should palaeontology sit at the high table?

Of late, enormously interesting studies have been made with regards to the evolution of life, conducted in a setting—despite the expansive scope of the subject—so humble as a mere laboratory. Although we typically imagine macroevolution in terms of the branching, pictorial summaries of the fossil record, painstakingly collected and indexed by palaeontologists over the years, the reducibility of these changes to genetics begs the question: do we still need to go to all this effort? Is palaeontology obsolete? Indeed, Prothero (2009) states, mere years after its inception in 1947 as an initially palaeontologically-friendly journal, Evolution has become almost completely dominated by genetic papers alone, boasting of drastic, in-lab phylogenetic changes and discussing infant techniques in back-dating divergence times of groups using genes alone (Briggs and Fortey, 2005).

But how indicative are these findings in regards to what has actually happened to the biosphere over geologic time? George Gaylord Simpson (1944) summarises this potential issue well: "Experimental biology... may reveal what happens to a hundreds rats in the course of ten years under fixed and simple conditions, but not what happened to a billion rats in the course of ten million years under the fluctuating conditions of natural history. Obviously, the latter problem is more important." One of the hallmarks of Stephen Jay Gould's career has been to discuss the interrelationship between evolutionary biology and geology; this led him to become a champion in stressing that palaeontology must retain an important role in mapping the history of life. His theory of punctuated equilibrium provides an example, he claims, of a biological reality than biologists would have otherwise been blind to, were it not for the fossil record showing extended periods of stasis, clear as day. Marshall (2006), in his discussion of the Cambrian explosion, acknowledges a continued need to multiply and refine fossil calibration points in order to better constrain group divergence times found by still high-uncertainty genetic techniques. Furthermore, he says, these times have no comment regarding when these groups became ecologically significant; genetics tell us, for example, that mammals diverged during the Cretaceous, while the fossil record tells us of their radiation after the end-Cretaceous extinction event.

There is much to be done in resolving this issue, but the discussion thus far suggests one direction for future study: to set about confirming these palaeontological discoveries using classical biology. The notion of species stasis is one such discovery: if it is indeed true that there is a naturally-occurring genetic cohesion that resists change except in unique circumstances (a commonly cited culprit being allopatric speciation, or changes in populations due to physical isolation), this cohesion should be discoverable by geneticists and field biologists. There exist environments with not only great environmental diversity across areas with no physical boundaries (across a large island, for example), but also with little diversity across physical boundaries (between the large island and its peripheral islands). Within a given family of animals on these islands, has there been much genetic change across the environmental gradient (as expected by traditional Darwinian evolution), or little to none as compared to the peripheral colonies? Ideal locations for such study can be found in many areas around the world, however particularly good examples may be found in Oceania (such as Papua New Guinea, with a diverse primary island and many satellites) and Southeast Asia (such as Indonesia, for the same reasons).

One might expect that, just as species seem to change little—if at all—through significant environmental revolutions in the fossil record, so too might they change little across extant gradients. If this is found to be true, and I believe it would be, this would constitute an adequate example of how conventional biology alone cannot lead to a complete understanding of natural history; that a continued consilience between genetics and palaeontology is required to paint the fullest picture possible.

a history of hanging

Fans often complain of the imminent death of folk music, but the one binding aspect to an otherwise diverse genre is timeless: a storied nature, told from the grass roots. Folklore needn't be ancient, yet at the same time history often repeats itself.

Many will know Led Zeppellin's Gallow's Pole; a story of a man (originally a woman) about to be hung for an unstated crime, waiting for his loved ones to provide bribe money for the hangman. Some will know of earlier versions, such as Leadbelly's Gallis Pole (my favourite, [1]) and Peter, Paul and Mary's The Hangman. In truth, we may trace this many-named song back much farther in time, not merely to Old England (where its aliases range from The Maid Freed from the Gallows to Derry Gaol to The Prickly Bush; see Bellowhead [3]), but back much farther, with particularly early versions having been recovered from Scandinavia (see Garmarna's Den Bortsålda [3]).

Why should this not be the case? We need only read about the RCMP to know police corruption is as present as it ever was. Just as it was common practice to pay off the hangman in Old England, so too does Leadbelly sing of a time - not so ancient - where blacks with a little under-the-table money were treated with less harassment by local authorities.

Just as stories like this continue to live, so too does folk music.
___________________________________________
[1] The Gallis Pole, by Leadbelly

[2] The Prickle-Eye Bush, by Bellowhead

[3] Den Bortsålda, by Garmarna

alberta embarasses itself again

A proposed bill here in Alberta will instruct teachers to warn parents in advance of teaching "controversial" subjects (to the religious right, anyway) such as sexuality and evolution. They would then be allowed to opt their children out of the class in question. Rather than going on a second rant I'm just going to post my letter to the Alberta Education Minister Dave Hancock, who wholeheartedly supports this tripe.

Dear sir,

This letter regards the recent bill that allows parents to opt their children out of classes teaching—amongst other things—the Theory of Evolution.

In writing this letter I run a great risk of echoing word-for-word those who would do the same, as I will be stating what can only be described as the obvious to those educated in the matter. Unfortunately, the obvious sometimes bears repeating: evolution is both a theory and a fact, making it as educationally valid as the Theory of Gravity or the composition of water as two Hydrogen atoms and one Oxygen atom.

“Facts,” to quote the eminent Harvard biologist, the late Stephen Jay Gould, “are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts.” While Einsteinian and Newtonian Gravity have been debated, apples have not hung suspended in the air, and similarly our descent from apes remains no less factual while biologists debate the exactitudes of how this came to pass. Indeed, from the observed evolution of bacteria or fruit flies in the lab to the abundance of transitional fossils discovered to date, evolution is beautifully apparent to those who investigate the matter (I’m willing to bet the affronted parents have not!).

Apples may float of their own accord someday, but this possibility does not bear mention in our children’s physics textbooks. That evolution is treated differently is a consequence of the intrusion of politics and religious interest into public education. This intrusion is an affront to the ideals of a free and multicultural society such as ours, and must be turned away from. I believe the abandonment of this ill-conceived bill will make a worthy first step.

Alan Byers

intelligent design and the hypocrisy of the christian right

Not a half hour after returning Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul (Kenneth Miller's eloquent and well-reasoned response to the Intelligent Design movement's attacks on evolution) to the library, I was linked via Facebook to a collection of photos featuring the outraged responses (prepare for some (at best) eye-rollers) of tea-party conservatives to Obama's financial response to the recession. What struck me is a simple dichotomy of thought in the American Far-Right, but interesting enough that it bears a few words.

Wielded with glee by American Conservative movements seeking a resurgence in the teaching of Creationism in schools, Intelligent Design - in a manner feigning science - dismisses the notion that nature alone, unguided by some manner of, well, intelligent designer, can achieve the sort of complexity and grand functionality they see in the universe. (A more astute observer might see most designs as too complex, almost as if they had been evolved from forms of a different purpose, while scoffing at the notion that despite 99.9% of total species having gone extinct, life's design can be considered "functional," but I digress.)

At any rate, this line of reasoning struck me as oddly familiar. It took the angry, scribbled signs of the tea-party photos, decrying the intrusion of socialism into the White House, to communicate it: those who would support planned economics, the very enemies of these shouting, sign-holding mammals, show the same sort of incredulity when faced with the idea of a self-governing, "free" economy. Indeed, the trust Conservatives place in the free market theory is discarded whole-sale when applied to Biology. When one reads of Locke's Invisible Hand, guiding an economy not from the top-down, but rather from the unrestricted monetary decisions of the individual integrated across the entire population, one can't help but be reminded of Darwin's self-correcting genetic algorithm, unaided by any external force save for natural selection (with which the markets share more than a few similarities!). With respect to life as a system, intelligent design is a-okay, but with respect to the economy as a system it's positively Satanic!

So why all the faith in this sort of economic Darwinism, while Intelligent Design, with a level of intervention and Big Brother-ism that would redden the face of any McCarthyite, gets the thumbs-up as well? In all likelihood it's a simple manner of camps and clans supporting what's expected of them, heedless of the hypocrisy they court. Or perhaps at it's core is the American drive for individualism, fed by economic liberty and affronted by the idea that we're just another drop in a purposeless, directionless gene pool. I'm no more qualified to answer this question than any other, but it's an interesting question nonetheless.

religious violence and the case of vince li

The trial of Vince Li, who seven months ago stabbed, decapitated and partially cannibalized 22 year-old man Tim McLean on a Greyhound here in Canada, has come to an end with the unsurprising declaration that due to his mental ill-health, he cannot be held criminally responsible for his actions.

A letter writer wrote in to today's National Post griping about how, while Islam suffers through a reputation of being violent and hateful, Christianity gets off scott-free when (the writer assumes the Christian) God commanded Mr. Li to kill (and - to prevent his regeneration - dismember and partially eat) Mr. McLean, thinking him a demon.

Oversimplification is a tempting tool to use when winning people over to the side of your argument, but it can never be said that actions borne of a sick mind are ever simple. Even to someone such as myself - a layman to psychology - it's blindingly obvious that Li did not kill because of his religion; he killed because he was a paranoid, delusional schizophrenic off his meds. Rather than masterminding the gruesome act, Li's religion merely acted as a medium through which he interpreted his delusions, nothing more. Let it never be said I'm unfair when it comes to religion's relationship with violence.

However, the letter writer attempts to skirt around a simple and obvious fact: that religion - including but not limited to his own - can and does convince otherwise sane people to commit acts of hatred or violence. The list is long of perpetrators of such acts who are smart, educated members of the middle (and even upper) class with absolutely no prior records of mental ill-health.

So no, this is not a matter of preferential treatment for some religions, and unfairly bad raps for others. This is the judgement of each action on its own individual basis; sometimes religion itself is to blame, sometimes not.

canadian politicians can take ethical advice from smack-talking NHL thugs

When discussing Sean Avery - a man who rarely, if ever, shirks an opportunity to behave boorishly despite placing himself, as an NHL hockey player, in a role model position for thousands of young athletes - you'll quickly realize I have about as much respect for the man as that stubborn pink stuff I have to scrub off my shower every week.

Yesterday, in apologizing for his latest Avery-ism and thus at least acknowledging his undeservedly poor behaviour, he actually placed himself in a higher ethical position than the zoo that has become Canadian parliament (one could argue this was the case even before the apology, as at least his misbehaviour won't directly affect the lives of millions of Canadians, but I digress).

With this whole coalition buzz going on, I see a lot of people taking sides, and although I've been reading both sides of the argument an awful lot (maybe too much, with exams around the corner!), I find myself too disgusted by both groups to set up camp anywhere.

At first I was surprised by how soon after the election this all came about. Mere weeks after Harper was elected, and with the budget not even released yet (the proposed date - January 27th - is more than a reasonable amount of time), I was already being told by pro-Coalitionists that Harper has failed to secure the needs of a country in economic crisis. Already? Apparently, I thought, something more substantial than his preliminary statements have been released, such that people can make this lofty judgment. Not so... all articles were simply more of the same: Harper hasn't yet shown that he'll stimulate the economy sufficiently (despite their yet unreleased budget plan); blatant partisan bullying in the form of removal of public finances for political parties, hurting the Conservatives the least (which Harper has backed down on), and claims that it is constitutionally within the rights of the Opposition to coalesce (as if Harper denies this; his grievances lie elsewhere). Nonetheless, I'm told, jumping the gun and flinging the country into political turmoil is still justified.

But wait, I told myself, I'm no Conservative. Although I can think of worse Prime Ministers in recent memory, Harper has done little to garner my support. Why should a young, socially progressive academic like myself toady up to someone who has done so little of the same for me? I'm as angered as anyone by his political grand-standing as of late; I also happen to think those public finances better ensure a healthy, fair, democratic battleground for campaigning parties. This anger towards Harper isn't new, though.

He elected an chiropractor and acupuncturist - both antiscientific quackery at its best - as our Minister of Science and Technology, for Chrissakes. If there's one other thing, aside from science, that I support it's music; nothing gladdens me more to see talented and creative young musicians doing what they love for a living... well, except maybe seeing their governments providing the necessary initial stepping stones for this to happen. I don't think its a coincidence the happiest and mentally healthiest countries overseas also have strong support for burgeoning young local artists, but its clear from his treatment of arts funding in Canada that Harper doesn't see it. Women continue to experience wage inequality in the Canadian workplace, and Harper (among others) can certainly take a bow for this. Under Harper, the right to appeal pay equity cases to the Canadian Human Rights Commission has been slashed, with the Conservatives decreeing that its a matter for bargaining in the federal public sector. This has effectively stripped it of its status as part of a right to protection from discrimination. I could go on and on.

So when I say I don't support the coalition, it's not because I'm a fan of Harper. First off, I don't support it because the Opposition has done nothing to convince me this is anything but a power grab: appeals from level-headed Liberals like Gordon Campbell to at least wait for the budget have gone unheeded, claims that he has no plan to help the crisis situation are pure hogwash (among other things, he's stated he'll double spending on infrastructure, assist seniors on RRIF as well as securing pensions, putting $1B into jobs retraining with the baby boomers on the way out, as well as aid for the auto industry, aerospace and forestry...). Harper's backing down on the budget removal did nothing to slow their momentum. If they were sincere, it should have. Their inability to wait for the budget only further confirms this.

So would the coalition do any better? When asked, Dion blusters not once but three times, claiming he doesn't understand the question despite it being clearly-worded and simple in concept. Eventually he gives up and ends the interview. Let's assume they've begun planning since the video however: could a combination of three parties, with politically different and often conflicting ideologies, agree on a long-term budget plan any sooner than the Conservatives have proposed? Of course not, the notion is ridiculous.

But this represents the desires of the majority of Canadians, doesn't it? Look at the polls - the Conservatives only garnered 37% of the vote, while the coalition's votes total 62%. The thing is, nobody was voting for a coalition. Voting for a coalition is like putting money on a pair of three-legged racers in Olympic sprint - it will be a struggle, at best, for a group of politically dissonant parties to run the country effectively, and people know this. You want to play the numbers game? Sure - 74% of Canadians voted against Dion, 82% against Layton and 90% against Duceppe, but these are the people who may be running the country soon. Using numbers is completely disingenuous.

I look south of the border and I see Obama's honest attempts to unite a divided country and find a common goal to an over-arching crisis. Between Harper's partisan bullying and the Opposition's shark-like blood frenzy, I see nothing of the same north of the border. There is NOTHING stopping the two sides from ending this behaviour: apologizing, extending an olive branch and finding some common ground for the sake of Canada. The continued vitriol, however, shows that both sides are more concerned with saving face, than admitting any wrong-doing. What a day where Canadian politicians have something to learn from an immature, Piltdownian hockey player.

ray comfort - certainly not comforting to my respect for my fellow man

So PZ Meyers decided to touch on the (by now, I expect) infamous Ray Comfort's most recent drop of ignorant inanity in his already sizable online swamp. For convenience, the bewilderingly dumb collection of words is as follows:

Darwin theorized that mankind (both male and female) evolved alongside each other over millions of years, both reproducing after their own kind before the ability to physically have sex evolved. They did this through "asexuality" ("without sexual desire or activity or lacking any apparent sex or sex organs"). Each of them split in half ("Asexual organisms reproduce by fission (splitting in half)." Ask A Scientist, Biology Archive, http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/bio99/bio99927.htm.)

Shocking, eh?

Meyers covers the usual bases in his response: he describes our actual evolutionary history - chock full of that fun and productive pastime the whole way through - and finishes with the usual acknowledgment that creationists, requiring some way to self-assuredly disbelieve in evolution, are woefully, stubbornly ignorant of its every nuance.

None of this was, of course, necessary. Though surprisingly measured for Meyers, I don't think this sort of response was fitting. I think my initial response is still the best: