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.