Based on new evidence, it shouldn't be long before Las Vegas oddsmakers start accepting wagers on the intense battles that have now been observed within the sex organs of females.
According to the March 19, 2010 issue of Science (available online only to subscribers; it is page 1443 in the print edition), sexual selection continues on in the most intimate of arenas in at least some species in which the females sometimes mate "more than once in quick succession, filling their reproductive tract with rival sperm that must compete for access to the unfertilized eggs." The Science article, by Elizabeth Pennisi, is entitled "Male Rivalry Extends to Sperm and Female Reproductive Tract." According to Pennisi, two recent studies have shown that the seminal fluid of some ants and bees contains "toxins that impede rival sperm." She also notes that some female fluids seem to counter these toxins. The studies cited in science indicates that "the competition between males continues in a very fierce way inside the female."
The arrows of my title are not being directed toward Richard Dawkins, one of the two people engaged in this extraordinary conversation. My title is directed toward creationist Wendy Wright. Her obstructionist tactics suggest that it is simply not fruitful to discuss evolution by natural selection with someone who doesn't understand it and doesn't want to understand it.
I've pasted Part 2 of 7 of this exchange above. The other parts are available at Youtube. Richard Dawkins is a model of patience here. Ms. Wright repeatedly invokes a handful of tactics to stretch out this ostensible conversation endlessly. One tactic is to change the topic whenever Dawkins tries to focus upon real world facts. Another is to send out broad accusations, such as accusing Darwin of racism when, in reality, the Victorian world was filled with people who held views that would now be considered racist and, in fact, Darwin and his writings were notably not racist. In fact, Darwin expressed abolitionist views.
In a recent comment I wrote the following:
I’m tempted to begin a new “policy” from today forward. Those disparaging the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection must, in order to deserve a reply (other than a copy and paste of this comment) must, in their own words, describe the basic elements of the theory and at least a few of the many types of evidence supporting the theory. They must also make it clear that they know how a scientific theory differs from pure speculation.
It is my repeated impression that those attempting to criticize the facts and theory of evolution by natural selection are actually attacking some something else, something that biologists, geo-biologists, geneticists, botanists and other scientists do not support. In short, they are attacking straw men. The only reasonable reply to such attacks is to direct the commenter to set aside a few hours and to read a good book on natural selection.
There's a lot more discussion about this video a website with a most extraordinary name: WhyWontGodHealAmputee.com. Soricidae's Blog offers a play by play for one section of the Wright-Dawkins exchange.
Does the above Commandment explain why people dutifully gravitate to homeless puppies, adopt them, feed them and love them? Of course not, because there is no such commandment.
Nor are there any other abstract moral principles requiring us to love puppies. We love puppies because the urge to love small tame animals is deep in our bones. We love puppies because we are built to love (contrary to those who claim that life is fundamentally dog-eat-dog -- Consider also, that the “struggle for existence” is only a conceptual metaphor with limited application). Our human bodies are pre-rigged to take care of cute little mammals, especially when they appear to love us back. We would love puppies even if there were a commandment telling us to NOT love puppies.
In this TED talk, author Nina Jablonski (Skin: A Natural History) suggests that whenever someone demands proof of evolution by natural selection, you should roll up your sleeve and show them your skin color. You carry this evidence around with you every day. You should point out that skin color changes depending on where one's ancestors lived. Check out the dramatic world map image at about 4:20 of the video. Darker skin colors can be found near the equator and lighter skin colors abound in higher latitudes. There is a fundamental and undeniable relation between skin color and latitude. But that is just the beginning of her story.
We all have melanin: nature's sunscreen. It protected equatorial people from harmful UVB rays, but nonetheless allowed their skin to produce vitamin D, which is now recognized as essential for proper skin, bones and immune system function. When humans moved to higher latitudes, their skin tones lighted up to allow better production of Vitamin D. Jablonski warns, however, that the angle at which sunlight hits the earth at higher latitudes blocks most UVB rays, allowing only UBA rays which cannot produce Vitamin D. Hence, those of us living in the northern latitudes, no matter what our skin color but especially those of us who work indoors, are at risk for lack of vitamin D. She urges doctors to do a better job warning patients in higher latitudes about the potential damage to skin, bones and immune system caused by their lack of vitamin D.
Genomics Professor Katherine Pollard explored the genetic basis for being human in a video presentation titled "What Makes Us Human. Here a rather dramatic announcement from her talk:
Mouse and rat actually have a common ancestor longer ago than human and chimp, and some people will be surprised by that. They will say, "We are so much more different than a chimp . . . mouse and rat must be pretty similar." Actually mouse and rat on average are much more different from each other than we are from a chimp, and that's sort of a humbling fact to keep in mind.
We're not exactly like chimpanzees, of course, but there are quite a few overlaps (as well as differences), which Pollard explores beginning at the 4-minute mark. Surprisingly, young chimpanzees have a better competency in counting and numbers than young humans. At the 11-minute mark, you can see that the human genome is 95% similar to that of a chimp (or 99%, depending on how you define similarity), and that it is 28% similar (or 89%, depending on definition of similarity) to the genome of a mouse.
[More . . . ]
Hello, I invite you to subscribe to Dangerous Intersection by entering your email below. You will have the option to receive emails notifying you of new posts once per week or more often.
