Louis CK, as always, pitch perfect.

We're a shitty mammal.

Again with this cloning shit.

I know I just ranted about this recently-ish but seriously, can we talk about why everyone is so obsessed with seeing a woolly mammoth alive and walking around?? (I'm serious, I'd actually like to hear a solid reason why, feel free to leave it in the comments section). Ok so some scientists found a sample of "well-preserved bone marrow" from a mammoth which is awesome insomuch as we can look at the DNA a little bit better and probably understand its history and evolution a little bit more. However, scientists from Japan and Russia (and I'm not singling those countries out, I know they're in the US and elsewhere, too) want to use this relatively "better" sample of DNA to clone a mammoth. Their timeframe for success? 5 years. How do they plan to go about doing that? How else: implanting the magical nuclei from the marrow into the egg cells of an African elephant (Loxodonta africanus), a closely related species (I've previously discussed this JurassicPark-ification of anything and everything here). 

Y'all have heard statistics on the success rate of cloning, right? 100%, works like a charm each and every time. Riiiight. It's actually alarmingly unsuccessful (rates never reaching double digits). When you hear in the news that scientists have successfully cloned a sheep or a mouse, many, many fails preceded that (Which tangentially makes me wonder why the people who picket Planned Parenthood aren't also picketing science labs. Every life is important or whatever. Not to give them fucking ideas, but it IS strange that those two groups are usually on opposite sides of the politico-socio spectrums, right?). 

Now I'd like you to recall the "test" species we're using in this scenario to, you know, gather ova and implant with the rainbow nuclei: AFRICAN ELEPHANTS. 

Gestation period on an African elephant? One year. 

How often does the average female African elephant reproduce? Once every 5 years. 

Population status of the African elephant? Vulnerable, ie: we've got some left, you know, enough that we're keeping an eye out for poaching, but not enough that we're putting them in Al Gore movies. 

(And someone please tell me why when I was looking up these facts, a 6 grader's report on elephants came up in Google search terms above the damned wiki page #somuchfail). 

My point being, this is not an easy project or even a "sure thing" project. It's seemingly a novelty project that will cost millions and millions of dollars and an incredible amount of time and effort. And for WHAT? Even if every single factor comes together in an orgasmically successful way and a teensy woolly embryo is injected into an elephant's lady parts, a year-long gestation under less-than-ideal conditions seems outrageous. AND EVEN IF... remember the pyrenean ibex? Tragically died after 7 beautiful minutes spent on earth trying to breathe. Whatever. Canada got everything right in the 70's. Let's just leave it at that, ok?

Bible-belt bound. Like I'm going there. I'm not tied up with bibles. Yet.

No podcast this week, kiddies, as I have actually lost my voice. Not spiritually or metaphorically; I have laryngitis.

Also, I'm moving to Texas this week sooo... there's that.

For now enjoy this talk by Chris Mooney on his book The Republican War on Science, which we discussed on last week's episode.


Chris Mooney from Books Inc on FORA.tv

Baba Brinkman + Rachel Maddow = epic win

Famed rapper Baba Brinkman's performs on Rachel Maddow's Geek Week segment in 2010. Check out his work here.

 

Large Hadron Rap - science made...sexy?

Here's a "win" for science PR. The video was originally released to spread info on how the LHC works, but also helped(s) promote CERN's Sixtrack project, which you can participate in!

 

"And then you put a bandaid on your dyke"

FIRST PODCAST IS UP, BITCHES!

Find it on iTunes here.

Or RSS here.

Yes, I know there are audio, visual, content issues. We're working on it, ok? Just enjoy for now.


Oh, and here is Richard Dawkins reading hate mail, as promised.

A quick note on evolution polls.

This is the poll I mention in this week's podcast. As you can see, there's a teeeeeny tiny number of people that believe  humans developed through natural processes alone. The three answers to the question "which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings?" are:
1. Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided the process.
2. God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.
3. Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in the process.

Glass half full: the number of people that believe #3 to be true has gone up to almost 20%.
Glass half empty: what the fuck are the rest of those people up there in the 80%?

Right, I know I shouldn't criticize those that believe God "created" evolution. I should welcome them into the fold with open arms because they're at least attempting to see the evidence in front of them. I just can't do it, though. It feels like a copout and it is. Obviously this study conflates the ideas of the creation story with the age of the earth as well. Some would argue that those are two entirely different topics, however, in my book, they typically go hand in hand. I don't hear from a ton of people that believe we developed naturally over only thousands of years (vs. millions) because that's when the earth came into being or big-banged or whatever. If you're going to believe in facts and evidence (archaeological, geographical, etc.) you can't pick and choose which ones align with the book you subscribe to. At any rate, intelligent design (#1) and creationism (#2) still rule in the U.S. and that kind of breaks my heart.

Incoming: podcast. Soon?

Hey all. Just a quick update on the podcasting situation. We recorded the first episode last night, only to find out that I speak way too softly (who fucking knew) and all of my wit was lost in the chasm between the microphone and my mouth (I may have called Brian a "fact rapist," it's fine). So... we'll be re-recording soon. Or fuck it, maybe we'll just put it up anyways.

If you'd like to offer suggestions, critiques, send along articles or current events, please do so: survivingnaturalselection@gmail.com

Ooooh - and if anyone has a great intro/outro song they'd like to suggest, that'd be pretty stellar as well.

On meeting Dr. Greg Graffin, punk.

A couple weeks ago, I had the privilege of meeting one Dr. Greg Graffin, a self-titled naturalist, evolutionist, and punk rocker. He's currently teaching the non-majors Evolution class at Cornell University (the one I'm pissed they didn't let me take when the notorious Will Provine was still teaching it because I was in the evolution major). I realize I'm in a small circle of people that know of Graffin through his atheism/evolution work at Cornell and his crusade to spread that knowledge.

So I didn't know til about 2 years ago that he's also the singer of the punk band, Bad Religion (awesomesauce). He's got a book out (Anarchy Evolution: Faith, Science, and Bad Religion in a World Without God) and was/is about the nicest guy I've met. Clearly busy, but willing to spend a few minutes chatting with my friends and I, he's got passion for two things I can relate to: evolution AND art. What a chill dude.





An interview from last year on MSNBC
 

 Bad Religion music video for "American Jesus"

So this kid walks into a rectory...

I hesitated to write on pedophilia because it was brought up as a joke. Honestly, a pretty funny one regarding the Catholic Church. I'm already going to H-E-L-L so I might as well admit that I laughed. And then thought, but wait, why DOES pedophilia exist? I'm not a strict selectionist (read: I have some basic understanding of science and therefore recognize that "useless" or "unproductive" things pop up all over evolution because it isn't guided). However, something that appears to have such negative consequences would logically get culturally phased out, if not biologically. 

First, there's the argument that "almost every sort of sexual activity... has been considered normal and acceptable in some society at some time" (Bauserman 1997). True, and still is completely acceptable in more than a few around the world. The most famous (infamous?) examples are the tribes in Africa and Australia that honor young men taking younger boys as sexual partners until they find wives, and the Etoro of New Guinea where young boys swallow semen from olden men to become men themselves. Semen = power, even our uptight society believes that! These are usually brought up in college anthropology classes which frat boys then drunkenly share with friends ("Guys, it's sick! SO GAY, amiright?!) Ahh, you say, but those are distant lands with backwards people (Ok, this is actually a pointless article, but it's at The American Conservative so I had to include it). Well, fun fact: the legal age of consent in civilized England was 10 until late in the 1800's. 

Ok, but what about the SCIENCE. What possible reasons could pedophilia have come about in nature? Some instances of pedophilia do exist in related species, such as the hyper-sexual bonobos (Green touches on this issue). In humans, most people classified as pedophiles are males. This makes some sense in light of what we evolutionarily find attractive. Our sexual dimorphism (females look different from the males) has led to males finding young, healthy, fertile females attractive. Courtship patterns include aggression and dominance in males and submissiveness in females (generally, evolutionarily; feminists, take a deep breath right now, geez). Therefore, hebephilia (the cusp of puberty, girls ranging from 11-14) might more adequately describe many of the pedophilia cases (Jesse Bering's excellent article on the topic). 

Yes, but pedophilia is not productive; it doesn't produce babies. Right. However, only a small fraction of the population participates in it. Here the majority factor comes into play. The small number of unsuccessful reproductive strategies (flawed, evolutionarily-speaking) are overwhelmed by those that are. Does that mean it's genetic? I simply do not know. 

I won't speak to the legal and moral issues surrounding this topic. In the past, the US has at turns deemed it a mental disorder along the lines of homosexuality (for real), a mental disorder that can be treated (pray it away!), or just an inevitable crime waiting to happen for those that are born this way. And in explaining why it exists, I'm certainly not justifying the actions of those that harm others. However, oftentimes understanding WHY someone acts the way that they do is a key to understanding how to help them.  

"That's some Gattaca shit, man!"

Fetus at 9 weeks
Guess how many prolife sites it took to find this?

When originally discussing the potential for fetal gene sequencing, many people jump to a science fiction future where everyone's wearing the same sparkly uniforms and being chosen to work on some sort of intergalactic flight. Maybe I missed out on the sci-fi brainwashing as a child (we had one channel, guys, calm down) but my brain didn't jump there. I immediately thought, "Amazing!" Not that I have any interest in having children. I don't.
However, the evolutionist in me is fascinated by the leaps and bounds science makes in "speeding up" evolution (not that I am always for doing this - read: a new liver for an 80-year-old who drank their whole life, c'mon). 

I realize this is a controversial statement to make. And the anti-abortionists will jump all over this as some type of awful eugenics. However, new testing procedures will potentially allow doctors to analyze a fetus's genome as soon as 9 weeks after conception. Instead of inserting a terrifyingly long needle into the fetus as in amniocentesis, a small volume of the mother's blood can be tested for diseases. This is possible because scientists recently found that minute samples of fetal DNA are floating around in a pregnant woman's blood. These samples can be rapidly reproduced via PCR and then studied for disease or other factors. 

Ahh, but what else can we test for? Eye color? Sure. Height? Soon. Intelligence? Well, maybe eventually. Then the big question is... what should be allowed? The potential for this to be misused is obviously there (let's everyone bring up China, again, and their hatred of girl babies, ok?). But these arguments seem weak to me in comparison with the good something like this offers. Being able to test for diseases like Down's syndrome, Tay-Sachs, or phenylketonuria can be immensely helpful to potential parents. Is anyone going to make laws that say you HAVE to get this testing done? No. Is anyone going to make laws that say if you do get it done, and you find out something negative, you HAVE to get an abortion? Of course not, don't be ridiculous. But there are people that WANT TO KNOW. If I were a potential parent, I'd want to be as prepared as possible, and knowing a small number of the risks and hazards would seem like a huge relief. I'd want my kid to be brought into the world with the best chance of succeeding. There are still thousands of diseases we can't test for as well as the every day circumstances that we can't control (choking on legos, say, or being attacked by feral coyotes). Let those things happen by chance, and maybe take advantage of that ones you don't have to. 

The female orgasm - it's real y'all!

Some people (let's just say "women") were offended by the most recent studies on the female orgasm. They basically argue that the female orgasm is simply a byproduct --albeit an excellent one-- of the male orgasm. In the same way that our bodies develop similarly in the womb, women are born with many of the same erectile and stimulative tissues that men have (smaller, but still there). Our nervous systems operate fantastically similarly as well. Therefore, women can orgasm because we have the same biological ability to. 

Ok, so that explains the HOW. But what can explain the WHY?

Some of the conflicting theories of WHY females orgasm are common-sense. One is that the pleasure it brings motivates women to have more sex, which would in turn lead to more offspring (yay more babies!!). This could also lead to sperm competition if "good" sex encouraged females to have sex with multiple male partners. Another is that it reinforces feelings of love and intimacy. This is supported by the hormones that are released (such as oxytocin). However, species that are even more promiscuous than humans still experience orgasm (many primate species) so that doesn't hold up well either.  A third is the humorously named "sperm upsuck" theory wherein uterine contractions draw sperm upward. Recent research has shown that this theory probably doesn't hold up. 

I think the most promising theory is that the ability (or mystique) around the female orgasm is cultural. We live in a puritanical society where talking about sex (and especially the enjoyment of sex -- not just for reproduction) is frowned upon, shushed, and tucked away behind closed doors. You've heard politicians say they don't care what people do "in the privacy of their own homes," right? There's a male-centric focus to sex in the US that glorifies the male ability to invade and conquer. The general attitude toward women having sex is that they are present to satisfy their male partner. Therefore, their satisfaction is simply a byproduct. If it happens, great (that guy's a superhero) but if it doesn't, eh, no harm no foul. Obviously more recently there are trends toward products meant to help women achieve the same pleasure as men. However, I don't view that as anything other than marketing ploys to sell products. Admitting the female orgasm is just as real and likely as that of males would be to admit that sex is for more than reproduction. And that seems like a lot to ask of a society that still doesn't fully understand the need for birth control and sex education.

My favorite part of researching this article was that one of the top search results was an article titled something like "The Female Orgasm: Proof that God Exists" because science can't yet explain it. I think that aptly sums up my arguments about our society. 

A TED lecture by Mary Roach: 10 things you didn't know about orgasm

Let's Jurassic Park that shit.

This is one of the most frequent arguments (debates? discussions?) I get into with some of those closest to me. When I cannot use science without drawing 20 pictures, I try to rationalize with the ethics of doing it. Usually that's a lost cause. "C'mon, why WOULDN'T you want dinosaurs running around?! They're sweet! Remember the velociraptors??" Yes, yes I do. They gave me nightmares for weeks and made me forever terrified of industrial kitchens. 

So what about cloning these extinct creatures? Is it possible and if so, should we do it? 

First off: no, it isn't yet possible. We can and have cloned several different types of animals (wtf is a mouflon?). However, these were made from other living animals in a process that utilizes intact DNA (somatic cell nuclear transfer). Extracting DNA from fossilized species or bones is potentially possible but the DNA is typically degraded to the point of uselessness. I shouldn't say that it's useless. It can help decode parts of an extinct species' genome, which is pretty spectacular. It cannot be used to create an extinct animal park on an island in the middle of an unnamed body of water. 

Second: no, I don't believe we should do it. Even with every possible factor working out perfectly, I don't see the point of recreating species that went extinct. If we managed to get the physical animal just right, how could we possibly get the climate or environment right so that it would mature and cope in the same ways? Therefore, we couldn't study the behavior and assume it was accurate. 

Ok, you say, why not just clone those species that have recently gone extinct? Or better yet, we'll repopulate places with similar animals like Josh Donlon's insane plan to "rewild" the Midwest with African animals. Shelling out massive amounts of money just to see a woolly mammoth in the flesh seems like a gimmick. Does it ignite a small fire in the eyes of those otherwise not interested in science? Sure. But in my opinion, why not spend the resources and time we have on preventing the 6th mass extinction we're in from getting worse. Let's save, oh I don't know... salmon and mountain gorillas, for example. 

And now, Tibet presents the woolly rhino

A woolly rhino skeleton was discovered recently on the Tibetan Plateau, an area of the world with some of coldest temperatures and highest mountains. 3.5 million years old puts this creature at a solid million years BEFORE the Ice Age actually began. What does this mean for evolution? Well, potentially this type of animal was prepared for severe cold temperatures because it had already evolved to survive them. For example, instead of the typical single horn that modern-day rhinos have, the woolly rhino had a second 3-foot long, flat horn. This was allegedly used to scoop snow out of the way to find buried plant life. Inadvertently planning for the next big climate change can change the biodiversity of the surviving world. Pretty awesome. 

On Rick "Pray For Rain" Perry's less than adequate brain power

I don't WANT to be writing about Rick Perry, because there's no chance in hell he'll be elected president. And in fact, I don't really need to, because Richard Dawkins summed up the argument perfectly well in a recent article in the Washington Post:

"A politician’s attitude to evolution is perhaps not directly important in itself. It can have unfortunate consequences on education and science policy but, compared to Perry’s and the Tea Party’s pronouncements on other topics such as economics, taxation, history and sexual politics, their ignorance of evolutionary science might be overlooked. Except that a politician’s attitude to evolution, however peripheral it might seem, is a surprisingly apposite litmus test of more general inadequacy. This is because unlike, say, string theory where scientific opinion is genuinely divided, there is about the fact of evolution no doubt at all. Evolution is a fact, as securely established as any in science, and he who denies it betrays woeful ignorance and lack of education, which likely extends to other fields as well. Evolution is not some recondite backwater of science, ignorance of which would be pardonable. It is the stunningly simple but elegant explanation of our very existence and the existence of every living creature on the planet. Thanks to Darwin, we now understand why we are here and why we are the way we are. You cannot be ignorant of evolution and be a cultivated and adequate citizen of today."

Remember this from the last political cycle? 

Besides McCain's smug little face, remember how this was a BIG DEAL? The media went (maybe applaudingly so) wild with it. It was shocking that SO MANY of the candidates raised their hands, not just the lone crazy wolf (we're all thinking Bachmann right now, right?). It was almost as if it was a symbol of pride to be ignorant. Who am I kidding? That's how the GOP is run these days. So it's not surprising, but still disappointing to me, that this election cycle, one of the contenders is so outspokenly against evolution that he's trying to implement teaching creationism IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. C'mon, people. It's not just Texas, either. The key word in Dawkins' piece is "adequate." If you're still fighting this bs fight, you can't be an adequate citizen, and therefore shouldn't be making up policy for the rest of us to follow along with. 

There's a reason why cavemen aren't around anymore.

In the last few weeks, more than a few of my acquaintances have mentioned trying the Paleo or Caveman Diet. Basically the logic is that humans started cultivating grains ~10,000 years ago and that this hasn't been enough time for evolution to catch up to digesting this carb-heavy diet. In other words, the Paleo Diet consists of what our ancestors supposedly ate in hunter-gatherer days: meats, veggies, fruits, nuts, and seeds. You cut out grains, legumes, dairy, oils, refined sugars, and salt. I first heard about this last year when John Durant (who at the time I thought was one of the worst spokesmen ever -- he wore the five-toed shoes on national TV, c'mon!) was on The Colbert Report and professed his commitment to eating like our hunter-gatherer ancestors. Colbert called the diet a "high-falutin' Atkins diet," which I can't help but agree with.

The Colbert Report
Tags: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

So what are the benefits of this diet? Well, obviously cutting these processed foods out of any diet isn't necessarily a bad thing. Proponents of the Paleo Diet claim that it prevents the so-called "diseases of affluence" or "diseases of civilization" like Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, alcoholism, allergies, depression, etc. While this is undoubtably true, the majority of these diseases don't affect a person's mortality until later in life. In other words, these diseases don't affect a person's reproductive ability so they may be not affected by natural selection pressures. So the argument that our modern day diet should have been selected against or that we haven't evolved to deal with it doesn't ring true to me. 

Another statistic that I've seen thrown about is that pre-agricultural ancestors acquired 64-68% of their calories through animals. This seems high in almost any culture (excluding Inuit and other cold-climate cultures where plant-life is extremely limited). However, in the time period that we're discussing, our human ancestors didn't possess much of the hunting and fishing technology required to consume this many calories from other animals. The diet of our closest relatives, chimpanzees, is over 90% fruits and plants and a smattering of animal calories when available. Our dentition and GI tract closely resemble those of chimpanzees so it seems to me that our ancestors more than likely did far more foraging than hunting. 

Furthermore, the argument that evolution hasn't had the appropriate amount of time to adjust to eating grains and other agricultural products doesn't hold up. The number of copies of the gene for salivary amylase, which digests starch, has been shown to increase in cultures that consume more grains. The same can be said of the human body's ability to produce lactase to aid in digesting dairy products. While I'm not arguing that we should be filling our systems with these things or that they are necessarily the healthiest way to consume calories, natural selection does seem to be acting in these situations. 

I'm usually fairly skeptical about diet fads even when they're sold with a scientific bent. And I have nothing against those that want to try this one in theory. However, as with any diet, I think it's more about a person's attention to what they're consuming and an active participation in keeping themselves healthy. People that stick with a diet or an exercise regimen, regardless of what it is, more often succeed at losing weight or maintaining their health. Getting rid of some extra carbs and refined sugars is a good plan for anyone. Certainly Americans who consume on average donuts and soda could stand to pay attention to where they get their calories. Looking at consuming 60+% of your calories in modern-day animals products, though, seems to disregard many of the ecological and economical problems the world is facing. Modern day protein from farm-raised animals is fatty and unsustainable. So while the Paleo Diet seems fun and perhaps even has good intentions behind it, I'm left feeling that it's more of a lark for frat boys on a camping trip rather than conscientious individuals looking to get back to their roots. 

Pack your bananas for Heaven, folks.

There's really not much to be said about this other than that I truly believe there is a hard correlation between banana believers and those planning for the END OF DAYS this weekend. Their Left Behind books fervently folded down on all the important pages. Their recent and surprising forgiveness of "the gays" in their lives (or at least pity substituted for anger). Their patronizing smiles to those of us that have lived sinful (um, read: fun?) existences. So, fare thee well. I'll still be here eating my impossibly difficult Satan oranges (with NO tab!) on Sunday.

I, for one, welcome our altruistic robot overlords.

I've recently spent some time trying to explain to non-sciencey people why kin selection and group selection are such hotly debated topics among evolutionary biologists (Yes guys, we don't debate the validity of evolution, but rather, what kind of evolution). While most people understand the basic theory underlying kin selection (an individual is likely to help those genetically related to itself even at a negative cost to the individual) -- trying to explain group selection is tricky. One of the biggest myths about evolution is that natural selection is the only game in town, and therefore individuals always act selfishly to benefit themselves and their direct descendants. However, lately more and more testable science is showing that natural selection and the "only the fittest survive" theory is just one piece in the complex puzzle that makes up evolution.

When I first read the headlines to this story about robots working together, I thought it must be exaggerated. The idea that we can replicate the behavior of organic life in something completely synthetic still blows my mind. However, Laurent Keller's group in Switzerland has gone above and beyond replicating life. They created robots that were programmed to search for "food" and then move this "food" into a certain spot. The robots were also programmed with a point analysis system where they weighed the costs and benefits of helping. As generations went on, the group simulated evolution by using the "genes" from individual robots that were the most cooperative, ie: the most successful. After hundreds of generations, they found that the robots that helped the group closely resembled systems found in nature.




The theory of kin selection makes sense on paper but the bigger issue has always been demonstrating its existence in the real world. While it becomes harder to immediately extrapolate the results of this study to complex social systems like those of humans, the implications for understanding social insects are immense. Groups where individuals seemingly act on a level that benefits the whole over the individual may be explained by continued studies into kin selection.

Germ-->fish-->mermaid-->man!

This is an issue I'll unfortunately be coming back to again and again: you cannot teach children false information and expect them to grow up and be well-rounded, contributing members of society. There are currently eight different states --Tennessee, Missouri, Florida, the usual suspects-- that have anti-evolution bills in their legislatures. As a refresher, the infamous Scopes Trial of 1925 and the equally as important Kitzmiller v. Dover trial in 2005 that ruled intelligent design is not science (and is simply creationism in disguise). 

Currently, Florida has Senate Bill 1854 on the table which in part states: "The instructional staff of a public school [is required to] teach a thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution." Ahh, you might say, critical analysis is certainly important for any aspiring intellectual. Which would be quite true, if that's actually what we were talking about. However, in this case it's just more coded language to add doubt to the theory of evolution and support for ideas like creationism and intelligent design. A common argument I've heard from those that support this so-called "teach the alternatives" is that if you give kids the facts, they'll make their own decision about what is right. Really? Because I'm pretty sure if you told a kid dinosaurs were still around, he'd believe you. And you know what? That wouldn't be fair, would it? That stupid kid would grow up thinking dinosaurs were out there somewhere just like leprechauns and Santa Claus. And his poor little heart is going to be broken when he either finds out he's wrong or is made fun of for the rest of his life for sticking to his deluded little guns. 

So why would anyone want to teach kids a false narrative? Because it fuels doubt. It adds to the supposed controversy (oh and hey, for anyone not in the science community, that controversy is as fictional as unicorns). And eventually those kids might grow up to be card-carrying Republicans that are making our laws (please refer to the below video). While laws about science may not seem that important, remember that we're currently dealing with issues on stem cell use, vaccines, oil pollution, and global warming. 

This attack on science education falls in line with the recent outcries against "elitism," "intellectualism," and those there damn fancy college-educated folk. I've read multiple interviews with science educators where they say they're basically afraid to get mired in any sort of controversy, so they glaze over the sections on evolution.  If science teachers are afraid to do their jobs, these kids we supposedly care so much about are not learning facts. They're learning half-truths and then they may just end up like this:

Sweet, sweet revenge?

With all this badass posturing and reignited patriotism in the last week, I had to wonder if there was a reason behind all of it. As in everything else in life, I should qualify that I mean a biological reason. Something scientific to back up the screaming frat boys outside the White House getting drunk off the assassination of an evil man. Sure, we can all celebrate that there is one less mass-murderer in the world. Is it simply a feeling of camaraderie with our fellow citizens that we don't often get to feel anymore? Because, let's face it, not many of us actually contributed to the downfall and eventual destruction of this pathetic guy thousands of miles away. 

As it turns out, revenge is not just a cultural phenomenon and has a defined basis in our brain chemistry. In a recent interview with Scientific American, Dr. Michael McCullough describes how revenge stimulates the same pleasure sensors in the brain that light up when we crave things like desserts or drugs. Even thinking about perpetrating an act of revenge activates our dopamine levels and the left prefrontal cortex which is involved with goal-planning. That goal is to commit an act that deters the individual who has harmed us (mentally or physically) from imposing more harm in the future. The desire to prove that you won't tolerate this mistreatment also jumps up if other people were witness to the initial injury because there is more at stake in social cost-benefit terms. Therefore, the "goal" is to produce "reformed behavior" (McCullough).

So did revenge motivate our reactions after hearing the news that Osama bin Laden had been killed in a US military raid? It's hard to say. Once the act involves more than an individual (in this case, an entire nation), the clarity of biological motivations is blurred. In the same vein as altruism -- where an individual commits an act that benefits the larger group-- we still don't entirely understand the reaction where group dynamic is involved. The goal may have been to deter other terrorists from continuing their quest to destroy western culture.  Or it may have been to prove that we won't tolerate the tragedy and destruction of 9/11 because it was witnessed by the rest of the world. However, in reality, it doesn't seem likely that we can expect reformed behavior from this ilk. The media has constantly described the likeliness of retribution by al-Quaeda or other terrorist groups around the world and these same groups have expressed their interest in doing so. Instead, a skewed sense of justice was at stake and the desire to bring closure to an event that occurred almost ten years ago. 

While it may have felt like revenge and some may have even felt pleasure that mimicked what they believed was revenge, I'm not convinced there was a biological basis for the reaction. Most of us were not personally affected by 9/11 or by bin Laden's death. However, we felt like we were because it affected our country as a whole. I think revenge is therefore closely related to altruism in that the goal is ultimately to help or protect those that you care about. I can't say whether bin Laden's death actually did either of these things (helping or protecting Americans), but people who experienced satisfaction from the event at least think that they did. The difference is that altruism seems to stem from a higher place while revenge speaks to our basest instincts. 

Catholics: always taking 2 steps backwards.

So, shockingly enough, the Pope (specifically Pope Benedict XVI) has come out with another little gem of wisdom sure to be handed down through the ages. Much like his recent edicts that condoms actually contribute to the spread of HIV, we are clearly dealing with facts in the real world. At an Easter homily last week he said that it was wrong to think that:

 "in some tiny corner of the cosmos there evolved randomly some species of living being capable of reasoning and of trying to find rationality within creation, or to bring rationality into it...If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or might be a chance of nature. But no, reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine reason." 

Creative I'll give you, divine is a different story. Those people that have the NERVE to bring rational thought to the dialogue of how we got here is just offensive. The very thought that a human life could be "chance" is a threat to organized religion because it would mean that no one is in control. And no one is a bigger proponent of controlling the masses than religion, particularly a gilded city whose power relies on the constant bartering of money for sins. 

Why is nature in opposition of a divine creator (if that's what you choose to believe)? Why would this divine omnipotent being have made women's hips too small to bear children safely? Or wisdom teeth? Or remnant hair follicles? I CAN DO THIS ALL DAY. 

C'mon Catholics, every time I think you're ready to outsmart the fundamentalists, you go and prove me wrong. Church teaching doesn't say that Roman Catholicism and evolutionary theory are enemies. And in a world where a good chunk of people still listen to the man in the fancy hat, it scares me that bad science and misleading faith are being spewed left and right to those who can't separate "The Pope says evolution isn't real" from "The Pope says no condoms with AIDS!" 

Adaptation ≠ evolution. Wait, since when?

Republican congressman Jack Kingston (GA) claims he didn't come from no monkey.



Now, I'm fully convinced he laughed as he was saying it because he knew it was the dumbest thing he'd said up to that point. There's something fundamentally wrong with the narrative when the people we elect (or you elect, there in the South) don't comprehend basic science. You can't weasel your way into votes from educated folk by claiming you're concerned about antibiotic-resistant bacteria while simultaneously denying evolution. You can't be in charge of voting on others' education or complex science policy if you don't understand simple ideas that actually affect real people. I can only imagine what this man thinks stems cells do. He went on to claim that "global warming" (which the rest of us have agreed is actually climate change) isn't born out by the science because is hasn't yet been proved. Good grief, people. Let this be a litmus test.

How I can guess how you feel about evolution.

So everyone has I'm sure noticed the complete polarization of every issue lately. Does it seem like the same people that complain about gay marriage becoming a real possibility are the same people that deny climate change? While this may seem like an overgeneralization, think about it. Do you know anyone who supports pro-choice values but adamantly denies evolution? A recent study suggests there may be science behind this pattern of political/social/scientific thinking. 

‘Cultural cognition’ is a new term that describes this process of assessing scientific information based on group values. Individuals consciously or subconsciously determine the risks associated with subscribing to a particular set of beliefs. These cultural patterns predict how an individual will react to information more readily than any other factor including race, socio-economic class, gender, education, or political ideology. For example: 

‘People with individualistic values, who prize personal initiative, and those with hierarchical values, who respect authority, tend to dismiss evidence of environmental risks, because the widespread acceptance of such evidence would lead to restrictions on commerce and industry, activities they admire. By contrast, people who subscribe to more egalitarian and communitarian values are suspicious of commerce and industry, which they see as sources of unjust disparity. They are thus more inclined to believe that such activities pose unacceptable risks and should be restricted.’ 

 In the first group of people, picture your favorite conservative businessmen who doesn’t appreciate big government. Do they want to be told that they can’t log a certain forest, produce an unlimited amount of pollution, or have to pay their workers from a foreign country a living wage? Absolutely not. Now take the second group: your typical Commie who believes in recycling and public health care. Yikes. Therefore, can you see how if a certain scientific idea becomes aligned with one group, it will automatically alienate the other? The opposing group must fight the new idea if only to maintain the political divide that was created long ago. 

So how does the scientific community combat this polarization? Well, that’s where our (your!) mission begins. Science shouldn’t be used to promote political ideology or increase business profits; it should remain unbiased. This is a noble goal in today’s society. However, there are two  main strategies to begin with. 

1. Present information in a way that does not threaten people’s values, but is aligned with them. 
2. Provide a diversity of experts on a particular subject with factual, unbiased information. 

Seems like common sense... right? 

* Dan Kahan. 'Fixing the communications failure.' Nature, Vol 463. 21 January 2010.

Watch. Be amazed.

Always my first post on this topic, renowned photographer Frans Lanting perfectly captures the essence of evolution throughout the natural world's geological and biological history. Stunning in its simplicity and the reverence with which he treats his subject matter, this is a starting point for anyone interested in a visual history of the ever-changing planet.

LIFE: A Journey Through Time