On the monogamy of birds

Birds are often reputed to be "monogamous." Is that true? At Salon, Jed Lipinski discussed the topic with Bernd Heinrich, a renowned naturalist at the University of Vermont, who has recently written "The Nesting Season: Cuckoos, Cuckolds, and the Invention of Monogamy." Here's an small excerpt from a larger discussion that touches upon monogamy, "love," navigation and other topics:

Monogamy among birds is mostly social monogamy, in that they will pair off, but they won’t necessarily be sexually monogamous. Some of them are, of course, but most try not to be, as there are certain advantages to being not monogamous. Monogamy is often forced upon birds because of certain conditions. Mates might be scarce, say, and it's safer to have a mate around. Or a female needs a mate to keep the offspring alive, to make sure all the courting and mating and nesting hasn’t been a big waste. It takes a lot of resources and help to raise baby birds -- so the parents have to have a lot of investment. Social monogamy works for food and protection, especially in the case of geese or birds of prey. So no, most birds are not monogamous. But monogamy is relative. It differs not only between species but within species as well, and often according to gender. Male birds of paradise are extremely promiscuous, whereas the females are extremely picky. They may only mate once in a breeding cycle, while a male will mate with hundreds of females and at any time. But then there are precocious birds, like ducks and quail, whose females manage to do all the feeding themselves, so a male isn't really required. . . . And some birds are not at all polyamorous. Ravens, for example, stay in pairs year round. That's unusual.

Continue ReadingOn the monogamy of birds

How are Humans Better?

A new comment thread on an old post discusses the precept that humans are somehow "better" than all other creatures. Sure, as a member of our team, I'd like to think that we are Number One. We've even written books attributed to deities that prove that we are the reason for creation, that the octillions of stars in the universe were all put there just for our amusement. Therefore, the book and its believers maintain, we must be the best thing ever. But as an educated human raised by scientists to find first sources and question suppositions, I wonder: "How are we better?" I have posted before on some of the ways in which our Creator (to use that paradigm) has short changed us. Name any characteristic of which we are proud, and it is easy to find another creature that exceeds our ability. I can only think of one exception: Communicating in persistent symbols. Unlike cetaceans, birds, fellow primates, and others who communicate fairly precisely with sounds, gestures, or chemical signals, we can detach communication from ourselves and transport or even delay it via layers of uncomprehending media (paper, wires, illiterate couriers, etc). We can create physical objects that abstract ideas from one individual and allow the idea to be absorbed by another individual at a later time. It also allows widely separated groups to share a single culture, at least in part. This learned behavior is based on our apparently unique ability to abstract in multiple layers and to abstract to a time well beyond the immediate future. We can take an idea to a series of sounds to a series of static symbols, and back again. Our relatively modern ability to reason abstractly (math, science) evolved from our ability to abstract communications. Even Einstein couldn't hold the proof of E=MC2 in his head. But is this unique ability really sufficient to declare ourselves overall inherently "better"?

Continue ReadingHow are Humans Better?

Another Musing on Our Evolving Ability to Perceive

I have occasionally ruminated our improved ability to see and understand the universe around us. On this blog, it usually is in terms of comparing the Young Earth view with what we've learned in the last few hundred years. Posts such as The Universe is not Specified to Human Scale and My limited vision make the point. But I've started another blog that focuses less on politics and culture, yet found that one of my first posts again addresses the issue of how we've improved our vision of the world around us in the last few dozen generations. Please peruse The Object At Hand: Light Lens a Hand, to Help us Understand and see if I am off the beam.

Continue ReadingAnother Musing on Our Evolving Ability to Perceive

Fungi

I recently posted on Sir David Attenborough, touting ability to educate us regarding nature. You might have thought, "Well, anyone could give a lively talk on the blue whale, the largest creature to ever live on Earth." Maybe so. But how many people have ever produced a spellbinding video on fungi? Attenborough and his team are often at their best when presenting species that seem mundane.

Continue ReadingFungi