The long reach of the gene

An animal’s behaviour tends to maximize the survival of the genes ‘for’ that behaviour, whether or not those genes happen to be in the body of the particular animal performing it.

~Richard Dawkins, The Extended Phenotype

Thought of the day

I have some issues with the movie Signs. First, why would an alien race capable of inter-stellar space travel need to rely upon crop circles for navigation? Second, why would an alien race capable of inter-stellar space travel not come equipped with gear that protects them from their deadly nemesis water? Third, why would an alien race capable of inter-stellar space travel choose a planet that is 70% water if that is something which kills them?

“A Christian fundamentalist with right-wing connections”

That’s a phrase that nary an American official would use to describe a terrorist:

The Norwegian police on Saturday charged a 32-year-old man, whom they identified as a Christian fundamentalist with right-wing connections, over the bombing of a government center here and a shooting attack on a nearby island that together left at least 91 people dead.

The police said they did not know if the man, identified in the Norwegian press as Anders Behring Breivik, was part of a larger conspiracy. He is being questioned under the country’s terrorism laws and is cooperating with the investigation, they said.

“We are not sure whether he was alone or had help,” a police official, Roger Andresen, said at a televised press conference, adding: “What we know is that he is right-wing and a Christian fundamentalist.” So far Mr. Breivik has not been linked to any anti-jihadist groups, he said.

I’m not interested in holding up this scenario as an example of what religion can do. Unless Breivik is part of a larger Christian fundamentalist group, this is more or less an isolated incident. But it is interesting that Norwegian officials are so willing to describe this guy the way they have. It would be a rare official in America who was willing to throw out “Christian fundamentalist” when describing such a violent act – especially one that is being investigated under anti-terrorism laws.

Weekend Window to Monhegan Island

One of my favorite places in Maine has to be Monhegan Island. It’s a small artist colony about 12 miles off the coast, most commonly accessed from Port Clyde. Few people actually know that port by name – including many Mainers – but most people have at least seen it:

The relevant section begins at 1:29. That obviously isn’t the original scene (probably due to copyright issues), but we all remember the movie. I visited that very spot a few years back after learning Tom Hanks, my favorite actor, had been there. I even later met a gentleman who once lived on the narrow road leading to the point who told me his small harbor town had actually been the location for a number of big movies.

But as nice as Port Clyde is, that isn’t the big reason people go there. It’s really just the best point from which to depart in order to get to Monhegan Island. (Boothbay Harbor is also another point of departure for the island, but it isn’t as close.)

I’m making this post because of a recent video I saw on YouTube from ABC News. Titled Weekend Window to Monhegan Island, it unfortunately does not allow embedding, hence all the photos instead. It’s a nice little piece that made me nostalgic for all my past day trips to the island. Do watch it.

For anyone interested in visiting the island, get your ferry tickets here.

Creationists cave to science

Recognizing that they don’t have the facts on their side, the creationist members of the Texas State Board of Education gave in to science:

The Texas State Board of Education delivered a blow to social conservatives Friday, giving final approval to supplemental high school science materials after a brief flare-up over some lessons teaching the principles of evolution.

The lessons in question included a lab comparison on chimpanzee and human skulls, the fossil record and cell complexity.

A board-appointed reviewer had called the lessons errors and recommended changes, but a group of scientists objected on Friday, threatening to re-ignite a fierce debate over teaching evolution in Texas public schools.

There was some worry amongst those who understand and favor science that the recent appointment of Barbara Cargill spelled trouble for the teaching of biology. She “questions” evolution (which is code meaning she doesn’t understand it), so it was thought she might start a whole new round of creationist canards and bullshit in an effort to undermine a proper science education. That fortunately has not happened. I find this pleasing, especially considering just how frequently I will be sitting in one of my bio courses, learning something which only makes sense in the light of evolution. Anyone who denies the theory simply does not understand – nor desires to understand – biology.

So a tentative bravo to the Texas State Board of Education. Here’s hoping to see more votes for science.

Earth is neat-o

5,405 Maine households are being harmed

All thanks to the bigots of Maine:

The number of homes with same-sex couples has grown nearly 60 percent over the past decade in Maine, according to census data released as same-sex marriage advocates gather petitions that could lead to the state’s second statewide referendum on gay marriage.

Data released Thursday by the U.S. Census Bureau show that the number of same-sex households grew 59 percent from 3,394 in 2000 to 5,405 in 2010 in Maine.

This is both good and bad news. It’s bad for the obvious reason that it means there are so many households being discriminated against – not to mention all the people who would be more likely to live together could they get married in Maine. But it’s good news because it means more and more gay couples are feeling comfortable enough to declare their status. This is all despite the efforts of Christians to shame people for who they are.

The Rev. Bob Emrich, chairman of the Christian Civic League of Maine, which opposes gay marriage, said the percentage growth in same-sex households may sound impressive, but he said the overall numbers are small. He doesn’t think the new census numbers are relevant to the debate.

Oh. I forgot that it’s okay to discriminate so long as it’s only against a small number of people. Good argument, Emrich.

And an abuse of philisophy

Given my need to use a link within a recent post, I clicked over to Punching Bag Neil’s site. I found one of his traditional trolling Red Herring Theist posts where he says atheists have no grounding for atheism. Quoting another Red Herring Theist, he poses this question:

Here are some questions you can ask Richard Dawkins (and by extension any new atheist) the next time you sit next to him on a bus:…

• What makes your moral standard more than a subjective opinion or personal preference? What makes it truly binding or obligatory? Why can’t I just ignore it? Won’t our end be the same (death and the grave) either way?

I know Neil has this nasty habit of insulating himself from most outside criticism – it’s a common thing in the Christian blogosphere – but I would like to turn the question back on him and his silly little Christian brethren. What makes your moral standards more than subjective? How do you objectively know God exists? How do you objectively know anything in the Bible is true? Are you God himself? If not, then what method are you using to get outside yourself? After all, if you’re using a human brain to interpret anything, you can’t possibly be doing something which is not 100% subjective.

So why are you raising yourself to the level of God, Neil? Aren’t you being disrespectful to your particular, cultural icon?

More abuse of science

It’s a common tactic for anti-gay bigots to distort science. One of their favorites ways to do so is to find studies which are limited in their scope to ‘traditional’ families, but then they take a wrecking ball to the science by pretending that they’re looking at something comparative. I documented one bigot who did just that.

But that isn’t their only tactic. So long as they can distort a scientific study in some way, they will. Take this instance of an anti-gay bigot from the Congressional hearings on the repeal of DADT.

This is common not only of Christians, but much of the conservative movement. So long as a citation is being made, they think they’ve proven their case. Who cares if their source actually contradicts what they have to say?

Bring on the danger

No more than a couple of weeks ago I found myself atop a 30 foot train trestle in a nearby town. It’s a popular spot for summer time lake jumping, but this day it had no visitors but myself and two friends. Unbeknownst to us, you see, a late afternoon thunderstorm was making its way across the region. In fact, as we followed the train tracks to the bridge, the wind began to whip up, the darkened clouds racing overhead. We knew rain was certainly on the way, probably a bit more. But we didn’t drive all that way for nothing.

Just as we set foot on the trestle, the clouds began to open. A rumble of thunder could be heard in the distance. But as three brash, young men, we accepted the challenge. After all, a 30 foot jump is no small fall, but in a thunder storm? Who could pass up the thrill? Not us.

And so one by one, we took the plunge, one of us (read: me) occasionally yelling “Boat!” as the others, no longer able to change their trajectory, jumped. And again and again we jumped. It was a complete blast, a small tempt of fate on an otherwise lazy summer day. I would do it again, always with the back-of-the-mind hope that future generations will continue the tradition. But who knows. With all these hyper-safe playgrounds we’ve been creating, that sort of courage may be on short supply:

“Children need to encounter risks and overcome fears on the playground,” said Ellen Sandseter, a professor of psychology at Queen Maud University in Norway. “I think monkey bars and tall slides are great. As playgrounds become more and more boring, these are some of the few features that still can give children thrilling experiences with heights and high speed.”

After observing children on playgrounds in Norway, England and Australia, Dr. Sandseter identified six categories of risky play: exploring heights, experiencing high speed, handling dangerous tools, being near dangerous elements (like water or fire), rough-and-tumble play (like wrestling), and wandering alone away from adult supervision. The most common is climbing heights.

“Climbing equipment needs to be high enough, or else it will be too boring in the long run,” Dr. Sandseter said. “Children approach thrills and risks in a progressive manner, and very few children would try to climb to the highest point for the first time they climb. The best thing is to let children encounter these challenges from an early age, and they will then progressively learn to master them through their play over the years.”

I happen to be just old enough to remember mildly dangerous playgrounds. It took me some time, but I would always build up to the more daring feats, progressively conquering each section and level of the park. It looks like research confirms that many other children also do this.

The first thing that went through my head, though, when reading about this was the landing areas. I remember wood chips and maybe some rubber always softening my landings. It seems to make sense and intuition says that will make things safer, but in a similar vain to what Michael Hartwell has said about driving, that may not be the case:

“There is no clear evidence that playground safety measures have lowered the average risk on playgrounds,” said David Ball, a professor of risk management at Middlesex University in London. He noted that the risk of some injuries, like long fractures of the arm, actually increased after the introduction of softer surfaces on playgrounds in Britain and Australia.

“This sounds counterintuitive, but it shouldn’t, because it is a common phenomenon,” Dr. Ball said. “If children and parents believe they are in an environment which is safer than it actually is, they will take more risks. An argument against softer surfacing is that children think it is safe, but because they don’t understand its properties, they overrate its performance.”

I would like to see statistics that divide between rubber and other materials such as wood chips, but I’m not familiar enough with the subject area to know if those exist. It is interesting, however, that kids are willing to take such risks. I think this all points to a deeper desire to explore, to make the world a little dangerous. That’s one of the things that’s exciting about life.

Still, sometimes there’s nothing quite like being 10 feet off the ground, as a new generation was discovering the other afternoon at Fort Tryon Park. A soft rubber surface carpeted the pavement, but the jungle gym of Mr. Stern’s youth was still there. It was the prime destination for many children, including those who’d never seen one before, like Nayelis Serrano, a 10-year-old from the South Bronx who was visiting her cousin.

When she got halfway up, at the third level of bars, she paused, as if that was high enough. Then, after a consultation with her mother, she continued to the top, the fifth level, and descended to recount her triumph.

“I was scared at first,” she explained. “But my mother said if you don’t try, you’ll never know if you could do it. So I took a chance and kept going. At the top I felt very proud.” As she headed back for another climb, her mother, Orkidia Rojas, looked on from a bench and considered the pros and cons of this unfamiliar equipment.

“It’s fun,” she said. “I’d like to see it in our playground. Why not? It’s kind of dangerous, I know, but if you just think about danger you’re never going to get ahead in life.”