20 February 2010: What Evolutionists Argue About

Scientists who are experts on evolution often disagree on key issues. One of the key issues is “what are the predominant forces/principles that drive evolution? ” In particular, “what role does natural selection” play and to what degree?

No serious scientist doubts that natural selection is a major force. But does it dominate the other forces (e. g., genetic drift)?

Here is one opinion (taken on an article discussing a book review) from Jerry Coyne:

True, there are processes besides selection that can cause genetic change—meiotic drive and genetic drift are two of them—but no process other than natural selection can yield those remarkable features of organisms—the apparent “design” of plants and animals—that used to be explained by God.

I’ll start paying attention to these radical revisions of Darwinism, including attacks on natural selection, when they tell me how non-Darwinian processes can yield the appearance of design. I’ll exit the flock of “hidebound Darwinists” (a term Steve Gould once applied to me) when I hear how modularity, epigenesis, self-organization, or evo-devo constitute self-contained explanations for the elephant’s trunk.

Note: Coyne liked the review in question; the book review that attacked the book.

Of course, I lack the credentials to have an opinion worth listening to. But here is what I see:

Example one: check out the animal camouflage series at the Conservation Report:

Now how do you explain such natural camouflage other than by natural selection?

Example Two: Niche filling:

Here is a photo of a marsupial carnivore which evolved to fill a predator niche.

Of course, other excellent scientists know this but still disagree. Here is Larry Moran:

But the fundamental point about constraints is interesting and it’s true that adaptationists have been forced to recognize it every since Gould and Lewontin published the Spandrels paper back in 1977. Most adaptationist still don’t get it and Ruse is no exception, although in this case he probably gets it better than Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini. Ruse admits that there are certain physical constraints on the way plant leaves evolve, for example, but he then goes on to say that everything else is an adaptation. How does he know this? How does he know for sure that the differences in the leaves of red maples, silver maples, and sugar maples are all due to natural selection? [...]

Hundreds of evolutionary biologists have written about random genetic drift and other possible mechanisms of evolution (e.g., molecular drive, species sorting). They do not claim, as Ruse implies, that non-adaptive traits become fixed because they are “linked” to adaptive ones. Is this how Ruse dismisses random genetic drift—by treating it as a by-product of natural selection?

In fairness, Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini do go on about linkage in their published articles so Ruse is right to mock those silly claims. However, I wish he didn’t make things worse by implying that hitchhiking is the explanation for drift.

The existence of random genetic drift does not mean that natural selection “fails. ” It just means that natural selection by itself is not a sufficient explanation for evolutionary change. Perhaps Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini are confused about this—other reviews suggest that this is the case—but Michael Ruse seems to be trashing the very idea that something other than natural selection could be at play. [...]

Ruse and his fellow adaptationists treat the world as if it were an object of design because they are psychologically committed to the idea that natural selection is responsible for almost everything. They cannot adjust to the fact that much of what we see in living things could be due to accident, or even the fixation of deleterious mutations. That’s one of the reasons they have so much trouble with junk DNA and it’s why they can’t account for so much diversity in populations.

Here’s a clue. Life doesn’t actually look terribly designed. Get over it. Abandon the metaphor—it just feeds into a false notion of evolution and, incidentally, lends support to the IDiots.

Note: Larry Moran does not like the review that Jerry Coyne liked.

And speaking of the appearance of design: I find it interesting that I learned from Coyne’s book (Why Evolution is True) how our own bodies blatantly point out the lack of design; for example consider the weird path taken by the Vagus nerve which runs from our brains to our voice box but winds through our chests!

Of course this oddity isn’t about natural selection or drift but rather the remnants of what we evolved from.

And yes, I am aware that much really doesn’t look THAT designed:

20 February 2010: link dump edition

Ok, I’ve been wanting to talk about many of these topics but haven’t gotten to yet:

As far as my opinion of this president: this blog author is on my wavelength. I like the conclusion:

We now have a bona fide intellectual in the Oval Office – such things are rare. This is a man of understanding and insight, but his power to achieve change for good is not greater than the dedication of his supporters. Obama has to rally his supporters through a visible commitment to action, and his supporters must be willing to stand tall beside him.

I still wish that he was more partisan but he has more political skill in his pinkie finger than I have in my body. Sure he is human and will screw up from time to time. Also, I don’t agree with him on everything; for example I tend to side a bit more with Paul Krugman and Robert Reich on economic issues. But I have little doubt that he examines the issues completely prior to making a decision, and that is NOT the type of confidence that I had in our previous president (though I did have it with the first President Bush).

How does the 2010 mid-term elections look? Nate Silver argues that while the situations might be vastly different, the results (in terms of Democrats losing seats) might look more or less the same. In all honestly, things have gotten done, but there is a lot of attention on the big-ticket items. I honestly think that passing health care reform can only help the Democrats; remember that much of the opposition to the Senate Bill comes from the left (e. g., it doesn’t go far enough).

Also, there have been successes in Afghanistan:

KABUL, Afghanistan — Two senior Taliban leaders have been arrested in recent days inside Pakistan, officials said Thursday, as American and Pakistani intelligence agents continued to press their offensive against the group’s leadership after the capture of the insurgency’s military commander last month.
[...]

The arrests come on the heels of the capture of Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, the Taliban’s military commander and the deputy to Mullah Muhammad Omar, the movement’s founder. Mullah Baradar was arrested in a joint operation by the Central Intelligence Agency and the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, Pakistan’s military intelligence agency.

Together, the arrests represent a significant blow to the Taliban’s leadership in the American-backed war that began in 2001. They also demonstrate the extent to which the Taliban’s senior leaders have been able to use Pakistan as a sanctuary to plan and mount attacks in Afghanistan

Yes, that is one of the things that the voters will look at. Of course, the success is due to the military and to the long term strategy, some of which began under the previous administration. This is an American success, not a political party one. But this is the type of news that can help an incumbent.

Political and Social Issues: Facebook as been an interesting experience. I have friends from many different walks of life; I have wealthy ones, MD’s, Ph. D’s, lawyers, truck drivers, the chronically homeless (who check in from public libraries), engineers and former (and current) military types.

Some live in rural areas; others live in big cities. Some are African American, others have my skin tone and many (most?) are white.

What I’ve come away with is that my day to day life is very different from the day to day life of others. Unfortunately, not everyone knows this. I had someone say this:

Statement from the guy who flew the plane into the Austin TX IRS building today. I think this is more central to American concerns, rather than race

To this individual, “race” isn’t a central American concern. Well, what do you mean by “American concerns“?

“Do you think blacks have achieved racial equality, will soon achieve racial equality, will not achieve racial equality in your lifetime, or will never achieve racial equality?”

Some numbers from this question:
Answering “have achieved”: 11 percent of Blacks, 40 percent of Whites. Answering “will soon”: 38 percent Blacks, 31 percent Whites. Answering “not in this lifetime” or “never”: 49 percent Blacks, 26 percent Whites.

How can race not be central to American concerns?

Science Snark fail: I like making fun of southern states as much as anyone. But be sure that your snarky cartoon doesn’t have elementary errors in it, ok?

Now remind me: why does being religious make one a better parent?:

It’s another case of religious parents killing their kids, but this time, it’s not because they denied them medical care.

No, in this case, Kevin and Elizabeth Schatz just whipped their 7-year-old child Lydia to death.

Police found a 15″ length of rubber tubing in the Schatz’s home which the children say was used to discipline them; sometimes for “hours” at a time. According to the district attorney, Lydia and Zariah sustained deep bruising and multiple “whip-like” marks on their back, buttocks and legs. This, Ramsey said, is believed to have resulted in significant muscle tissue breakdown that impaired their kidneys and possibly other vital organs.

What horrible thing did Lydia do that invoked this tragedy?

[County District Attorney Mike] Ramsey said the evidence suggests the girl who died was being disciplined “for hours” last Friday in the parent’s bedroom for mispronouncing a word during a home-school reading lesson.

20 February 2010 (pm): Personal Issues

Saturday night. I am not at the Bradley basketball game as my cough is still a bit too unpredictable though I am well past the “most contagious” period.

Workout notes I lifted weights; barbell benchpresses, military presses, curls, pull ups, pull-downs, yoga leg lifts, then one round of my dumbbell routine.

I was weak; I made my dumbbell weights (at lower reps) and made 185 in the bench but missed at 195 (barely).

We had lunch with Barbara’s son and his wife; and then I slept the afternoon away as the “nighttime” medicine put me out and made me feel drugged.

I hope to swim tomorrow morning (gentle, relatively short)

Rachel Maddow: Judging a conference by its swag

more about "Rachel Maddow: Judging a conference b…", posted with vodpod

19 February 2010

Workout notes yes! 2200 yard swim. Ok, somewhat slow. Ok, way slow. 5 x 100 on the 2 to warm up, 5 x 100 (alt. 25 drill/25 swim) on the 2, (fins), 10 x 50 (25 fist, 25 free) on the 1, grab bag 500 (25 free, 25 choice; taken from side, catch-up, back, fly), 4 x 50 free with paddles.

It felt good to be in the water again.

On an amusing note, I was staying reasonably well with the blue-suit lady (usually a challenge), but on one of her rest breaks, SHE coughed. I guess that that bug has gone around.

On another note, I am taking the class for someone else who is sick; I was fortunate that I got really sick on my no-class day.

The Obama Stimulus-Job Loss Graph: the mathematics

The Obama administration has been touting this graph:

The data for this graph is taken from here and here.

So what does this graph show? The graph shows the job losses per month (non-farm jobs, adjusted for seasonal effects) with the upward bars representing job gains; one can clearly see that the economy is losing fewer jobs per month now than it was prior to the stimulus bill being signed. In short, this is the graph of the rate of change of the number of jobs per month; in short, this is a calculus derivative.

In “line” format the above graph corresponds to this one:

So, what does the actual jobs graph look like? Here it is (graphed in a “smoothed out” form):

Note: the vertical line signifies when the stimulus bill was signed into law (February 17, 2010). The units are in thousands.

Of mathematical note is the “negative peak” of the jobs loss graph: it corresponds with the change in the concavity of the jobs graph; the graph goes from being “concave down” to being “concave up”. Of course, the hope is that the jobs graph will eventually go up and not merely level off.

Of course, it is possible for jobs to go up and unemployment to go up at the same time, say, if jobs are being created more slowly than the workforce is expanding.

For later use…

I am going to write a small report on the mathematics of the chart that is brought out at the end: it is an example of a calculus derivative.

The data for the above chart is taken from here and here.

I’ll bet that you can hardly wait.

Rachel Maddow: Republicans unwilling to put money where their rhetoric is

more about "Rachel Maddow: Republicans unwilling …", posted with vodpod

Upshot: the Republicans say “the stimulus” doesn’t create jobs, then they turn around and brag about how many jobs that the stimulus bill created in their own districts! They can’t have it both ways.

18 February 2010

No workout this morning. I coughed quite a bit when I got up but feel better. I hope to do something mild tomorrow (say, 1000 yards easy?)

Stuff that I found interesting:

17 February 2010

Note: I am continuing to feel better; perhaps a short but sweet workout on Friday morning?

Posts
I haven’t done research on this topic, but this strikes me as odd:

AKRON, Ohio — A northeast Ohio hospital system has joined the ranks of companies that will no longer hire smokers.

Akron-based Summa Health Systems launched a nicotine-free hiring policy this year for all new employees.

People applying to work for Summa must agree to a urine test to confirm they don’t use tobacco products.

The policy doesn’t affect current employees at the six-hospital system.

Other hospital and health care systems have also stopped hiring smokers, including the Cleveland Clinic and Medical Mutual of Ohio.

I completely understand smoke free workplaces (health hazard issues). But why the ban on smokers themselves? Again, my question is out of ignorance.

Guess what: the man in a coma cannot communicate. Gee, are you surprised?

Arkansas: Sarah Palin played there, but they still had “cheap seats” left. My goodness, I had to pay 35 dollars per person for the Peoria Democrats dinner! Yeah, I know…she did much better here. Of course, there were only 1000 tickets here.

American Exceptionalism Mano Singham’s insightful post speaks on one aspect of that. Any politician (at a sufficiently high level anyway) that doesn’t pander to this will not be elected, period.

Basically, many of us (myself included) were raised with the idea that America was a truly different place, and by that I don’t mean “different” in the way that England is different from Japan. But rather, America was a nation “blessed by God” and “on the right side”. The fact that we WERE more moral than Nazi Germany and, yes, the old Soviet Union helped to stoke such feelings; add to that our honest to goodness military might and economic power and you have a recipe for a sort of national megalomania.

Many liberals understand that this attitude is unrealistic BS but many conservative have not and will not grow out of it; hence the outrage when President Obama told other nations that we (the USA) were/are wrong from time to time.

But if your bring up an argument like Singham’s you are apt to get met with some sort of “so, you think that all countries are equal” kind of argument. Of course not; for example the human rights and civil liberties situation in many of the Islamic republics are horrible.

How I see the world (but NOT the solution) can be described in Thomas Barnett’s book The Pentagon’s New Map. Again, I don’t approve of his “the US should be the world’s Leviathan” solution. But I agree with his assessment of the situation.