Questionable Mission

 
Questionable Mission is the title of an editorial in the Washington Post. Here's an excerpt.

"THERE ARE over 25,000 Department of Defense leaders working in the rings and corridors of the Pentagon. Through Bible study, discipleship, prayer breakfasts, and outreach events, Christian Embassy is mustering these men and women into an intentional relationship with Jesus Christ," a narrator explains toward the start of a promotional video for Christian Embassy, an offshoot of Campus Crusade for Christ that focuses on diplomats, government leaders and military officers. As a uniformed Air Force Maj. Gen. Jack J. Catton Jr. explains, "I found a wonderful opportunity as a director on the joint staff, as I meet the people that come into my directorate, and I tell them right up front who Jack Catton is . . . and my first priority is my faith in God, then my family and then country. I share my faith because it describes who I am."

This is really scary. It's one of the reasons why we need to speak out against religion before it's too late.

[Hat Tip: Richard Dawkins]

Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster Makes Front Page of The Toronto Star

 
Well, not exactly the "front"-front page. It's on the front page of the IDEAS section (Section B) of today's paper [In praise of an alternate creation theory: The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster gains infamy and faith.

Leslie Scrivener does a pretty good job of explaining what it's all about. The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster was set up to make fun of some of the arguments for the existence of God. If your argument for God also applies to the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (as most do), then how good is it?

The Toronto Star even has the picture (above) of the famous Michelangelo painting that's on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

I wonder what the appeasers have to say about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? I wonder if the agnostics are sincerely undecided about His existence?

Blogging

 
I'm still getting used to blogging. There are lots of tools available to help figure out what's going on. (Thanks to PZ, and others for helping me get established.)

One of the tools reveals where readers are located. This is pretty amazing. Each dot stands for someone who looked at my blog in the last few hours.

Have Humans Stopped Evolving?

Yesterday's Quirks & Quarks radio show had a segment on human evolution. Here's the description from their website:

January 6, 2007: Are Humans Still Evolving?

Evolution has made us what we are today, and we're increasingly learning what made modern humans different from our ancestors. But many scientists think that we have now removed nature's control over our genetic legacy. Our technology allows us to control our environment and survival to the degree that we may have stopped human evolution altogether. Is our growth and development as a species at a standstill? If not, what will we become in the future? Find out this week on Quirks & Quarks.

Listen to the podcast. The segment on human evolution starts about one third of the way through the show.

The idea that humans have stopped evolving is ridiculous. It reflects a deep and fundamental misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.

Fortunately, the blurb on the website doesn't reflect what was broadcast. The host, Bob McDonald actually does a very good job of sorting through the rhetoric and the show is an excellent summary of current scientific thinking. It's by far the best thing about the rate of human evolution that I've ever heard on public radio.

One of the people interviewed on the show is Steve Jones from University College, London. Jones claims that almost everyone is reproducing these days so natural selection isn't affecting humans any more. He contrasts the situation today with that in Shakespeare's time when 2 out of 3 babies didn't survive to adulthood.

This is one of the weaker parts of the show. The claim that natural selection isn't working on humans is false. It is refuted by Jones himself later on in the broadcast, and by Noell Boaz from Ross University in Dominica.

Let's deal with the increase in longevity that we've seen in some societies over the past 500 years. We'll dismiss the obvious bias in equating what happens in Caucasian societies with evolution of the entire species. What about the fact that people in London live longer today that they did in 1600? Does this have anything to do with evolution?

Jones thinks so. He says,

Now a lot of those deaths in the old days were due to genetic differences but if everybody stays alive, everybody gets through, no more natural selection.

I don't think so. It isn't obvious to me that people were surviving in 1600 because they had better genes. People died for all kinds of reasons that had nothing to do with genes. A famous example from the nineteenth century was the London cholera outbreak. In that case, you died if you were close to the contaminated Broad Street Pump and not because you had bad genes.

If you died of infection or malnutrition in 1600 it was probably due to bad luck and not bad genes. As living conditions improved, everyone benefited equally, not just those who might have been genetically susceptible. Thus, natural selection wasn't all that important back then and most of the improvements in health in developed countries have affected evolution directly. (The quibblers are waiting to pounce, so let me address two objections to that statement. First, there are other, more modern, medical advances that do affect selection—wait for them. Second, there are some examples of genetic effects on whether you survive disease. Some people might have been more resistant to the Black Plague, for example. Such examples are exceptions to the rule. The common assumption that most deaths in the past had something to do with natural selection is what I'm addressing here.)

So, let's be skeptical about the specific argument that Jones is making, namely that increased longevity, per se, is proof that the effect of natural selection is diminished in modern societies. A lot of negative selection—selection against less fit individuals—is still taking place in utero just as it always has. Lethal mutations result in spontaneous abortion or failure to produce viable sperm and eggs. This form of natural selection hasn't changed significantly. Also, even though severely handicapped children born today may survive longer, they probably won't reproduce.

On the other hand, there are medical advances that do affect natural selection. The most obvious one is the invention of eyeglasses. As Jones points out in the show, people with a genetic disposition for bad eyesight can now survive whereas back in the hunter-gatherer days it might have been much more difficult. Thus, natural selection in favor of good eyesight has been relaxed because of eyeglasses.

What does that mean for human evolution? To its credit, the Quirks & Quarks show doesn't jump to the false conclusion so common among the general public. Evolution hasn't stopped, it has increased! The removal of negative selection causes previously detrimental alleles to survive in the population; therefore, their frequency increases. Thus, evolution is happening today but was blocked by negative selection in the past.

The same argument applies to all medical advances that allow for previously handicapped individuals to survive in modern society. Human evolution is being accelerated. This is a point worth emphasizing because the opposite conclusion is so common. Most people think that removing strong negative selection means that evolution has stopped when, in fact, the exact opposite is true! The misconception arises because the general public thinks of evolution as a progressive improvement in the gene pool. Modern medicine is allowing "defective" individuals to survive. This can't be evolution according to that false understanding of evolution. (There are other things wrong with that false argument; namely, the concept that people with myopia or diabetes are somehow lesser citizens. This isn't the place to get into that discussion.)

Strong negative selection acts as a brake on evolution. It slows evolution down. Remove the brake, and evolution speeds up.

There's more to evolution than natural selection. Bob McDonald interviews Katherine Pollard from the University of California, Davis. She points out that much of evolution is due to random genetic drift. Drift has nothing to do with natural selection, so whether or not selection has decreased will play only a minor role in whether humans are evolving. You can't stop drift and you can't stop mutations. You can't stop human evolution. As McDonald puts it, "we still will evolve ... it's not the kind of evolution we imagine."

Evolution is not just the result of survival of the fittest. Furthermore, it is not progressive in spite of the fact that this misconception is widespread. As McDonald says in closing, "... this is an illusion about the way that evolution works. Evolution has never guaranteed improvement or progress, just change."

Change is good. It's good that humans are evolving. Things can only get better, right?

Abolish the Death Penalty

 
Italians are spearheading a worldwide campaign to abolish the death penalty. I support their efforts. Citizens of all countries that retain the death penalty should petition their govenrment to abolish it immediately.

The Italian government outlawed the death penalty in 1948. Whenever a death sentence is commuted, or a country abolishes capital punishment, Rome changes the color of the colosseum's lighting to deep gold. There are 68 countries that retain the death penalty. Let's try and change the colors 68 more times.

[Reuters: Rome to light Colosseum in death penalty protest][Amnesty International: Light a city for life]

Lip Balm Addiction

 
Recently some friends and relatives (you know who you are) revealed that they are "addicted" to Blistex or other lip balms.

Help is available. Lip Balm Anonymous is an organization set up to help addicts overcome their problem. Their website contains a ton of useful information about the necessity of lip balm. Many normal people need it to get through the day because otherwise they'll surely die of dry lips. Lip balm is even more important for those who can't lick their lips if their tongue is firmly planted in their cheek—like the people who created the website!

If you're still not convinced, here are Ten Signs You're Addicted to Lip Balm. Hard core addicts should take the Lip Balm Addict Quiz to see if there's any hope.

Addiction to lip balm is an urban legend. You may really, really like the taste and feel of Blistex but that's not a physical addiction. It's all in your mind. Here are some debunking sites that cover most of the myths. [Snopes, Are Lip Balms Addictive?]

There are ways of telling whether a rumor is true or not. One way is to assume that it's true and imagine the consequences. For example, let's assume that Blistix, or whatever, is physiologically addictive. If that were true, don't you think the manufacturers would have been sued by now? Wouldn't you expect to see warning labels on your tubes? In fact, wouldn't lip balms have disappeared off the shelves by now?

None of those things have happened, so you can conclude that your assumption is wrong. Either that, or there's a massive cover-up under way. But if you believe that then you've already passed beyond the stage where rationality is going to make a difference, right?

Maud Menten and the Michaelis-Menten Equation

 
The other day, when I was taking a picture of the insulin plaque on the side on my building, I also got a photo of the Maud Menten plaque at the front of the Medical Sciences Building opposite Queen's Park.

Menten is famous for the Michaelis-Menten equation

the bane of all biochemistry undergraduates.

Michaelis and Menten are responsible for establishing the fundamental principles of enzyme kinetics and for putting biochemistry on solid mathematical ground. They were never recognized by the Nobel committee for their important contributions.

Me and a Friend

 
I was cleaning up some of my files last night and I came across this photo taken in the garden of Richard Dawkins' house in Oxford last October. PZ Myers took the picture.

PZ posted a similar , but much better, photo (taken by me). I didn't have a blog back then so here it is now, better late than never. I got my copy of The God Delusion signed while I was there.

Secret Room

 
This is a photo of a door in the corridor just outside my office. I've never seen it open. What do you suppose is behind the door?

a dead Professor secret evidence that intelligent design is correct appeasers lots of dirt the Stanley Cup student lab reports that have never been graded Narnia the random genetic drift generator the graduate student lounge

Insulin Voted #1 Canadian Invention

 

CBC viewers have voted insulin the Greatest Canadian Invention. The plaque is on the side of the Medical Sciences Building where I work.

Banting and Macleod got the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1923. Collip and Best were excluded in one of the most notorious omissions in Nobel history.

The top ten inventions were covered on the TV show. What about the other nine? They're almost as exciting (see below). Personally, I think #10 should have been ranked much higher.

1. insulin


2. telephone


3. lightbulb


4. five pin bowling


5. wonderbra


6. pacemaker


7. Robertson screw


8. zipper


9. electric wheelchair


10. poutine

TV Ontario's Best Lecturers

 
It's time for TV Ontario's second "best lecturer" contest. The top ten finalists have been selected. Their lectures will be televised beginning January 13th. Lecturers from all over the province and from many different disciplines will be featured in the run-off.

Saturday, January 13 4:00 PM (repeated Sunday at 4:00 PM)
Jacalyn Duffin, Medicine, Queen's University
Steve Joordens, Psychology, University of Toronto at Scarborough

Saturday, January 20 4:00 PM (repeated Sunday at 4:00 PM)
Kenneth Bartlett, History, University of Toronto
Michael Persinger, Psychology, Laurentian University

Saturday, January 27 4:00 PM (repeated Sunday at 4:00 PM)
Nick Mount, English, University of Toronto
Rupinder Brar, Physics, University of Ontario Institute of Technology

Saturday, February 3 4:00 PM (repeated Sunday at 4:00 PM)
Bryan Karney, Civil Engineering, University of Toronto
Marc Fournier, Psychology, University of Toronto at Scarborough

Saturday, February 10 4:00 PM (repeated Sunday at 4:00 PM)
Allan C. Hutchinson, Law, Osgoode Hall Law School
Maydianne Andrade, Biology, University of Toronto at Scarborough

This is a popularity contest. The last one was very disappointing because some of the most important aspects of being a good university lecturer were ignored.

I'm talking about accuracy and rigour. It's not good enough to just please the students. What you are saying has to be pitched at the right level and it has to be correct. Too many of the lectures were superficial, first-year introductions that offered no challenge to the students. (One, for example, was an overview of Greek and Roman architecture by an engineering Professor.) The students loved it, of course, and so did the TV producers because they could understand the material. Lecturer's in upper level courses need not apply.

Some of last year's lectures were inaccurate. The material was either misleading or false, and the concepts being taught were flawed. Neither students nor TV audiences were in any position to evaluate the material so accuracy was not a criterion in selecting the best lecturer of 2006.

I wrote to the producers about this, suggesting that the lecturers be pre-screened by experts in the discipline. TV Ontario promised to do a better job this year. I'm looking forward to seeing if they kept their promise.

The fact that Michael Persinger is one of the finalists doesn't bode well. In case some of you don't know, Persinger is the guy who puts a motorcycle helmet full of solenoids on your head to make you become religious [This Is Your Brain on God]. Persinger used his machine to try and make Dawkins have a religious experience [God on the Brain]. It didn't work.

Persinger was not disheartened by Dawkins' immunity to the helmet's magnetic powers. He believes that the sensitivity of our temporal lobes to magnetism varies from person to person. People with TLE may be especially sensitive to magnetic fields; Prof Dawkins is well below average, it seems.

What the Heck Is Darwinian Morality?

 
John G. West is one of the chief IDiots over at the Discovery Institute. He has posted an article on Darwinism and Traditional Morality. It appears that West wrote a book about this stuff called Darwin’s Conservatives: The Misguided Quest. I haven't read it, and I don't intend to.

Here's what West says in the online article at Evolution News & Views (sic). I'm not making this up.

In my book, I challenge the attempt to locate a non-relative justification for morality in Darwinism. According to a Darwinian conception of ethics, every behavior regularly practiced by at least some subpopulation of human beings is ultimately a product of natural selection. Thus, while the maternal instinct is “natural” according to Darwinism, so is infanticide. While monogamy is “natural,” so are polygamy and adultery. Because of this uncomfortable truth, even some noted Darwinists such as Thomas Huxley have recognized the difficulty of grounding ethics in a Darwinian understanding of nature.

Huxley was no idiot. Like every other rational being, he recognizes that you can't base a code of ethics on Darwinism, or any other part of science. Talk about a strawman! What the heck goes on in the minds of these IDiots? Is it religion that makes them so stupid?

Fahrenheit 451 in 2007

 
Fahrenheit 451 is a movie about a future society where books are banned. The main protagonist is a fireman who burns books. (Apparently, books catch fire at 233°C, which translates to 451°F using the quaint, old-fashioned, way of measuring temperature that was common back in 1966.)

A new version of the movie is scheduled for 2007. Don't wait for it. If you haven't seen the Truffaut version, rush out to your video store right now and rent it. You won't regret it.

On a completely unrelated issue, () there is a movement to ban the sale of some books at the Grand Canyon National Park.


Read the full story on the NCSE website [Renewed concern about creationism at Grand Canyon National Park]. It looks like lots of people have their knickers in a knot over the sale of a creationist book that promotes Young Earth Creationism. Since the American National Park Service is a government agency, the sale of creationist books on government land is a major threat to the union.

A group called the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) wants the National Park Service to ban the creationist book; Grand Canyon: A Different View. The issue is complicated because it's tied up with the claim that park rangers are being muzzled by the Bush administration. There's a suggestion that rangers aren't allowed to tell visitors the real age of the Grand Canyon for fear it will insult YEC's. Wesley Elsberry does a pretty good job of getting to the truth over on The Panda's Thumb.

Of course, park rangers should promote the truth about science and the formation of the Grand Canyon. If this offends YEC's then let them go somewhere else for their vacation. (Las Vegas isn't far away.)

However, I'm troubled by book banning. I'm against it. Not only does it not make sense (have the book banners been in any other bookstore recently?), but it sends the wrong message. As a scientist, I don't fear anyone who wants to challenge science. We have truth and rationality on our side and that should be the tools we use to defeat the anti-science forces. Exposing their stupidity is part of the objective and for that we need to make their books available.

Using the law to suppress our opponents is not the best strategy. It won't achieve the objective we seek, which is to win the hearts and minds of the people. It's time to put aside the legal wranglings and concentrate on promoting rational thinking.

Reverse PIN at ATM Summons Police

 
Friday's Urban Legend

Did you get an email message like this?

I just found out that should you ever be forced to withdraw monies from an ATM machine, you can notify the police by entering your Pin # in reverse. The machine will still give you the monies you requested, but unknown to the robber, etc, the police will be immediately dispatched to help you. The broadcast stated that this method of calling the police is very seldom used because people don't know it exists. It might mean the difference between life & death. Hopefully, none of you will have to use this, but I wanted to pass it along just in case you hadn't heard of it. Please pass it along to everyone possible.

It's not true according to snopes.com, although some legislators have tried to pass laws making the reverse PIN signal mandatory. Banks don't like the idea. Besides, what are the chances that you can smoothly key in your reverse PIN number with a thug holding a gun to your head? I don't think I could. As a matter of fact, I'm not even sure I could remember my real PIN number under those circumstances!

Flying Mammals

 
Flight has been independently invented by reptiles, insects, fish, birds, and mammals. Did you know that bats aren't the only mammals that fly? Back in the 1960's every kid on the block knew about these other flying mammals.

How times have changed ....