Religious rituals are adaptive BECAUSE they are onerous

As evidenced by various posts at this site, I have long been intrigued by the idea that religious rituals are adaptive in that they constitute expensive displays of group loyalty. I recently found a 2004 article by anthropologist Richard Sosis, who has come to this same conclusion. His article, which was published in 2004 by American Scientist (Volume 92), is entitled "The Adaptive Value of Religious Ritual." Sosis holds that "rituals promote group cohesion by requiring members to engage in behavior that is too costly to fake." He thus argues that religious rituals are adaptive in an evolutionary sense. Sosis begins his article by surveying various tedious or grueling religious rituals. His examples include ultraorthodox Jews who wear stiflingly hot clothing in the hot summer, but it also includes Moonies who shave their heads and "Jain monks of India [who] wear contraptions on their heads and feet to avoid killing insects." The list also includes various types of surgical alteration including circumcision and Native American religious rituals that include icy baths, and one ritual that requires the person to lie motionless while being bitten by hordes of ants. The questions raised by these rituals include A) why do people engage in such practices? and B) Is it "rational" to do such things to one's self? Sosis relies upon the research done by "a new generation of anthropologists" in concluding that

The strangeness of religious practices and their inherent costs are actually the critical features that contribute to the success of religion as a universal cultural strategy . . . To understand this unexpected benefit we need to recognize the adaptive problem that ritual behavior solves.

Continue ReadingReligious rituals are adaptive BECAUSE they are onerous

New edition of Darwin’s Origin with a Creationist Intro

While watching this video, try counting Kirk Cameron's lies. Just incredible. What does it tell you when someone is so utterly insecure about his own arguments that he lies about his opponent's positions? Richard Dawkins has a post on this new wacko edition of Darwin's Origin, and a suggestion that concerned citizens go pick one up and chop out and throw away the 50-page intro.

Continue ReadingNew edition of Darwin’s Origin with a Creationist Intro

That OTHER guy: Alfred Russel Wallace

Darwin gets the lion's share of the acclaim, even though both Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace co-announced the discovery of natural selection to the Linnean Society in 1858. Thing are changing, and it's now time for Mr. Wallace to get a bit more of the stage. This, according to an in-depth article on Alfred Russel Wallace called "The Man Who Wasn't Darwin," in the December, 2008 edition of National Geographic. Reading the article I leaned that Wallace was by no means a one-trick pony. Rather:

[Wallace's] writings, on subjects from evolutionary theory and social justice to life on Mars, are coming back into print or turning up on the Web. He is recognized among science historians as a founder of evolutionary biogeog­raphy (the study of which species live where, and why), as a pioneer of island biogeography in particular (from which the science of conserva­tion biology grew), as an early theorist on adaptive mimicry, and as a prescient voice on behalf of what we now call biodiversity. That is, he's a towering figure in the transition from old-fashioned natural history to modern biology. During his years afield Wallace was also a prolific collector, a ruthless harvester of natural wonders; his insect and bird specimens added richly to museum holdings and the discipline of taxonomy. Still, most people who know of Alfred Russel Wallace know him only as Charles Darwin's secret sharer, the man who co-discovered the theory of evolution by natural selection but failed to get an equal share of the credit. Wallace's story is complicated, heroic, and perplexing.

Continue ReadingThat OTHER guy: Alfred Russel Wallace

Fundamental error: talking evolution instead of speciation

Scientist/writer David Horton describes it as a mistake that we have talked about "species evolving" when discuss evolution. He considers this "an easy mistake to make, and you can see why we made it, but it has proved fatal." He argues that biologists have unwittingly confused the creationists with talk of species evolving.

So if I was writing biology text books for use in Texas or Kentucky or Missouri schools I think I would join their education authorities in demanding that the word evolution not be mentioned. Instead I would put all of my effort into explaining speciation. Show how that original bacterium could become 2, 4, 8, 20, 30, 60 ... species. Could become, even after losing tens of thousands of species along the way, the tens of thousands of species, including humans, chimps, and bacteria, we see today.

Instead of focusing on natural selection, which Horton considers "too obvious," he would stress the importance of allopatric speciation:

Allopatric speciation is simply this - if one part of a species becomes separated by a geographic barrier (a mountain range forms, sea level rises, a desert comes into being, a river changes course, a landslide falls, a continent moves, a glacier extends), and stays separate long enough, then its members will no longer be able to breed with the other part of the population and it will therefore have become a different species. Doesn't matter why it becomes different - just an accumulation of mutations might do the trick . . .

Continue ReadingFundamental error: talking evolution instead of speciation