A video of my talk at Harvard

May 11, 2012 • 4:28 am

Below is a video of the talk I gave at the Harvard Museum of Natural History nine days ago, “Why evolution is true and why many people still don’t believe it.” The original website of the “Evolution Matters” lecture series is here, where you can see other talks in the series by Jack Szostak, Randolph Nesse, and Iain Couzin.

The introduction is by my old friend Andrew Berry, a lecturer and advisor at Harvard. What he says is true, except that my draft number was low—#3—instead of high, a number that was a recipe for going to Vietnam in those days.  The Harvard folks are trying to add the Q&A to this video, and the sound is a bit weak at the very beginning of my spiel, but improves about a minute in.

The Allman Brothers: Whipping Post

May 10, 2012 • 6:42 pm

Good videos of the original Allman Brothers Band—one of the greatest ensembles in rock history—are rare.  And it’s hard to believe that this one, at the Fillmore East, was recorded 42 years ago. Duane died the next year in a motorcycle accident.

Here they all are: Duane and Dickey Betts sharing lead guitar, Gregg on keyboards, Butch Trucks and Jaimoe on double percussion, and Berry Oakley on bass.

I never saw this lineup live, though I saw them several times without Duane. Their live album released a year later, At Fillmore East, is a classic.

Here they are doing Whipping Post (read the Wikipedia link, particularly the part about the live Fillmore version), written by Gregg when he was only 21.

If you want to hear one of Duane’s last recordings, listen to Blue Sky, recorded at Stony Brook just two months before he died. See if you can tell where Dickey comes in on the solo.

Oh, and my one tenuous connection to the band: in high school I went out one time with Paulette Eghiazarian, who was later married to Dickey. She became Cher’s BFF and personal assistant, and Cher, of course, was once married to Gregg.

Victor Stenger continues to diss religion (and theistic evolution) at HuffPo

May 10, 2012 • 1:26 pm

When Arianna Huffington launched the science section of her website, she explicitly said it would be accommodationist in tone:

I’m particularly looking forward to HuffPost Science’s coverage of one of my longtime passions: the intersection of science and religion, two fields often seen as contradictory — or at least presented that way by those waging The War on Science. A key part of HuffPost Science’s mission will be to cut through the divisions that have resulted from that false war.

Rather than taking up arms in those misguided, outdated battles, HuffPost Science will work in the tradition of inquisitive minds that can accommodate both logic and mystery. It’s a tradition exemplified by Brown University biology professor Kenneth Miller, who, when I visited with him last year, told me that he sees Darwin not as an obstacle to faith but as “the key to understanding our relationship with God.”

But she didn’t count on Victor Stenger, the skunk in the accommodationist woodpile.  I wonder if Arianna has seen his latest piece at Puffho, “Science and spirituality,” taken from a talk he gave at Humboldt State University.  It takes no prisoners, and mocks the consilience of science and faith.

Now it’s true that the great founders of modern science–Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, and Kepler–were devout if unconventional believers. And actually, only Galileo tried to separate his science from his religion, to make a distinction between the two. Newton and the others tried to incorporate God into their theories.

But gradually science separated from religion, and from philosophy for that matter, to the point where today the three are clearly distinct. Those scientists who are believers have compartmentalized their brains into separate science and religion modules. They leave their critical thinking skills at the door when they go to church in Sunday, and leave their religion at home when they go back to work Monday morning. God never enters their equations.

And I’m glad to see that Stenger has no truck with welcoming theistic evolutionists into the stable of “evolution believers” to swell the ranks of our allies:

Critics of the New Atheism also fail to understand why we do not try to work with moderate Christians, who after all say they accept science and, in particular, have no problem with evolution.

But when surveys ask moderate Christians what they really believe, they all say that evolution is God-guided. Well that’s not Darwinian evolution. That’s intelligent design. There’s no guidance in Darwinian evolution. It’s all accident and natural selection. In particular, and this is what is unacceptable to all Christians and just about every other religion: humanity is an accident. Start up life on Earth all over again and humans would not evolve.

Well, I don’t think that all moderate Christians believe that evolution is god-guided. Further, not all god-guided evolution is necessarily theistic, with God sticking his hand in to cause new mutations and the like.  Some theistic evolutionism might shade into deism, asserting that God simply set up the process from the beginning, rigging it so that humans would eventually emerge. But even that is contrary to scientific views of evolution, in which the process proceeds through the disposition of random mutations via natural selection and genetic drift. (I do think, though, that the word “guided” implies a more active theistic intervention. I’d like to see a survey of Americans about how, exactly, they think that God “guides” evolution.) But regardless of whether theistic evolutionists see a rigged process or an actively manipulated one, their views are incompatible with science, and I’m glad to see Stenger say so. Theistic evolution is simply a watered-down version of intelligent design.

And this is why science and religion are forever incompatible. They have totally opposing views of the world and the role that humans play in that world.

Why don’t I just take the Matzke-ian view that we shouldn’t criticize theistic evolutionists? Because they are enabling superstition—just like creationists, but to a lesser degree. Science should not be polluted with religion, and that’s precisely what theistic evolution does.  Some accommodationists are willing to look the other way when the Pope, for example, says that God created through evolution but tweaked it just a tad, handily inserting a soul into the hominin lineage.  But the same accommodationists would bridle if believers said that God played a role in the evolution of other species besides humans, guiding the evolution of squirrels, oak trees, and warblers.  Creationism applied to one species is apparently okay; applied to all species it’s a no-no.

The sooner we see humans as they are—as products of natural evolution like other species—the sooner we will finally put away our childish beliefs. There’s not the slightest evidence for a soul, or for directed human evolution (how about all those other species of intelligent hominins that went extinct?), so why would scientists countenance those things?

Examples of evolution at Harvard’s Museum of Comparative Zoology

May 10, 2012 • 9:11 am

When I visited Harvard last week, I had to visit the Museum of Comparative Zoology (MCZ), where I did my Ph.D. work. It so happened that the exhibits—the displays of skeletons and stuffed animals that typify a nineteenth-century zoology museum—lay between my office and the soda machine, so I had lots of opportunity to look at the displays.  Here are a couple of things I photographed last week that bear on evolution:

These are specimens of the European hedgehog (Click to enlarge).  It is in the order Erinaceomorpha, which includes Old World hedgehogs, moonrats, and gymnures. I do deplore the mass killing that fuels such displays: did they really need more than one? And did they think about the children? (They have baby lions in the displays that were also shot.)

This is the greater hedgehog tenrec from Madagascar. It is in the order Afrosoricida, along with tenrecs and golden moles.  Although this and the hedgehog above were once thought to be close relatives, they are not closely related at all.  In fact, as one commenter noted below the European hedgehog is more closely related to humans than to the greater hedgehog tenrec. Their resemblance of the two “hedgehogs” is in fact a remarkable example of convergent evolution, in which divergent ancestors evolve into very similar forms. Look at the remarkable resemblance!

Here’s a diagram from a PNAS paper showing their relationship: their ancestors diverged about 105 million years ago (just look for the common ancestor of the hedgehog [top] and the golden mole in the following phylogeny):


Finally, here I am pointing out the vestigial hindlimbs of a sperm whale suspended from the ceiling of the Museum.  That was part of the evidence I gave in my lecture two days later.  These bones are not connected to the rest of the skeleton, but have to be mounted by suspending them with wires.  They serve no structural function, but occasionally continue to develop into structures that have discernible leg parts, like the femur, tibia, and tarsus.  These are evidence for evolution: the evolution of whales from a terrestrial four-legged organism, and in whales the ancestral legs remain as tiny vestiges embedded in the muscle.

BTW, congratulations to the population geneticist Joe Felsenstein, who just turned 70 yesterday.  Felsenstein, who has made substantial contributions to theoretical evolutionary genetics, has done the same for systematics in recent years.  Joe studied at the University of Chicago under my advisor Dick Lewontin, and one of his claims to fame was being a radical during the SDS troubles in the sixties. I believe Joe sustained some injuries in the SDS-police fracas by being hit in the head with a brick.

h/t: Andrew Berry

OMG: “756 additional authors not shown”

May 10, 2012 • 5:47 am

Alert reader coelsblog pointed out this astrophysics paper in a comment on one of yesterday’s posts:

It’s a paper with 815 authors, and they ran out of steam before they even finished listing the “B”s.  Is there really a need for so many authors? Did every one of the 815 make a genuine contribution? Perhaps some astrophysicists can explain to me the justification for so many authors.

If one assumes that each author is 5 feet 8 inches tall, then if you laid them all end to end the chain of gratuitousness would extend 4618 feet (nearly a mile), or 1.4 km.

New survey on international belief and unbelief

May 10, 2012 • 5:27 am

A new report by Tom Smith at the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) here at the University of Chicago surveys the degree of belief and unbelief in God in 30 nations.  Countries were included if their inhabitants were polled in at least two of three surveys: 1991, 1998, and 2008. You can download a pdf copy of “Belief about God across time and countries” here.  I’ll provide a brief summary of the top and bottom five countries in each category.

Atheism (% who say “I don’t believe in God, 2008)

Top 5

  1. Germany (East): 52.1%
  2. Czech Republic: 39.9%
  3. France: 23.3%
  4. Netherlands:  19.7%
  5. Sweden: 19.3%

Bottom 5

  1. Philippines:  0.7%
  2. Cyprus:  1.9%
  3. Chile:  1.9%
  4. United States: 3.0%
  5. Poland:  3.3%

“Strong belief in God” (% saying “I know God really exists and I have no doubts about it”, 2008)

Top 5

  1. Philippines:  83.3%
  2. Chile:  79.4%
  3. Israel: 65.5%
  4. Poland:  62.0%
  5. United States 60.6%

Bottom 5

  1. Japan:  4.3%
  2. Germany (East): 7.8%
  3. Sweden:  10.2%
  4. Czech Republic: 11.1%
  5. Denmark: 13.0%

Belief in a Personal God (2008)

Top 5:

  1. Philippines: 91.9%
  2. Chile: 71.8%
  3. United States: 67.5%
  4. Israel:  66.5%
  5. Ireland: 64.1%

Bottom 5

  1. Germany (East): 8.2%
  2. Czech Republic: 16.1%
  3. France: 18.7%
  4. Sweden: 19.1%
  5. Japan: 24.0%

No real surprises here: formerly Soviet countries are atheistic, the Philippines and Poland are Catholic, and the U.S. is, as usual, surprisingly religious compared to Western Europe.

Changes over time:  Religiosity is decreasing.  The percentage of people claiming atheism increased in 15 of 18 countries between 1991 and 2008 (decreases in atheism were seen in Israel, Russia and Slovenia). The average decrease was only 1.7%.  From 1998 to 2008, though, atheism increased in 23 of 30 countries with an average increase of 2.3%.  “Certain” belief in God declined in 14 of 18 countries between 1991 and 2008, with an average decrease of 2.4%, and the same average decrease occurred in the latter period, with 24 out of 30 countries showing declines.

Effects of getting older: Inhabitants of 30 countries were surveyed in 2008 as to their certainty that God exists, with respondents divided into different age classes from “less than 28” to “68 and older”.  In all but one country (Israel), the certainty increased over that period, with the average lifetime increase a whopping 20%. (Israel decreased by 16.4%).  This large change cannot be due simply to temporal changes, because, as we have seen, that certainty among all inhabitants decreased over this period.  It must, then reflect an increasing belief in God with age.  As the authors of the study suggest euphemistically, this may be “perhaps in response to the increasing anticipation of mortality occurring.”  (Why can’t they just say: “increasing fear of death”?).

At any rate, the conclusions are that secularism is increasing and belief decreasing in the countries surveyed, though the declines are modest.  However, given two centuries, the trend, if it continues, will lead to a largely secular world. Note, however, that Islamic countries were not surveyed; this is by no means a random sample of the world’s inhabitants.

Mohamed Noor profiled in The Scientist, and a note on authorship

May 9, 2012 • 12:12 pm

My second Ph.D. student, Mohamed Noor, is the subject of a long profile in The Scientist, “Burgers and flies.” (The name refers to his legendary penchant for eating at McDonald’s.)  It’s a good profile: Mohamed, who’s now a chaired professor at Duke, is immensely energetic and accomplished; I’m quite proud of him.  He was sent to me by my own undergraduate adviser at William and Mary, the inspiring Bruce Grant, who also mentored a fair few evolutionary biologists, including Allen Orr (my first student) and Walt Eanes, a professor at Stony Brook.

Noor’s science is the centerpiece of the article, and I won’t reiterate that since you can read it for yourself. But here are a few other tidbits:

Stress relief. “For a while, my lab had pretty regular water-gun fights. I have a ton of huge water guns, so we’d go to my house, go into the backyard, and spray each other. It’s a good time to have a little fun and vent the frustrations of the day.”

In my lab, we used water balloons, which made far more of a mess.  Often we’d go out on the roof armed with them, ready to pelt Allen Orr, who arrived at the lab the same time every day by the same route.

Find a Bruce Grant. “The single biggest piece of advice I give undergraduate biology students is to get into a close mentoring relationship with somebody. Nothing can have a bigger impact on your future than that. Work in their lab. Do research with them.”

There’s no substitute for a charismatic, enthusiastic, and empathic undergraduate mentor.  Neither Noor, Orr, nor I would be scientists without Bruce’s help and inspiration.

I’m lovin’ it. “There’s a rumor on the street that I go to McDonald’s every day. I used to go once or twice a week, but lately it hasn’t been that often. I just disproportionally enjoy it every time I go. I also used to have an acknowledgement slide at the end of my seminars saying I acknowledge McDonald’s for caloric support. And I loved the Big N’ Tasty, but they canceled it. Now I get the third-pound Angus burger. That’s good too, but I still miss the Big N’ Tasty.”

Chez Noor. “I regularly post on Yelp.com, maybe once every couple of weeks. I like almost any kind of ethnic food. I love Greek and Thai, and Durham is amazing for Mexican food.” Noor has been designated an “elite” Yelp reviewer for the last three years, having posted more than 172 reviews, submitted 321 restaurant photos, and even hosted Yelp events in his home and at Duke. “In addition to reviews, it’s a social thing. Two years ago I hosted a ‘Tour de Taco’ at my house. We got tacos from a bunch of local restaurants, cut them up, and did a blind taste test.”

Like father, like daughter. “My kids are also foodies. When we would go out to eat, my daughter would always order crazy fancy things. Finally, I was like, ‘All right, you need to restrain yourself!’ So I raised her allowance a lot, but said, ‘Now, when we go out to eat, you’re paying your own way.’ So now she saves.”

And like father, like son!

Finally, this about his work in my lab:

By analyzing the breeding rates of the two Drosophila species, with individuals of their own species and with each other, Noor determined that natural selection does enhance the reproductive isolation of one species from another—the first experimental evidence of reinforcement contributing to species formation. He published the results in Nature in 1995, a year before he completed his PhD, and was the sole author on the paper. “My advisor, Jerry, had a general policy to let students be sole authors on papers. He said, ‘My job is to give advice. You have to come up with the project, you have to execute it, and you have to write it up. You’ve done all the work, so there’s no reason for my name to be on it.’ That’s uncommon in academia.”

He didn’t mention that I actually discouraged this work, figuring that the chances were slim that he’d find reinforcement. (“Reinforcement” is the evolution, via natural selection, of higher mating isolation between species in areas where their ranges overlap. When hybrids are inviable or intfertile, selection will act to impede their formation in areas where members of different species coexist). My policy of not putting my name on students’ papers is getting ever rarer as increasing competition for jobs and grants makes people put their names on papers to which they often make virtually no contribution.  But I’ve found that it hasn’t impeded my own career: granting agencies such as the NSF and NIH fund you based not on the papers that sport your name, but on the number and quality of papers that come out of your lab, regardless of who’s an author.

I learned this authorship protocol from my own adviser Dick Lewontin, who learned it from his adviser, Theodosius Dobzhansky, who learned it from his mentor, Thomas Hunt Morgan (the doyen of 20th century Mendelian genetics). It thus has a long and honorable pedigree. (Dobzhansky sometimes designed the research, told his technician how to do it, analyzed the data, and wrote the paper—and yet the sole author was his technician! I remember meeting Dobzhansky the first time at Rockefeller University: he was,at the age of 72, sitting at the microscope scoring chromosome inversions in Drosophila pseudoobscura.  He kept his hand in to the end.)

So while I have the chance here, let me repeat my mantra to professors and graduate students: If you’re a student, your advisor isn’t automatically entitled to put his/her name on your paper.  Providing funding and advice is not sufficient reason.  And if you’re a faculty member, don’t slap your name on your students’ papers if all you’ve done is given them advice and money.  They lose by it, for the work will often be attributed more to you rather than the student (this is known as “the Matthew Effect“). I deplore the proliferation of gratuitious multiple authorships as a strategy for scientists padding their c.v.s.

/rant.

On the other hand, the student does need to remember who’s boss:

Noor about to pull his boss in Trudy Mackay’s buggy.  North Carolina, May, 2006

A report on my talk at the Harvard Museum

May 9, 2012 • 10:23 am

Harvard Science, a section of the Harvard Gazette, has a piece on the talk I gave last week at the University Museum.  The report, “The whys of religion vs. evolution,” is actually a pretty accurate of what I said. There was a fair dollop of religion stuff at the end, but the audience didn’t seem to mind: Harvard is probably a hotbed of unbelievers anyway.

I’m told that the video will be put up within a week or so.  I think it went pretty well judging from the audience reaction, the questions, and the number of people who bought my book afterwards. And thank Ceiling Cat for that: in the audience were many Harvard luminaries, including my own adviser Dick Lewontin, anthropologist Richard Wrangham (who posits that the domestication of fire helped promote the enlargement of the human brain), Nobel Laureate Jack Szostak (helped discover telomerase), and lots of Harvard biology faculty and students (many of whom I knew), not to mention the 300 or so members of the educated/interested public (it was an overflow crowd, so about 50 people had to stand in the aisles).  I usually don’t get nervous before talks, but this was an occasion for perspiration. I couldn’t afford to blow that one!

h/t: Andrew Berry