yesterday was the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, so naturally the news was aflutter with stories of celebrations, anti-celebrations, and evolution factoids. but one of the most astonishing things that I read was that only 39% of Americans believe in evolution, only 15% believe in the evolution of humans from apes, and at least 25% firmly do not believe in evolution.
staggering. really.
it's true, I grew up in a relatively secular family. While I was exposed to religion and religious ideas, I was not indoctrinated into religious theory from a young age. By the time I was in high school, I had made up my mind that my science textbooks made a heck of a lot more sense than my bible. so maybe I can understand why people who grew up differently from me would be less than willing to give up their beliefs.
many religious leaders lead their parishioners to believe falseties in the theory of evolution. they question how a perfectly formed human eye could possibly have evolved by chance. they question how a [insert interesting animal here] can be so perfectly suited to its environment without the guidance of a higher being. and they falsely lead people to believe that the theory of evolution involves a series of "leaps" caused by random, beneficial genetic mutations from one species to another.
so most people have a vague and often flat out wrong idea of what evolution is and how it occurs. at this point, I'd love to recommend that everyone out there read "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins, but I doubt that they would. so I'm going to describe evolution as simply as I can.
imagine, if you will, a population of horse-like mammals living in a forest. they happily munch on the leaves of trees. Now the horses live like this for thousands, possibly millions of years. But at some point, the trees that they feed on start to die off (perhaps it's climate change, or perhaps a weird tree disease, or maybe a fire) and another tree species takes its place. The new tree is taller than the last one, so only the tallest of the horses can reach the leaves. obviously, if you happen to be a tall horse, you'll probably do ok. but if you're short, then you may die. Over many generations, the entire population of horses gets bigger because they are more likely to survive. This is natural selection - nature confers a survival benefit to individuals with one trait over individuals with another. Eventually, the short horses will die out altogether. and given thousands of generations, the tall horses may not look anything like their old ancestors.
speciation like what I just described can happen even faster when there is an element of geographical isolation. perhaps during a drought, some of the horses manage to cross a river that is normally impassable. They continue to feed on the short trees on the other side of the river, while back in the original habitat, the horses are forced to eat the tall trees. In this case, you get geoegraphical separation over several years. The horses on the tall-tree side are under selective pressure to breed taller offspring (i.e. the taller horses will survive better and will produce more offspring than the shorter horses, which may die before they reproduce), while the horses on the short-tree side of the river face no selective pressure. Over thousands of generations, the populations may diverge enough that even if you were to bring them back into contact with one another, they would not be able to mate and produce viable offspring. At this point, you have 2 distinct species.
this is only an example of how different species can evolve, but the principle of evolution remains the same across species (including ours). There must be selective pressure that confers a survival benefit to an individual with one trait over an individual with another. It doesn't happen overnight and it doesn't require a massive genetic mutation (i.e. one horse miraculously grows an extra mouth). evolution happens in minute increments that gradually, over multiple generations result in speciation. geographical isolation speeds up the process by preventing (for example) the short-horse genes from re-entering the tall-gene horse gene pool before speciation is complete.
finally, i want to illustrate that evolution is still happening, even today. For this, I'll need to describe another selection pressure - sexual selection. In this case, rather than the environment conferring a survival benefit, mate preference confers the survival benefit. The Paxton Lake sticklebacks - small fish on the west coast of Canada - illustrate this perfectly. Paxton Lake contains threespine sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus) that use 2 distinct habitat types and have therefore developed 2 distinct phenotypes (in this case, body shape). Some of the sticklebacks like to live near the bottom of the lake, and have gradually evolved to be rather stout and sedentary, preferring to blend into the background to escape predators. Some of the sticklebacks like to live in the middle of the lake and have gradually evolved to be thin and agile to escape predators in the open water.
Sexual selection comes into this because the sticklebacks that live in the middle of the lake select mates that are skinny and agile like themselves, whereas sticklebacks that live on the bottom of the lake select mates that are stout and well camouflaged. Gradual diversion like what I described with the horses likely led to the sticklebacks being able to take advantage of the 2 habitat types, but sexual selection keeps the populations isolated from one another (like the river did to the horses).
So at this point, it sounds like we've got 2 separate species, but in fact speciation is not yet complete, because when you muddy the water and prevent the sticklebacks from being able to see one another, they will interbreed and they can still produce viable offspring. And this is exactly what is happening in nature.
Crayfish were introduced to several lakes where these 2 phenotypes of sticklebacks are present. The crayfish muddy the water near the shoreline, making it impossible for the sticklebacks to see one another well enough to choose a mate. So they've started to interbreed, and the result is that the evolution that occurred up to now is being undone because the selection pressure that kept the phenotypes apart has disappeared. Evolution in reverse, you might say. The Paxton Lake sticklebacks are now considered to be a species of concern because the "evolution in action" that we were once able to see and document has been reversed by the careless introduction of a new species.
So, next time you doubt the theory of evolution, think about horses and sticklebacks and try (try!!!) to wrap your brain around the enormous timelines involved.. not hundreds of years... not even a thousand years! and definitely not in giant leaps of mutations!
5.11.08
dirty laundry and the us election
i'm going to do something pretty unusual for myself. i'm going to air some dirty laundry and tell you a bit (maybe a lot) about myself and my politics.
i lean left. waaaay left. as a canadian, i voted green in the last election. i am jaw-grindingly frustrated that canada's voting system means that my vote will not make any difference in the structure of the government.
i grew up in port alberni, british columbia - a resource town on vancouver island. my dad has worked both directly and indirectly for forestry and other resource-based companies for most of my life. i also grew up in the era of the clayoquot sound protests - a phenomenon that divided my little town. i grew up in a noticeably conservative family. as an only child, i'd listen to the grown-ups discuss politics and issues and heard plenty of phrases like "bleeding heart liberals", "bloody socialists" and "tree-huggers". later, as i began to learn about the issues myself, i found myself wondering what was so wrong with those things. as an adult, i also work in the resource industry. i don't deny that resource use has to occur, but i'm here to make sure that it's done right. i don't think we need to develop as many projects as we do. i believe that larger-scale policies on reducing waste and consumption need to occur (soon). i don't believe that you need that new tv/car/boat/widget.
i am a scientist and (*gasp) and atheist. i have found nothing in my 30-plus years to convince me that there is a magical higher power creating, manipulating or governing our planet or our souls. i couldn't possibly agree more with the writings of richard dawkins, even though i would never personally come out and militantly challenge my friends', colleagues' or family members' beliefs because i do believe that everyone is entitled to an opinion.
however, i do feel militant about the place of religion in politics - there isn't one. ever. there are some situations where i believe that the public should be protected from themselves, where common sense and fairness should triumph over the beliefs (religious or otherwise) of the majority. gay marriage is one of them, and i am profoundly disappointed in those states, provinces and countries who would put such an issue to a popular vote. i believe that strong leaders need to occasionally do things that are unpopular to bring about true change. i believe change is one of the most over-used words in the english language.
i believe strongly in the theory of climate change and that we as a species do not have the luxury of time to be pussy-footing around whether or not it's human-caused or not. even if the chance that climate change is human-induced is remote (which it's not), we should be living by the precautionary principle and doing everything humanly possible in an attempt to stop it. even if we fail, our world will be a better place. this is another issue which i feel strongly should not be left to the public to decide. our politicians must do everything in their power (even if it is unpopular or expensive) to change the world we live in for the common good.
i believe that socialism should not be a dirty word. we as citizens should look out for one another because the health of our society is directly related to the health of everyone in it. i've lived in and visited both more and less socialist countries than ours, and i can say that having universal health care, adequate welfare, services for the mentally ill, and assistance for those less fortunate is actually pretty nice. it makes for lovely, safe cities with low rates of homelessness. it means that people with mental illness get the help they need before they end up living on the streets, addicted to drugs or killing innocent people. it means that all children regardless of their economic situation can attend safe stable daycares and schools. it means that our level of education doesn't necessarily have to be linked to our level of income. it's not perfect, but in my opinion, it's better than the "ever man for himself" model that is so popular in north america. i've seen all this stuff. it works. and it's not communist.
i like obama. i didn't at first, but he grew on me. i love that he is thoughtful, measured, and sticks to a plan. i love that he doesn't get flustered. i love that he is passionate without being frantic. i think he has a tough job ahead of him.
i don't mind mccain. he has a wealth of experience behind him in a variety of fields. he's lived through war and peace and tough times. he was shafted last time he tried to run for president. but he's too hot under the collar. he bends under the weight of the radicals in his party. he is impassioned, but it leads him to make spur-of-the-moment decisions. like hiring sarah palin.
i hate sarah palin. she is underwhelming to say the least. i heard someone on the radio say that they loved her because she was a small-town mom just like them. how many of you small-town moms feel that you know enough about foreign policy, social issues and law to be the leader of the most powerful country in the world? i guess if george w could do it, you could too, but you probably wouldn't do a very good job. i've got more education than sarah does, but i sure don't feel ready for that post.
i'm terrified of the republican party. i saw those signs at the rallies.. the ones that said "god, guns and glory" or whatever it was. that's scary shit. that reeks of religion in politics. i don't believe that republicans can keep their god out of their party. and if we go back to my previous paragraph, you see why i don't like that.
i'm not really 100% on the democratic party, but they are less radically right than the republicans.
in canada, we have conservatives. they'd fit in rather well with the republicans, i think. their supporters make up a minority of canadians, but they rise to power whenever the left is fractured or the liberals do something stupid. which is why we need proportional representation. the conservatives have 35% of the popular vote, but almost 50% of the seats in government. the ndp have 25% of the vote, but only 10% of the seats. the bloc have 10% of the vote, but 30% of the seats. the greens have 10% of the vote and no seats. it's terribly terribly fucked up and i don't think it'll change in my lifetime. depressing.
summary:
i'm left
i'm atheist
i don't like, understand or support republican/conservative ideology or policy
i'm happy(ish) about the us election
i'm ridiculously frustrated with the canadian election
i live in fear of what will happen to our environment in the next 10 years
without our environment, we have nothing. no food. no jobs. no livelihood.
and that situation is coming at us fast.
so when you ask how i can support who i support, and how i can believe what i believe, here it is.
comments welcome.
i lean left. waaaay left. as a canadian, i voted green in the last election. i am jaw-grindingly frustrated that canada's voting system means that my vote will not make any difference in the structure of the government.
i grew up in port alberni, british columbia - a resource town on vancouver island. my dad has worked both directly and indirectly for forestry and other resource-based companies for most of my life. i also grew up in the era of the clayoquot sound protests - a phenomenon that divided my little town. i grew up in a noticeably conservative family. as an only child, i'd listen to the grown-ups discuss politics and issues and heard plenty of phrases like "bleeding heart liberals", "bloody socialists" and "tree-huggers". later, as i began to learn about the issues myself, i found myself wondering what was so wrong with those things. as an adult, i also work in the resource industry. i don't deny that resource use has to occur, but i'm here to make sure that it's done right. i don't think we need to develop as many projects as we do. i believe that larger-scale policies on reducing waste and consumption need to occur (soon). i don't believe that you need that new tv/car/boat/widget.
i am a scientist and (*gasp) and atheist. i have found nothing in my 30-plus years to convince me that there is a magical higher power creating, manipulating or governing our planet or our souls. i couldn't possibly agree more with the writings of richard dawkins, even though i would never personally come out and militantly challenge my friends', colleagues' or family members' beliefs because i do believe that everyone is entitled to an opinion.
however, i do feel militant about the place of religion in politics - there isn't one. ever. there are some situations where i believe that the public should be protected from themselves, where common sense and fairness should triumph over the beliefs (religious or otherwise) of the majority. gay marriage is one of them, and i am profoundly disappointed in those states, provinces and countries who would put such an issue to a popular vote. i believe that strong leaders need to occasionally do things that are unpopular to bring about true change. i believe change is one of the most over-used words in the english language.
i believe strongly in the theory of climate change and that we as a species do not have the luxury of time to be pussy-footing around whether or not it's human-caused or not. even if the chance that climate change is human-induced is remote (which it's not), we should be living by the precautionary principle and doing everything humanly possible in an attempt to stop it. even if we fail, our world will be a better place. this is another issue which i feel strongly should not be left to the public to decide. our politicians must do everything in their power (even if it is unpopular or expensive) to change the world we live in for the common good.
i believe that socialism should not be a dirty word. we as citizens should look out for one another because the health of our society is directly related to the health of everyone in it. i've lived in and visited both more and less socialist countries than ours, and i can say that having universal health care, adequate welfare, services for the mentally ill, and assistance for those less fortunate is actually pretty nice. it makes for lovely, safe cities with low rates of homelessness. it means that people with mental illness get the help they need before they end up living on the streets, addicted to drugs or killing innocent people. it means that all children regardless of their economic situation can attend safe stable daycares and schools. it means that our level of education doesn't necessarily have to be linked to our level of income. it's not perfect, but in my opinion, it's better than the "ever man for himself" model that is so popular in north america. i've seen all this stuff. it works. and it's not communist.
i like obama. i didn't at first, but he grew on me. i love that he is thoughtful, measured, and sticks to a plan. i love that he doesn't get flustered. i love that he is passionate without being frantic. i think he has a tough job ahead of him.
i don't mind mccain. he has a wealth of experience behind him in a variety of fields. he's lived through war and peace and tough times. he was shafted last time he tried to run for president. but he's too hot under the collar. he bends under the weight of the radicals in his party. he is impassioned, but it leads him to make spur-of-the-moment decisions. like hiring sarah palin.
i hate sarah palin. she is underwhelming to say the least. i heard someone on the radio say that they loved her because she was a small-town mom just like them. how many of you small-town moms feel that you know enough about foreign policy, social issues and law to be the leader of the most powerful country in the world? i guess if george w could do it, you could too, but you probably wouldn't do a very good job. i've got more education than sarah does, but i sure don't feel ready for that post.
i'm terrified of the republican party. i saw those signs at the rallies.. the ones that said "god, guns and glory" or whatever it was. that's scary shit. that reeks of religion in politics. i don't believe that republicans can keep their god out of their party. and if we go back to my previous paragraph, you see why i don't like that.
i'm not really 100% on the democratic party, but they are less radically right than the republicans.
in canada, we have conservatives. they'd fit in rather well with the republicans, i think. their supporters make up a minority of canadians, but they rise to power whenever the left is fractured or the liberals do something stupid. which is why we need proportional representation. the conservatives have 35% of the popular vote, but almost 50% of the seats in government. the ndp have 25% of the vote, but only 10% of the seats. the bloc have 10% of the vote, but 30% of the seats. the greens have 10% of the vote and no seats. it's terribly terribly fucked up and i don't think it'll change in my lifetime. depressing.
summary:
i'm left
i'm atheist
i don't like, understand or support republican/conservative ideology or policy
i'm happy(ish) about the us election
i'm ridiculously frustrated with the canadian election
i live in fear of what will happen to our environment in the next 10 years
without our environment, we have nothing. no food. no jobs. no livelihood.
and that situation is coming at us fast.
so when you ask how i can support who i support, and how i can believe what i believe, here it is.
comments welcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
