The not-simple question of defining “species”?

There are a lot of simple things out there that aren't really simple once you start trying to understand and explain them. The concept of "species" is one of those non-simple concepts. I had assumed that I had a good gut understanding of "species" until I read an article called "Speciation," by Andrew P. Hendry, published in the March 12, 2009 edition of Nature (available online only to subscribers). Hendry suggests that the term "species" as a technical classification in the field of biology is "ambiguous and amorphous." He starts by quoting Darwin, from on the origin of species: In short, we shall have to treat species in the same manner as those naturalists treat genera, who admit that genera are merrily artificial combinations made for convenience. This may not be a cheering prospect; but we shall at least be free from the vain search for the undiscovered and undiscoverable essence of the term species. Hendry suggests that modern biological research has proved Darwin. No universal easily applicable concept of "species" exists; instead, more than two dozen approaches exist with regard to "species." The most common version is the "biological species concept" (BSC). This definition holds that species are "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding individuals that are reproductively isolated from other such groups (that is, they exchange few genes). Hendry elaborates: The BSC is sometimes interpreted to imply the extreme situation where two groups are separate species only when successful hybrids cannot ever be produced-and any two such groups certainly are separate species. But many other groups that are widely accepted to represent separate species frequently violate the strict criteria; for example, some estimates hold that 25% of all plant species and 10% of all animal species hybridize successfully with at least one other species. Probably for this reason, the BSC is often relaxed to the point that different groups are considered separate species if they can maintain their genetic integrity and nature. This more useful, albeit more ambiguous, criterion allows for some genetic exchange (gene flow) between species as long as they do not become homogenized. Hendry then goes on to discuss various challenges to BSC.

Continue ReadingThe not-simple question of defining “species”?

JREF Censored on YouTube via DMCA

YouTube has suspended the James Randi Education Foundation channel, The FriendlySkeptic. JREF hopes to get it back soon. From the video information:

To complain to YouTube follow this link Scroll to the very bottom and click on "new issue" Select "suspended account" from the options and express your opinion. Download the video above from MediaFire The DMCA is a wonderful 1990's Act of Congress that lets printer manufacturers file a copyright to block third party ink refills in the name of protecting children from pornography. Clause after clause of this act are getting struck down by the Supremes, but still it limps along frustrating mostly legitimate users who run into it. Anyway, DCMA forces YouTube to suspend an account if anyone makes a claim that something uploaded violates a copyright held by another. Then, after cautious investigation, the account may be reinstated. Technically the filer of a false claim is liable to criminal charges. But this has apparently never been executed. The closest case I know of was Thunderf00t vs. VenomfangX, where a Creationist made a false claim of infringement on the author of the "Why People Laugh At Creationists" series. Meanwhile another prominent bastion of proper skepticism has been banned from YouTube.

Continue ReadingJREF Censored on YouTube via DMCA

The Limits of Reason

The antipathy with which fundamentalists hold science and reason is difficult to understand. The emotional backlash, more storm than counter argument, often surprises. A simple statement can bring about the most strident denunciations, the pitch and timbre of the debate oscillating out of proportion to the content being discussed. Or so it seems. In the course of debating the truth, validity, utility, or relevance of certain topics, the nondogmatic must come to a point of fatigue by the seeming impossibility of finding common ground. At which time the debate either fizzles, the rationalist yields out of frustration, or the fundamentalist (of whatever stripe, on whatever topic) is ignored and bypassed. This last leads to a situation wherein the argument festers like an infection. It does not go away, often to the dismay of those watching and certainly to those who thought it without merit. You can flip this on its head and make the same claim in the other direction. At least, up to a point.

Consider the following statements:
  • (1) I am not descended from a monkey.
  • (2) God gave us dominion over the earth.
  • (3) Homosexuality is an abomination.
  • (4) The earth is only 6000 years old.
  • (5) The Bible is the inerrant word of God.
What is the one common, salient feature of each one of these statements? They are each one unqualified and utterly emotional statements. They are statements made in reference to personal belief, without reference to any external corroborative evidence or comparative context. They are, with the single exception of the Earth’s age, unanswerable in any reasonable way. Taken one at a time, therefore: (1) Of course you aren’t. It’s obvious. You’re descended from earlier generations of homo sapiens sapiens.

Continue ReadingThe Limits of Reason

Congressman John Shimkus: The Bible says don’t worry about global warming

Illinois Representative John Shimkus knows all he needs to know about climate change. It's all in the infallible Bible. Here he is demolishing all of that silly science with a few phrases out of Genesis. Based on his expressions, he's a hero in his own eyes. He's got that look that he knows he will go to heaven. Don't worry. There's only going to be one worldwide flood and we've already had it. Case closed. Proceedings from the March 25, 2009 hearing of the U.S. House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment: If you want to learn a lot more about the nonsense Shimkus spouts, visit Progress Illinois.

Continue ReadingCongressman John Shimkus: The Bible says don’t worry about global warming

Intelligence versus attractiveness; is there a correlation?

Intriguing post by Satoshi Kanazawa at Psychology Today. He points out research that purports to show that intelligence correlates positively with attractiveness. This research does dispel the notion that very attractive woman are less intelligent than average-looking woman; according to this research, very attractive woman are in the most intelligent group. I'm mulling over these findings; I don't quite know what to think of this yet. I do know that I'm highly suspicious of any sort of simplistic IQ-based characterization of "intelligence" (I recently made that point here). Kanazawa began this post pointing out the rampant prejudice that attractive people are more intelligent, but then argues that "virtually all stereotypes are empirically true." I suspect that there is some truth driving many stereotypes, but I think his conclusion (that "virturally all stereotypes are empirically true") is dangerous in its vagueness. Social feedback loops can cause stereotypes come true; if we mistreat people from stigmatized social groups, this makes it more likely that they will not do as well as social groups that have no such disadvantages. And even if it were true that there is some overall basis for most stereotypes, this doesn't begin to suggest that we ought to make presumptions about any particular individuals.

Continue ReadingIntelligence versus attractiveness; is there a correlation?