Richard Lenski and his researchers followed several lineages of E. coli for 20 years (in fact, they’re still following them). They would freeze samples every 500 generations so they could go back and re-run the tape of evolution should some fundamental change occur. And, eventually, such change did occur. Some E. coli were able to consume a natural by-product of their environment after nearly 30,000 generations. Lenski et al. unfroze the old generations to see just what enabled the bacteria to obtain their new found skill. As it turned out, they had to go back many thousands of generations; it wasn’t just one mutation, but at least three. The first two were effectively random. But they were necessary in order to get to the third mutation – the one that opened up a new food product for the colonies. But in the re-running of the tape, not all lineages re-evolved the new mutations. They weren’t predestined to evolve a particular trait; nothing was inevitable.
And so it is with all of life. We are our genes, and how our genes are propagated via natural selection is not a goal-oriented process.
I should be walking on top of the highest peak in the Southern and Western hemisphere in about 15 days.
I’ve got a friend watching FTSOS while I’m gone. He may make a post or two, but I’m not sure. Either way, I’ve scheduled a bunch of stuff, so posts will be made.
So many feminists* wonder why the word “privilege” evokes such an antagonistic reaction, but I think it’s clear: It’s a code word. Its only purpose is for like-minded people to know when they equally detest a particular aspect of some culture.
I think it would just speed things up if they simply asked white males to apologize at the outset of every conversation. That’s the sexist, racist bullshit they want, after all.
*I mean Internet, caricature feminists: an overwhelmingly vocal, illogical minority.
As events unfolded in the Connecticut shootings, many people took to Facebook to express their horror at what had happened. Some of it was surely the same attention getting grief that we saw with Steve Jobs, but it’s clear that no one found any pleasure in any of these events, to say the least. However, this supposed grief didn’t stop anyone from politicizing the issue from whatever angle they could. Gun advocates said teachers need to be armed. Gun-control advocates said we need better laws. Others said we need to move beyond all that for just a moment. Still others said this is the time to discuss these issues. I tend to agree with that last one. We might call that politicization, but we can’t just ignore what’s happening; I don’t find those sort of discussions offensive. What I do find offensive is illogical, sexist attacks:
Through history, there have been a lot of suggestions as to the cause of mass shootings. In the 60s, it was the permissive culture. In subsequent decades, it’s been the teaching of evolution, working mothers, birth control pills, and “evangelical jockocracies.” The interesting thing about all of these suggestions is that they may point indirectly at a much more plausible explanation. To begin with, we must ask who is offering these explanations in the first place. Overwhelmingly, the answer is white males. Most likely not coincidental is the fact that since 1982, one very specific type of mass shootings has been almost entirely perpetrated by white males.
Rachel Kalish and Michael Kimmel (2010) proposed a mechanism that might well explain why white males are routinely going crazy and killing people. It’s called “aggrieved entitlement.” According to the authors, it is “a gendered emotion, a fusion of that humiliating loss of manhood and the moral obligation and entitlement to get it back. And its gender is masculine.” This feeling was clearly articulated by [the Columbine shooters], the perpetrators of the Columbine Massacre. [One of them] said, “People constantly make fun of my face, my hair, my shirts…” A group of girls asked him, “Why are you doing this?” He replied, “We’ve always wanted to do this. This is payback… This is for all the sh*t you put us through. This is what you deserve.”
This is ugly in is stupid simplicity. From a response I saw on Facebook:
That’s all very interesting but this theory fails to account for the Asian kid at Virginia Tech. The Fort Hood Shooter. The D.C. Sniper and his accomplice. Race is incidental in these crimes. Why should it be any different with white men?
And what about mental illness? What about emotional instability? What about the specific experiences of these shooters? This isn’t some black and white issue (no pun intended). To pretend that it is is nothing more than an awful, disgusting excuse to pursue one’s pet agenda.
Let’s point to our gun culture. Let’s point to the way our media glorifies these shootings*. Let’s point to our mental healthcare apparatus. And let’s not make our points mutually exclusive with one another. There’s a lot going on here.
*I have edited out specific names of shooters. They don’t deserve the personalized attention we give them; CNN has noticed this and, though they are far from perfect, they’ve made an effort to only utter this most recent shooter’s name once per broadcast. For more, watch this:
The cost for my upcoming expedition to Aconcagua has been tremendously greater than when I hiked Kilimanjaro. I believe the secret lies in the fact that I hiked one mountain, but that I’ll be going on an expedition up the other.
I recently watched a Nature special about leopards that was absolutely fascinating. Of all the big cats, it seems that leopards may be the most intelligent, relying on cunning more than muscle. If you have an hour, here’s the video:
I’ve always thought of leopards and their non-immediate kin of pumas, cougars, and jaguars as little more than small, solitary lions: strong, fast hunters that rely on brute force. Not so. They lurk in the shadows, hiding from troops* of baboons and other potential enemies. When they make a kill and a clan** of hyenas wants a piece, leopards have little problem giving up their entire meal. They don’t go looking for a fight.
Unsurprisingly, leopards are doing spectacularly well. (This fact may vary for their taxonomic Family I’ve mentioned, but if so, only very slightly.) Whereas lions, cheetahs, and tigers face serious threats to their overall numbers, leopards enjoy a population of around a half million. Even the black panther (of the leopard variety) seems to do okay, despite its seemingly detrimental recessive gene.
I think a lot of people appreciate the awesomeness of big cats like lions and others when they seem them taking down a large animal, but leopards don’t seem to enjoy quite the same esteem. That has been true even of me (at least until now). I think part of the reason is simply how difficult it is to record these beasts. They’re quite wary of everything that isn’t food, and that includes humans. This would make particular sense if our ancestors treated them the way our ape cousins do. (Yet despite this wariness, they do often live very near humans, even invading villages with utter stealth on a frequent basis.) It really is a fascinating animal.
*A group of baboons is also known as a congress. They cooperate better than ours, though.
**Appropriately, a group of hyenas is also known as a cackle.
“Today’s opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned,” Scalia wrote.
Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion said the Court’s ruling against anti-sodomy laws “does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.”
Scalia’s retort: “Do not believe it.”
“This case ‘does not involve’ the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court,” he wrote.
First, I find it abhorrent that part of this guy’s ‘logic’ in his dissent was nothing more than a slippery slope argument he needed to make in order to defend the personal political and religious agenda he was clearly infusing into his response. Second, it is abundantly clear that if he has any integrity, he must force himself to rule in favor of marriage equality, regardless of how much it offends his personal sexual immaturity and bronze age ideas of morality.
I’m not expecting anyone to be surprised after this ruling, though.
An outright rejection of cursing has always struck me as wildly immature. I know, I know, the assumption is usually that a person who swears is immature, but that’s quite a false assumption. Language is expansive and should be treated as such; a person who swears too much is only slightly worse than a person who absolutely refuses to swear. On the one hand is an excessive embracing of a particular set of words and on the other hand is a distancing from certain words. Both are instances of linguistic restriction. It’s the sort of thing I expect out of a giggly child who substitutes “thingies” for breasts or testicles.
And, well, shit. There are just occasions where a person needs to sprinkle a little kick into the conversation.
If you’re going to give to a charity this holiday season (or any other time), make sure you pick the right one. There are a lot of scams out there, of course, but there are also a lot of charities that are just, well, shitty:
The Salvation Army recently released a statement:
“Scripture forbids sexual intimacy between members of the same sex. The Salvation Army believes, therefore, that Christians whose sexual orientation is primarily or exclusively same-sex are called upon to embrace celibacy as a way of life. There is no scriptural support for same-sex unions as equal to, or as an alternative to, heterosexual marriage.”
I would recommend giving to Red Cross or, heck, Atheists of Maine’s fundraiser for Camp Sunshine. There’s no need to support a charity that is out to promote a bunch of garbage. Whatever good the Salvation Army may do, there are hundreds of charities out there that do just as well – and without the bigotry.
For the Sake of Science 