.
Original photograph from The Smiling Wolf Studio on their Facebook page here.
(by Grania Spingies)
In the last ten days or so I’ve featured posts by two creationists trying to promulgate their misguided biology on my site. This is the last one, who goes by the name “Synapticcohesion.” As always, I’m proffering this for educational and sociological reasons: to display the mindset and tactics of those who reject modern biology in favor of a two-thousand-year-old manual for goatherds.
In response to my post “Evolution has a victory in South Korea,” this third commenter (whom I’ll call “Synaptic”) engaged in an exchange with me on the thread. My comments are flush left, and Synaptic’s are indented. Italicized and indented words represent Synpaptic quoting from someone else—either me or another commenter:
Synaptic: “If you don’t have evidence, well then, stfu.”
YOU have no proof that, as mentioned on the comic, that we descended from apes. Only faulty conjecture. So take your own advice.
JAC: Okay, synaptic, before you can post again, explain why the mountains of evidence that we descended from a common ancestor with that of modern chimps, gorillas, etc. is WRONG. We’re waiting. .
Synaptic: I knew it would come to censorship. I wouldn’t be surprised if you don’t post my response so that the creationist appears to be at a “loss for words.”
You know very well that even if there were ancient remains of chimps/hominids (that were not a mix-and-match set of scant bones and bone fragments that they are) that appeared to have physical features that are not exactly like chimps today and aren’t like humans today–that is proof of NOTHING in terms of human evolution, that is simply proof that there are extinct primates (with varying physical features) that do not exist today. That does not prove “human ancestry” whatsoever. Nor do the extremely old, arthritic remains of Neanderthals–with their jutting, arthritic facial features–prove that they are our less evolved, more “apelike” ancestors.
This is the evolutionist’s ultimate failure–to be able to prove that their claims of “intermediaries” are anything more than wild conjecture.
JAC: Man, you either know nothing about the human fossil record or are blinkered by faith. Do you care to tell us why australopithecines, which have a humanlike postcranial skeleton but a skull with a 400-500 cc brain (the size of a chimp) are “arthritic”?
Did all Neanderthals have arthritis? And what about H. erectus, A. afarensis, and the like, which show temporal changes from early apelike forms about 4 mya to more “modern” ones 1.5 myr ago, and so on? How do you explain those temporal changes?
You have a very strange idea of what constitutes “evidence.” The hypothesis is that early hominins would have mixtures of humanlike and early apelike features. This is exactly what we find. It’s all supported with radiometric dating, too.
Do you think that all paleoanthropologists who support human evolution have been cruelly deluded?
Or do you consider Genesis to be “evidence”?
Synaptic:[JAC: This comment is appearing for the first time here since I did not let it go through but preferred to put it above the fold]. “Do you care to tell us why australopithecines, which have a humanlike postcranial skeleton but a skull with a 400-500 cc brain (the size of a chimp) are “arthritic”?”
I never suggested that these chimps were arthritic. As I had mentioned, “humanlike” features do not prove ancestry. There are various animals today that have “humanlike” this or that (including fish that have teeth that are very “humanlike”). But even some claims of the “humanlike” features supposedly attributed to australopithecines is questionable at best. “Lucy,” for example, is nothing more than a mix-and-matching of bone fragments admittedly found in DIFFERENT LOCATIONS. And Lucy’s femur, which is crucial to being able to even make the conjecture of an apelike human ancestor was not even discovered in one piece! The tell-tale evidence of angulation (the supposed “bicondylar angle”) of the femur was conveniently absent as the femur was missing it’s knee joint! Another piece (supposedly belonging to Lucy) was added to complete Lucy’s incomplete femur. How this small piece was able to be preserved separately (yet just as perfectly) in order to complete Lucy’s femur in order to prove a bicondular angle is amazing and the chances of this happening is astronomical.
Did all Neanderthals have arthritis? Yes, the vast majority discovered were arthritic. Why? Because unlike today where people succumb to diseases well before “old age” and even some infants die of various diseases including SIDS, there is evidence that our ancient ancestors lived a lot longer than we did. Thus, most of the remains would be expected to be very old and arthritic as our ancient ancestors lived a lot longer in an old environment that is hypothesized to be much richer in oxygen (based on the evidence found in the analysis of fossilized amber).
“The hypothesis is that early hominins would have mixtures of humanlike and early apelike features.”
Yes, and that does not make it true. Just because some suggest that that’s what something HAS to mean, HAS to be interpreted–does not make it so. There are many ways to interpret the same evidence and science is not immune with conflicts in interpretation. Even the remains of the T. rex has been interpreted in various ways–the evidence was there, but that did not mean that scientists agreed on how the T Rex stood and walked. (The improbable posture was introduced to the public as “scientific fact,” only to be altered in the 1990′s.)
“Or do you consider Genesis to be “evidence”?”
No, I look at the scientific evidence independently. That doesn’t mean I fail to see that much of the evidence uncovered ends up supporting the Bible in many ways.
Indeed, a truly an objective assessment of the evidence that just happens to coincide with Genesis! It really made me LOL that Synaptic thinks that Neanderthals all had arthritis (even the young ones!), and that their contemporaries, “modern’ Homo sapiens, did not! It can’t be a matter of two distinct morphs of humans in one species, one with arthritis and one not, since we also know that Neanderthals were a group that was genetically distinct from modern H. sapiens.
And of course the remains of early hominins are not “mix and match” fragments of fossils: in many cases we have large pieces and nearly entire skulls. These, of course, shows a branching bush of evolution, with some hominins being robust, small-brained, and with big teeth, but others gradually approaching a human-like appearance with a larger skull, smaller teeth, and erect posture.
As for the Lucy story, I was pretty sure they found her as a single skeleton in one small, circumscribed area, and that the evidence for bipedality was convincing. But just to be sure I wrote to anthropologist John Hawks (who has his own website) about Lucy. He was kind enough to respond:
The bicondylar or valgus angle is easy to judge on a distal femur. You do not need a complete bone, only around 10% of the bone’s length at the distal [far] end is really necessary. Chimpanzees and gorillas have femora where the distal articular surface is perpendicular to the shaft. Humans support our weight alternately on one leg at a time, so that our leg must angle from the hip joint to put a foot under the body’s center of gravity. We accomplish this entirely in the femur, which results in our distal articular surface being angled obliquely relative to the shaft.In the Lucy skeleton itself, the distal femur is not as well preserved as in many other australopithecine specimens but is nevertheless sufficient to show the humanlike pattern. This is one of the clearest traits reflecting a bipedal locomotor pattern, present in many specimens of A. afarensis, A. robustus and A. africanus, and of course all members of the genus Homo.
Thanks–I appreciate this.
I presume the following statement is wrong, too?“‘Lucy,’ for example, is nothing more than a mix-and-matching of bone fragments admittedly found in DIFFERENT LOCATIONS.”
And he responded:
Yes, Lucy’s skeleton was all found at one locality, and has no duplicated bones. It is highly unlikely that the skeleton includes any elements from other individuals.
So there you have it: Synaptic, like our other two creationists, was being misleading—probably deliberately so. I believe that he knows better, and is spouting creationist drivel. The thing is, though, that he sounds convincing to those who don’t know anything about Lucy. The lesson (not needed by anyone here) is that if you hear “scientific” evidence adduced by a creationist, be sure to check it out.
Synaptic never did respond to my question of whether he saw all paleoanthropologists as engaged in a monstrous and pervasive conspiracy: trying to deceive people into thinking that scattered bone fragments, and skeletons of modern humans that were unhappily arthritic, represent real fossil evidence of our descent from a common ancestor with modern apes. I guess the creationists have found us out!
Below is the skeleton of Lucy (A. afarensis, dated 3.2 mya), from Wikipedia. She had a “primitive” skull of low volume, a semi-parabolic jaw intermediate in shape between that of modern apes (rectangular) and modern humans (fully parabolic), and the skeleton below the neck is very “modern” and bipedal. Contrary to Synaptic, all these fragments come, to our best knowledge, from a single individual (there were no duplicated pieces in the same area, and it was found in a small area).
Do read the “Lucy” entry; it’s short. Here she is (the femur is the long leg bone):
At the risk of seeming a bit self-aggrandizing (which of course is true), I have to say I’m chuffed at a mention of WEIT on a Daily Beast post, “What Richard Dawkins reads: Jerry Coyne, Helena Cronin and more.” Like my previous interview at The Browser, where I recommended Dawkins and four other books, he selects WEIT as one of his five biology reads—the first one. Indulge me if I quote what he says:
Why Evolution is True
By Jerry Coyne
The Origin of Species, Dawkins says, should be taken for granted as the must-read of evolution. Coyne, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Chicago, marshals the evidence in favor of the “fact” (not “theory”) of evolution. “His book is extremely clear, very well written, and lays out the evidence in a way that, well, if you read it, only an idiot could fail to end up believing in evolution,” Dawkins says.
The book is similar to The Greatest Show on Earth, and even came out the same year. Each author knew the other was working on a book about the evidence for evolution, but they avoided talking about it until they were finished. Was he surprised by any differences between the two? “I suppose it’s inevitable that there’d be similarities—the best evidence is the best evidence. But I learned some things from his book that I hadn’t put in mine, like the fascinating fact that the genes for having a good sense of smell, which are present in a dog, are in us as well. It’s just that they’ve been turned off. Which is a fascinating vestige of an evolutionary past when our ancestors would have had a much better sense of smell.”
It’s nice of Richard to say those things, and the logistical issue is true: we both knew we were working on books on the evidence for evolution, but didn’t discuss the issue for fear of duplicating our contents. I was also quite scared that my book would be completely overlooked because Richard is not only a bigger name, but a better writer. Fortunately, there’s sufficiently little overlap between the two that they can both be read with profit, and mine didn’t do too badly.
Richard’s other four recommended books, all of which I’ve read (and also recommend), are The Ant and the Peacock by Helena Cronin, Why We Get Sick: The New Science of Darwinian Medicine by Randolph Nesse and George C. Williams, Splendid Isolation by George Gaylor Simpson (the evolutionary biogeography of animals in South America), and Narrow Roads of Gene Land, by W. D. Hamilton. Go over to the Beast and see what he says about them.
I’ve been asked to write for HuffPo but have always refused on two grounds: their “science” section is too mushy, unscientific, and sensationalistic, but mainly because their writers don’t get paid. When I brought up that issue, they told me very nicely that their budget did not allow writers any compensation, but I’d be more than compensated by the high readership.
Indeed, writing for HuffPo brings a lot of views. Still, somehow it seems like slave labor to me: you’re working for a profit-making venture, helping bring in the cash, but you don’t get a penny of it. Writing on this website is different: I don’t make a penny, but I’m not enriching anyone else either (except, perhaps, Doctors without Borders, but that’s fine). And so in some ways I feel sorry for those who write for HuffPo: they’re selling themselves too cheaply.
This week Doonesbury has been making fun of the HuffPo “write-for-free” policy:
So true! The suit to which the strip refers is described by Wikipedia:
Since March 2011, the strike and the call to boycott The Huffington Post was joined and endorsed by the Huffington Post Union of Bloggers and Writers (HPUB), the National Writers Union (NWU) and the Newspaper Guild (TNG).
In April 2011, The Huffington Post was targeted with a multimillion dollar lawsuit filed in United States District Court in New York by Jonathan Tasini on behalf of thousands of uncompensated bloggers. The suit was dismissed with prejudice on March 30, 2012 by the court, holding that the bloggers had volunteered their services, their compensation being publication.
by Matthew Cobb
Henri, le chat philosophe, gives us his views on extending suffrage to felids, touching in the final section on the fundamental revolutionary slogan: no castration without representation. But is this a slippery slope? By what logic could we give the vote to cats, but keep it from dogs, or *shudder* cephalopods?
A few days ago I posted on a new paper by Corinne Moss-Racusin et al. in Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. showing gender bias against female undergraduates. The authors submitted fabricated applications for a lab-manager position to both male and female faculty at American universities, with the applications differing only in whether the name of the applicant was Jennifer or John.
Not surprisingly, the applicants with female names were rated less hireable, less competent, and the raters inclined to offer them less salary and mentoring than the “John” applicants. But it was a surprise that the amount of discrimination did not differ between male and female raters. In other words, female professors showed just as much gender bias as males.
Some of the readers had questions about this study (I recall that the issue of how the names would resonate arose, as well as whether raters compare applicants only with others of the same gender), and now you get a chance to ask them.
At 3 p.m. eastern US time (8 pm UK time) today, Science Live is hosting a live chat with one of the paper’s authors, Jo Handelsman, as well as Shirley Tilghman, who was the handling editor for the paper. The chat is here (a transcript will appear subsequently on the same page), and you can submit questions in advance at the link for Handelsman (or, I guess, Tilghman). The questions should be posted as a “comment” at the bottom of the page. The chat is called “Do female scientists get a raw deal?”
As a side note, Tilghman, the first woman president of Princeton (a position she held for 11 years) and only the second woman to head an Ivy League institution (the first was Judith Rodin of the University of Pennsylvania), put out a surprise announcement Saturday that she would be retiring in June. She had been a molecular biologist, and I met her during a sabbatical at Princeton, where I was impressed by her accomplishments and her kindness. She did a great job as president, and announced that she’s retiring because she accomplished everything she wanted. If you must leave, I guess it’s good to do so when you’re on top.
If you have questions about the study, post them at the Science site now.
