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.