Orchids are back at the Missouri Botanical Garden

Once again the orchids are on display at the Missouri Botanical Garden. I snapped some photos or these incredible beings. After all, they are our cousins. Richard Dawkins estimates that animals diverged from the plant kingdom about two billion years ago. orchid1 I've written previously about Darwin's fascination with orchids here. For today, I will simply paste in a few new photos of these incredibly beautiful plants. I've posted many more of my photos of today's show at one of my public web albums at Picasa.

Continue ReadingOrchids are back at the Missouri Botanical Garden

Another well-deserved attack on rationality

Why do we do the things we do? Why did you propose that woman, for instance? Or why did you accept a job offer from that man? The January 29, 2009 edition of Nature (available online only to subscribers) takes a look at this question in an article by Mark Buchanan titled "Secret Signals: Are People's Interactions Driven by a Primitive, Not Linguistic Type of Communication?" Scientists have determined that there is a second channel of human communication that (often) acts in parallel with our rational thinking and verbal communication. It's difficult to pin down power and scope of this non-linguistic ability, however. Recently, computer scientist Alex Pentland has started using wearable electronic devices in order to study our ability to communicate using non-linguistic behavior. It is Pentland's aim to try to assist organizations to make better use of their personnel based upon this ubiquitous and powerful hidden communication. Many people resist the idea that many of our choices are not determined by "conscious intentions and deliberate choices." It's time to stop resisting, however. For example, our behavior is highly determined by our social context rather than our innate "character." On this topic I've often recommended an excellent book titled The Person and the Situation, by Lee Ross and Richard Nisbett. See also, this earlier DI post titled "Laughing at not funny things, and the limits of introspection."

Continue ReadingAnother well-deserved attack on rationality

Creationists blather their way through Darwin Day

If you visit Ken Ham's creationist site, you'll see an article titled, "Did humans really evolve from ape-like creatures?" Here's a key concern raised in this article:

Perhaps the most bitter pill to swallow for any Christian who attempts to “make peace” with Darwin is the presumed ape ancestry of man.

It's difficult to believe the ignorance displayed by this sentence. Why can't creationists understand that not only did humans evolve from other ape-like creatures (the scientific evidence is abundant and irrefutable), but that humans are apes. Check the features listed here:

The similarities can be seen throughout our bodies. For instance, humans and the African apes all lack external tails and have hands with a thumb that is sufficiently separate from the other fingers to allow them to be opposable for precision grips. Humans are also sexually dimorphic--males are 5-10% larger on average and have greater upper body muscular development. Like chimpanzees and bonobos, we are omnivorous. We kill other animals for food in addition to eating a wide variety of plants. Internally, our bodies are even more similar to the great apes. We have essentially the same arrangement of internal organs and bones. We share several important blood types. We also get many of the same diseases.

Continue ReadingCreationists blather their way through Darwin Day

What if there were animals that were genetically close to modern humans, but startlingly different?

What if there were animals that looked very much like modern human animals and almost identical genetically, yet they differed from us in notable ways? Would their discovery shock and horrify people? Quite likely. Wouldn't it also make many people start thinking deeply about the fact that modern humans themselves are animals? You'd hope so. Wouldn't this discovery make us intensely curious about our own origins? Remains to be seen. What follows is a true story. The evidence is overwhelming that large numbers of Neanderthals roamed Eurasia for 200,000 years. The evidence is also clear that Neanderthals differed from the modern humans in genetically small but socially and physiologically significant ways. This incredible story can be found in the October 2008 edition of National Geographic, in an article entitled "Last of the Neanderthals." This article is a must read article for anybody who wants to peer into the not-so-distant past in order to learn about his or her bipedal cousins. The article is filled with incredibly lifelike modeling of the Neanderthals. It is also filled with detailed information about Neanderthal physiology, as well as clues to Neanderthal lifestyle.

Continue ReadingWhat if there were animals that were genetically close to modern humans, but startlingly different?

The body is not a machine

Pyschiatrist Randolf Nesse is a gifted writer who I have followed for many years. I first learned of Nesse's work when I read Why We Get Sick: The New Science of Darwinian Medicine. Nesse is one of the many respondents to this year's annual question by Edge.org: "What will change everything?" Nesse's answer: RECOGNIZING THAT THE BODY IS NOT A MACHINE As we improve our knowledge of bodies, they don't fit very well within our venerable metaphor of the body as a "machine." One of his points is that we can describe machines, whereas a satisfying description of bodies seems so elusive. The complexity of the body is, indeed, humbling:

We have yet to acknowledge that some evolved systems may be indescribably complex. Indescribable complexity implies nothing supernatural. Bodies and their origins are purely physical. It also has nothing to do with so-called irreducible complexity, that last bastion of creationists desperate to avoid the reality of unintelligent design. Indescribable complexity does, however, confront us with the inadequacy of models built to suit our human preferences for discrete categories, specific functions, and one directional causal arrows. Worse than merely inadequate, attempts to describe the body as a machine foster inaccurate oversimplifications. Some bodily systems cannot be described in terms simple enough to be satisfying; others may not be described adequately even by the most complex models we can imagine.

[Related DI post: The Brain is not a Computer]

Continue ReadingThe body is not a machine