I'm still in caffeine withdrawal, so, again, please forgive any grammatical errors.

Young-earth creationists have a distinct animosity towards SETI, for obvious reasons. The project is contrary to their whole understanding of biology, and it receives what probably looks to them like an obscene amount if money for an endeavor doomed to failure. This is understandable. However, when coupled with a fundamental misunderstanding of natural selection, it leads to intense hilarity. For some reason, Jonathon Safarti, author of the popular Answers in Genesis book Refuting Evolution, seems to be under the impression that there is an implicit conflict between the two ideas espoused by SETI that, on one hand, life can increase in complexity via evolution, and on the other, that complex signals are likely to have originated from an intelligence. Here's the quote:

People detect intelligent design all the time. For example, if we find arrowheads on a desert island, we can assume they were made by someone, even if we cannot see the designer. There is an obvious difference between writing by an intelligent person, e.g. Shakespeare’s plays, and a random letter sequence like WDLMNLTDTJBKWIRZREZLMQCOP. There is also an obvious difference between Shakespeare and a repetitive sequence like ABCDABCDABCD. The latter is an example of order, which must be distinguished from Shakespeare, which is an example of specified complexity. We can also tell the difference between messages written in sand and the results of wave and wind action. The carved heads of the U.S. presidents on Mt. Rushmore are clearly different from erosional features. Again, this is specified complexity. Erosion produces either irregular shapes or highly ordered shapes like sand dunes, but not presidents’ heads or writing. Another example is the SETI program (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence). This would be pointless if there were no way of determining whether a certain type of signal from outer space would be proof of an intelligent sender. The criterion is, again, a signal with a high level of specified complexity—this would prove that there was an intelligent sender, even if we had no other idea of the sender’s nature. But neither a random nor a repetitive sequence would be proof. Natural processes produce radio noise from outer space, while pulsars produce regular signals. Actually, pulsars were first mistaken for signals by people eager to believe in extraterrestrials, but this is because they mistook order for complexity. So evolutionists (as are nearly all SETI proponents) are prepared to use high specified complexity as proof of intelligence, when it suits their ideology. This shows once more how one’s biases and assumptions affect one’s interpretations of any data.

I don't see how one can write two books concerning the scientific validity of evolution and not understand natural selection. Perhaps it was simply a moment of confusion. But regardless of why it's been set forth, it has. The error is here: there is no natural selection process that drives signals towards complexity. They don't reproduce in the same way that organisms do, there's no incentive for them to develop greater complexity in order to better survive. Therefore, the overwhelming probability is that a complex signal was created by an intelligence. The same applies for sand dunes. If sand dunes in forms that resembled presidential heads could better survive the ravages of time, then they would most likely be in these forms. Sadly, they don't, and therefore, none are known to have formed via natural processes. This is also applicable to arrowheads and cars. Seriously, guys, if you're going to write about evolution, please understand its basic premise.

So, I’m going to kick back and write about a couple of books I read last year or perhaps a few years before that have stuck in my brain due to their above average goodness. I’d say that I probably remember about 1 out of every 20 of the books I read. This seems terribly pathetic, but at least I know that the ones I remember must be pretty special!

-----

Drop City – T. C. Boyle
By now, I thought I’d be tired of this guy, but I continue to be pleasantly surprised by his work. Drop City is about a hippy community that heads to Alaska because it is the “last great wilderness.” In this novel, as in some of his others, Boyle excels at exposing the dark underbelly of the utopian ideal. Someone nearly always becomes scarily dictatorial in Boyle's novels. This power-tripper destroys others with his ego and megalomania. Drop City had one of the best climactic endings I’d read in a long time. I remember feeling disappointed that it didn’t win the National Book Award in 2003. It deserved it!
P.S. If you haven’t read The Road to Wellville by Boyle, please do! It was hilarious and also terribly icky! My kind of novel!

-----

Natural Selection – Dave Freedman
This is this guy’s first novel, and it scared the crap out of me! I think this came out at around the same time that The Ruins (Scott Smith) was released. Natural Selection was by far the better horror novel. It’s about carnivorous manta rays that evolve for millenia on the bottom of the ocean floor and finally become able to breathe oxygen. They rise from the watery depths and begin to hunt and feast on land animals, including humans. These rays are extremely intelligent, extremely deadly and very frightening. The last battle was pretty extraordinary. I’m hoping that Mr. Freedman will come out with another scary novel soon.

-----

Mr. Timothy – Louis Bayard
Tiny Tim grows up and solves a mystery. If you haven’t yet read anything by Mr. Bayard, you’re in for a treat. He’s a wonderful writer, and I especially enjoy his fictionalized real-life (or in this case, previously fictional) characters. Mr. Bayard’s historical settings are beautifully developed, and there’s lots of action and suspense to keep you guessing. I recently reviewed another Bayard novel entitled The Pale Blue Eye. You can read about it here.

That’s it for now. I’ll be posting synopses of more overlooked favorites sometime soon.

Now, I don't belong to the "if we just make our argument a little more clever, they'll see the light" school of thought when dealing with highly ideological opponents. Public debates over intelligent design and creationism and the like are political rather than intellectual, so it's best not to legitimize them by partaking. However, I would imagine it helps the semi-interested and receptive public think about the place of natural selection in science if we discuss it as the 20th-and-21st-century concept it is rather than the 19th-century concept it was. (By "semi-interested" I mean those who are neither well-educated in biology, nor keep up with science magazines that do, indeed, treat natural selection in a more contemporary way).

Two tangential points:

1) Popular debates about ID tend to reach their zenith around the point that ID is unscientific, because, by its nature, it is meant to close off further inquiry. But it strikes me as strange that it's not often mentioned that ID is antithetical to Darwin's major intellectual contribution, which was to propose a non-teleological mechanism for the evolution of species. Maybe too fine a point?

2) Thinking more about arguments in the sociology of science, do black boxes really represent "finished" science, or are they subjected to further, indirect scrutiny through their deployment in subsequent inquiries? In this case, natural selection, black boxed (for all intents and purposes) c. 1900, acquires additional intellectual robustness through successful deployment in subsequent science.

EPA: Value of American life drops to $6.9 Million

— It's not just the American dollar that's losing value. A government agency has decided that an American life isn't worth what it used to be. The "value of a statistical life" is $6.9 million in today's dollars, the Environmental Protection Agency reckoned in May — a drop of nearly $1 million from just five years ago.

American lives worth $1 million less than 2003

The value of an American life has fallen by nearly $1 million in five years, according to a US government agency.

While the "value of a statistical life" was considered to be between $7.8 million and $7.96 million from 1996 to 2003, today it is just $6.9 million, the Environmental Protection Agency says. The estimate is important because it is used by government agencies when drawing up regulations: they compare the cost of a proposed rule with its life-saving benefits according to the official value placed on a human life. Therefore the less a life is considered to be worth, the smaller the justification for costly legislation that could, for example, protect people from pollution because the measure would be seen as too expensive given the value of the lives saved. The EPA says the change is based on improved economic studies and consumer preferences. Rather than a human price tag, the "value of a statistical life" is based on what someone is prepared to pay to avoid certain risks as well as how much workers who take on additional risks are compensated by their employers, the agency says. The change was made in two stages. In 2004, the agency reduced the estimated value of a life to $7.15 million dollars. Then in May,  following a rule governing train and boat air pollution, the agency removed the normal adjustment for one year's inflation. The two changes added up to an 11 percent reduction in the value, based on today's dollar. Similar calculations by the Bush administration have proved highly controversial. In 2002, the EPA decided the value of elderly people was 38 percent less than that of people under 70. The agency reversed its position after the move became public.

Value of a Statistical Life (VSL)

Executive Order 12866 requires agencies to examine the costs and benefits of both proposed and final regulatory actions. DOT administrations promulgate rules to enhance safety and protect the environment, for which the monetary value of preventing injuries and loss of life must be estimated among the benefits. Administrations also undertake investments and administrative actions that must be evaluated in terms of their safety benefits.

Value of life: ... with a limited supply of resources or infrastructural capital (e.g. ambulances), or skill at hand, it is impossible to save every life, so some trade-off must be made. Also, this argumentation neglects the statistical context of the term. It is not commonly attached to lives of individuals or used to compare the value of one person's life relative to another person's. It is mainly used in circumstances of saving lives as opposed to taking or "producing" lives.

In risk management activities such as in the areas of workplace safety, and insurance, it is often useful to put a precise economic value on a given life.

Like Britain, America has to put valuation on human life ... insurance agencies and lawyers have done this for years. The human value is determined by the earning potential an individual has, computed by their age. No emotions can be included in the equation.  Insert your face into this dollar and re-adjust your ego.

The other deals with our inability to even begin to grasp the nature of Almighty God. Sure we know much about God from His word, but we must not think that we have Him figured out. However, I don't think we need to revert back to the method negative theology by only describing God by what He is not. 

So here we are—human—at once perfectly fitted with our five senses to relate to and understand our world and at the same time utterly inadequate to fathom the greatness of the One who made us this way.

I couldn't help but wonder about the efficacy of this sign. Do people actually drive more safely after reading it? Has anybody, upon reading that sign, said to themselves, "Yeah, I guess I'd better slow down, hang up the phone, and keep both hands on the wheel"?

Admittedly, it doesn't hurt to put up that sign, unless you count the tax dollars spent in creating it and installing it.

This sign also brought to mind the warning on a chainsaw that read, "Do not attempt to stop the blade with your bare hands." My thoughts upon reading this were, "Wow. I had no idea that this has been a problem." However, if somebody is so mentally impaired, either by drugs or lack of sufficient IQ, that they would try to stop that blade with their bare hands, does it help to tell them not to? Perhaps there is somebody, somewhere, who actually considered stopping the blade of a chainsaw in just such a manner, and then stopped to think, "Y'know, I'd better check the instruction manual to see if this is an approved procedure."

Father Allegedly Shoots Wife, Kidnaps Son, Then Gets Hit by Bus
AP via FOX News
Monday, July 07, 2008

SANTA ANA, Calif. — A desperate five-day search for a 9-year-old boy abducted by his father in Southern California ended in Mexico, where the man died after being hit by a bus and the boy was found safe across town, authorities said Monday.

Ryan Ramos was found alone Sunday in a Mormon church building in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, and arrived in Orange County early Monday, where he was reunited with his family, sheriff's spokesman Jim Amormino said.

He had been missing since Wednesday, when his father, Lonnie Ramos, 46, allegedly shot his estranged wife during a custody exchange and took off with their child.

Full Article

Lonnie Ramos, come on down! You have won the Darwin Award! Congratulations! This should happen to all criminals.

At least his family are alive and hopefully they will recover. Prayers to them.

En colaboración con Daniel Blanco

Resumen: En su artículo clásico (1979), Lewontin y Gould han esgrimido críticas -no siempre claras- contra el así llamado “programa adaptacionista”. Puesto que una "adaptación" -en uno de los sentidos más utilizados del vocablo- refiere a un rasgo cuya fijación en una población se explica por selección natural, el encuentro de adaptaciones ha sido considerado una heurística que guía a los biólogos en la aplicación de la teoría de la evolución por selección natural, procurando extender el campo de aplicación de la teoría a priori, y sin restricción alguna, al mejor estilo kuhneano. Este trabajo procura elucidar, breve, pero integralmente, las críticas contenidas en el artículo aludido, donde se reconocen objeciones de diversa índole, a saber: empíricas, metodológicas, conceptuales, y pragmáticas, aunque con solapamientos. Se evalúa el filo de algunas de ellas, y se estipula la utilidad potencial que elucidaciones conceptuales como las que se ofrecen aquí pueden tener para con la filosofía de la biología.

Abstract: In their classic paper (1979), Lewontin and Gould have put forward critical arguments –not in all the cases clearly expounded - against the so called “adaptationist program”. Since an “adaptation” –in one of the most used senses of the term- refers to a feature whose fixation in a population is explained by natural selection, finding adaptations has been considered an heuristic that leads biologists in the application of the theory of evolution by natural selection, intending (a priori, without any restriction and in a kuhnean manner) to extend the application field of the theory. This work expects, briefly, but completely, to explicate the critics that appear in the article in question, where different kinds of objections, including empirical, methodological, conceptual and pragmatical ones -though with overlapping-, are recognized. The scope of some of them is analyzed, and the potential usefulness for the philosophy of biology of conceptual explications as the ones offered here is stipulated.

En colaboración con Christián Carlos Carman.

Publicado en MARTINS, Roberto de Andrade; SILVA, Cibelle Celestino; FERREIRA, Juliana Mesquita Hidalgo; MARTINS, Lilian Al-Chueyr Pereira (eds.). Filosofia e história da ciência no Cone Sul. Seleção de trabalhos do 5º Encontro. Campinas: Associação de Filosofia e História da Ciência do Cone Sul (AFHIC), 2008, ISBN: 978-1-4357-1530-1, pp. 399-408.

Resumen:

Se ha acusado a la selección natural de ser irrefutable. “Irrefutabilidad”, sin embargo, es un concepto fuertemente polisémico. Es nuestra intención en este trabajo explorar los distintos sentidos en que se puede entender la irrefutabilidad y mostrar que sólo uno de estos, el que implica trivialidad a la hora de encontrar nuevas aplicaciones para una teoría, es negativo y puede ser utilizado de manera crítica hacia ésta. Daremos como ejemplo de esta irrefutabilidad la teoría ptolemaica de los epiciclos y deferentes e intentaremos mostrar que tal refutabilidad no se puede predicar de la selección natural.

Gráficos que aparecen en el texto animados:

Later that night, as my wife and I were discussing the new baby, the oldest son excused himself from bed and joined us in the living room, crying.  First, he wanted to know if it was okay to cry when we're happy.  Then, he wanted us to know that he would die, if necessary, to protect this new baby from harm ("robbers," actually).  This sense of joy and responsibilty that he felt to an unknown baby was very impressive and I remember thinking, "Kid's got character!"

I know I'm a doting Dad but that kid does have character.  And loads of it.  And everybody knows it.  And sometimes I wonder: Where does it come from?  Is it nature or is it nurture?  Can I take credit or is it part of one of God's grand designs?  Was he genetically predisposed to his character or did he learn it from me (Ha!)?  And what does it matter anyway?

I have to confess something about my nature.  It is in my predisposition to look at women lustfully.  That's right: "My name's Matt and I'm a man."  And if I wasn't a Christian, and if I wasn't worried about the consequences, and if I wasn't so (not) tall, dark and handsome, I might have had numerous sexual encounters with numerous women.  But I haven't even though it is in my nature!

Meanwhile, I was nurtured to be a one-woman-man.  My Dad was married to one woman all of her life and both of my grandpas are married to the "wives of their youth."  So my upbringing encouraged and led me to become a one-woman-man (which I am in every way).

My nurture says "one-woman-man," and my nature says "as many as possible;" and so there is a little nurture vs. nature battle that takes place inside me (and I'm neither a chauvinist nor a pervert).

Our post-modern, post-Christian society says: If it's in my nature then it must be okay because I was born that way.  (Ah, now you see where I am going with this, right?).

If I accept this hedonistic philosophy I can say: "If it's in my nature to sleep with lots of women then by golly I'll sleep with lots of women.  Consequences to my wife and kids be damned.  God's standards be damned.  I was born this way and I deserve to be happy!"  Certainly any reasonable person can see the many fallacies of such a philosophy.

So here's what I think about the whole Nature vs. Nurture debate as it pertains to who we are and our moral standards...

First: who we are is determined by four things in no particular order: (1) nature; (2) nurture; (3) the choices we make; and (4) the will of God.

Second: just because something is part of our nature doesn't mean that it's morally acceptable (in fact, most of our natural/base tendencies are morally reprehensible; see New Testament discussion on flesh/sinful nature). 

Third: neither nature nor nurture have any authority or bearing on determining what is right and wrong (the moral equivalence of natural selection is genocide).

Fourth: only a Being with creative authority over human experience has the right to determine what is right and wrong (for romance, for marriage, for society, for faith, etc.).

So the next person who tells me that what they are doing is "okay because they were born that way;" well, I'm just going to slap them because that's my natural inclination.

Yesterday was the 150th anniversary of the beginning of a biological revolution .  And in true Lee Harrison form, I bloody missed it and only find out a day later.  As it happens, it was also my daughter's fifth birthday but that's no excuse...

The full text of the paper as presented is available here and it's well worth a read.  It consists of:

1) an introductory letter by Charles Lyell and Joseph Hooker, which includes the following:

These gentlemen having, independently and unknown to one another, conceived the very same very ingenious theory to account for the appearance and perpetuation of varieties and of specific forms on our planet, may both fairly claim the merit of being original thinkers in this important line of inquiry; but neither of them having published his views, though Mr. Darwin has for many years past been repeatedly urged by us to do so, and both authors having now unreservedly placed their papers in our hands, we think it would best promote the interests of science that a selection from them should be laid before the Linnean Society.

2) an extract from a then unpublished book chapter called "On the Variation of Organic Beings in a state of Nature; on the Natural Means of Selection; on the Comparison of Domestic Races and true Species"  by Charles Darwin. This extract includes the following gem:

Now, can it be doubted, from the struggle each individual has to obtain subsistence, that any minute variation in structure, habits, or instincts, adapting that individual better to the new conditions, would tell upon its vigour and health? In the struggle it would have a better chance of surviving; and those of its offspring which inherited the variation, be it ever so slight, would also have a better chance. Yearly more are bred than can survive; the smallest grain in the balance, in the long run, must tell on which death shall fall, and which shall survive. Let this work of selection on the one hand, and death on the other, go on for a thousand generations, who will pretend to affirm that it would produce no effect, when we remember what, in a few years, Bakewell effected in cattle, and Western in sheep, by this identical principle of selection?

Take that, any pillock who blindly repeats the 'survival of the fittest is a tautology' crap.

3) an extract from a letter from Darwin to Asa Gray, where we find (among a meticulously argued stream of ideas) this:

Multiform difficulties will occur to every one, with respect to this theory. Many can, I think, be satisfactorily answered. Natura non facit saltum answers some of the most obvious. The slowness of the changes, and only a very few individuals undergoing change at any one time, answers others. The extreme imperfection of our geological record answers others.

If anyone's wondering, Natura non facit saltum translates to Nature does not make leaps.

4) A manuscript written by Alfred Russel Wallace titled "On the Tendency of Varieties to depart indefinitely from the Original Type"  containing this well written piece of gentle chiding:

The hypothesis of Lamarck---that progressive changes in species have been produced by the attempts of animals to increase the development of their own organs, and thus modify their structure and habits---has been repeatedly and easily refuted by all writers on the subject of varieties and species, and it seems to have been considered that when this was done the whole question has been finally settled; but the view here developed renders such an hypothesis quite unneccessary, by showing that similar results must be produced by the action of principles constantly at work in nature.

The importance of this revolution cannot be overstated.  Yes, Darwin got some things wrong - this is hardly surprising given that this was 150 years ago and he knew nothing of genetics.  What is amazing, though, is just how much he got right - the central priciple of natural selection is essentially unchanged. 

Darwin and Wallace took a loose collection of vaguely related fields of study and forged the links that bound them together into one unified science.  As Theodosius Dobzhansky said in a 1973 essay of the same name: "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"

This is a popular (nay, undying) urban legend, that humans only use some minute fraction of our brains. Usually it's around 10 %, but 8 and 4 % are also common. Where did these numbers come from? Literally, from nowhere. It's always been clear as day to me that this whole idea is foolish, but now I've found the origin of the myth. We'll get into that, after exploring the reasons this can't possibly be true.

Humans use all of their brains

Evolution is about being just good enough. Looking at the end result it doesn't always seem that way, but it's true. Our eyes are wondrous pieces of technology, far beyond our capability to invent or build. But they're also prone to myopia. But that's almost a metaphoric example, introduced to show that marvel isn't always perfection.

The reason evolution wants creatures to just get by is purely economic. Natural selection punishes anything that isn't fit enough, but too fit means investing too much energy, time, and other precious resources into something - this, also, is punished by selection. A cheetah who needed twice as much food as normal to build muscular legs to run faster will have less (or no!) children than its brother who runs more slowly, but also escapes predators.

Our brains total about 1.5 % of our body weight (this varies widely), but consume 20 % of our energy, which means our brains consume 20 % of the calories we eat in a day. This was a radical experiment! Selection would never allow this, unless the brain gave a tremendous return on investment.

The brain is broken into a number of discreet parts with specialized functions. We know this from a long history stretching back to Phineas Gage, a railroad worker who survived an iron rod more than an inch across and 7 inches long, being blown through his head. Amazingly, the man was able to speak within minutes, and to sit upright while being rushed to the hospital. His friends would later describe him as "not Gage" - his personality was instantly and forever changed. Phineas had trouble walking for much of his following life. In fact, we know a tremendous amount about brain function localization (see Ramachandran), and we know every "piece" has a role to play. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) confirms this, even in sleep.

Where did this come from, then?

Although the numbers change, this myth makes very specific descriptions - we use a particular amount of our brain. This leaves open the possibility that the remaining 90 % (or 92 or 96 %, etc) of our brains might allow us to fly, if only we could tap in! So, how do we come to this idea at all, and this number in particular?

In the 1930s, a general scientist named Karl Lashley experimented by cutting lesions into rat brains. Even missing a piece, the rats could survive, and relearn important functions. (This is explained by neuroplasticity.) Having removed many different parts of many different brains in many different rats, it seemed evident that none of them were truly required. On the other hand, if you were to remove all of these pieces from the same brain, the rat it lived in would surely die! Rather, the functions being studied were so vital, that they could be moved from one area to another inside a maleable brain.

We can learn from these experiments that a certain amount of redundancy is built into the system, for safety reasons.

What does it even mean?

What does it mean to use X % of one's brain, if X doesn't equal 0 or 100? There are many different ways a person could interpret this, but I don't think any of them are agreed to? I doubt anyone who repeats this myth even gives it much though.

On July 1, 1858, a joint paper that discussed the ideas of Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace was presented to the The Linnaean Society of London. During the course of this meeting, other society business was conducted and several additional papers were read and discussed. Since neither author was able to attend, the composite work was read by the Secretary of the society. 

Some historians of science have referred to this as a 'non-event' as reaction was so very muted, especially when compared to the reaction a mere 18 months later. Nevertheless, today marks the 150th anniversary of the theory of nature selection. 

This blog is unique in several ways. First, it is a weekly blog as I'll be posting the updates only on Tuesdays. Second, it has definte lifespan, dictated by 'bookend' dates that will signify the start and finish. Today's anniversary is the beginning. The end date will be June 30, 2010 which marks 150th anniversary of the Huxley/Wilberforce debate at Oxford on Darwin's ideas, one of the most famous debates in history. Additionally, this blog will celebrate the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin and the 150th anniversary of the publication of Origin of Species, one of the most important texts in human history.

This blog also will look forward into the future as well. Darwin wrote "The time will come I believe, though I shall not live to see it, when we shall have very fairly true genealogical trees of each great kingdom of nature" and the age of genomics has been the key to fulfilling this grand prediction. 

Our collective understanding of evolution, ecology, ethology, and physiology have all been greatly enhanced by the molecular biology of the 20th century and this will continue as each species has it's entire genome sequenced.

There are are millions of different species on planet Earth; yet, a limited amount of time and money to complete this job rapidly. As a result, this blog will focus on a set of very interesting, unique, or amazing species that should be earmarked to have their full library of genes decoded and recorded in the very near future. Hopefully, this blog will go beyond just a celebration of evolutionary theory and life on our globe and will also generate interest in studying a wider diversity of species than have been sequeced thus far. The true wealth of this world lies within the genosphere as understanding the solutions that nature has devised to a plethora of survival problems will yield great advances within medicine, agriculture, and energy production during the 21st century and beyond.    

As Darwin stated at the end of Origin  about this new way to understand the world: "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."
 

Exactly 150 years ago today Charles Darwin presented his and Alfred Russell Wallace's papers on the Theory of Evolution to the Linnaean Society. This officially marked the formal establishment of the Theory of Evolution. While Darwin had been working on the problem of natural selection and transformism for many years, Wallace had independently developed similar concepts, particularly while working in the Amazon basin and the Malay archipelago. Wallace was actually corresponding with Darwin, asking his elder naturalist for his thoughts on Wallace's work. Darwin's friends botanist Joseph Hooker and geologist Charles Lyell  urged him to present his work immediately (which he had been sitting on for nearly a decade in part in deference to his pious wife Emma) lest he be scooped by the young Wallace. Thusly, both Darwin and Wallace's papers were presented together as "On the tendency of species to form varieties; and on the perpetuation of varieties and species by natural means of selection." Darwin's paper was read first, however, giving him precedence and thus primary credit for the Theory.

For more information on Charles Darwin, click here. For more information about the diversity of life, click the picture.

Even Christians who believe in evolution would make the argument that homosexuality is unnatural - it does nothing to perpetuate the homosexual person's genes.  That's funny.  Obviously there is something about homosexuality that has resulted in the perpetuation of the "condition" in the human population at a relatively steady state.  If homosexuality is an "unfit" condition, why is it still around? 

Well it appears that an explanation for male homosexuality, and its persistence in the human population, has been discovered.  It seems that females in maternal lines where homosexuality is present (within the males of that line) are more fecund.

An Italian research team, consisting of Andrea Camperio Ciani and Giovanni Zanzotto at the University of Padova and Paolo Cermelli at the University of Torino, found that the evolutionary origin and maintenance of male homosexuality in human populations could be explained by a model based around the idea of sexually antagonistic selection, in which genetic factors spread in the population by giving a reproductive advantage to one sex while disadvantaging the other.

Male homosexuality is thought to be influenced by psycho-social factors, as well as having a genetic component. This is suggested by the high concordance of sexual orientation in identical twins and the fact that homosexuality is more common in males belonging to the maternal line of male homosexuals. These effects have not been shown for female homosexuality, indicating that these two phenomena may have very different origins and dynamics.

[...]  Only the model of sexually antagonistic selection involving at least two genes -- at least one of which must be on the X chromosome (inherited in males only through their mother) -- accounted for all the known data.

The results of this model show the interaction of male homosexuality with increased female fecundity within human populations, in a complex dynamic, resulting in the maintenance of male homosexuality at stable and relatively low frequencies, and highlighting the effects of heredity through the maternal line.

These findings provide new insights into male homosexuality in humans. In particular, they promote a focus shift in which homosexuality should not be viewed as a detrimental trait (due to the reduced male fecundity it entails), but, rather, should be considered within the wider evolutionary framework of a characteristic with gender-specific benefits, and which promotes female fecundity. This may well be the evolutionary origin of this genetic trait in human beings.

In other words, maternal lines with male homosexuality ("gay" genes) are more reproductively successful.  Thus, not only is homosexuality natural, it is beneficial to those families in which homosexuality is present.  Being gay is not an abomination...it's a celebration! 

Robin McKie has written an excellent article on this important anniversary and the history behind it in this Observer article. I suggest you read it.

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playground.php

I have produced a nice javascript demo of one of the basic concepts of evolution: natural (cumulative) selection. 

Don't get me wrong, I think Ben Stein is a very intelligent person.  Having said that I think when it came to taking attendance in biology class his teacher was saying: "Stein? Stein? Stein?".  Natural selection is simple concept but is easy to confuse.  Does anyone know what natural selection is "anyone? anyone?"

(If you don't catch my allusion, please watch : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbqDGQvobVA)

I got so annoyed with the repeated claim that evolution is a random process that I developed a javascript demonstration to show how evolution actually worked.  I'll say it one more time for all those who aren't quite sure:  "EVOLUTION IS NOT A RANDOM PROCESS."  The only thing 'random' (even chaotic will suffice) in the process is the generation of variability (diversity).  Natural selection is the exact opposite of random. It is a deliberate selection of traits which confer a higher fitness of individuals within a population.

So without further ado, here is the javascript demonstration of evolution in action:
http://www.rankyouragent.com/evolution/weasel.htm

I'm a science buff, and many of the groups I belong to, like the Skeptics Society, and the James Randi Educational Foundation, has travel tours of the Galapagos.  Even Scientific American magazine had a Galapagos tour.

The Galapagos, of course, is where a young Charles Darwin visited when developing the roots for what later would be called Natural Selection.  The Galapagos are also of note since they are islands that were not naturally inhabited by humans - so many of the animals and birds there did not develop a fear of humans.

What can I say - I hope I get to visit soon.

The Jamaicans were fourth at the last changeover before world record holder Asafa Powell ran down the leaders to finish in a time of 38.36 seconds.

South Africa took the silver medal in 38.98 and Canada the bronze in 39.21.

Hosts Australia were well placed at the final turn but fumbled the last baton change and did not finish. Jamaica were 0.16 outside England's Games record.

Nicholas Willis of New Zealand won the men's 1500m final in a race which saw Australian favourite Craig Mottram felled in a collision.

Mottram, the 5,000m silver medallist, was tripped when England's Andew Baddeley went down with two laps remaining at the MCG in Melbourne.

Both recovered to complete the race, Mottram finishing ninth and Baddeley last.

Willis finished in a time of three minutes 38.49seconds to take the gold, with Canada's Nathan Brannen second and Mark Fountain of Australia third.

Boniface Toroitich of Uganda won the men's 10,000m title in a close finish ahead of Kenya's Geoffrey Kipngeno and Faiban Naasi of Tanzania.

England's Gavin Thompson finished in eighth with a time of 29:41.77.

Australia took gold in the men's 4x400m relay final, with John Steffensen, Christopher Troode, Mark Ormrod, Clinton Hill coming home in three minutes 00.93 seconds.

South Africa took silver, and Jamaica bronze, with England's quartet of Andrew Steele, Robert Tobin, Marlon Devonish and Martyn Rooney just edged out of the medals.

I did get a laugh from that. I have a hard time putting natural selection and love in the same arena, much less the back of a small car. I called my friend and told him. He started laughing and mentioned that love is what propelled the Nazi's, not the theory of evolution. He's sarcastic too.

There was a part of me that wanted to just bump into him. Not hard enough to do damage, but enough that he would get out to see what was going on. Then I could get out, in anguish of course, saying how sorry I was and then move on to conversing about his critical selection of adhesive backed, stopped in traffic, reading material.

If he doesn't like Christianity, then just put a sticker on the car that says "Jesus is stupid" or something to that effect. If he doesn't approve of war, then he could just paint his car yellow. But no, this man is a thinking man's man. He most certainly went home and pondered the question "why" while eating ramen noodles and drinking green tea because that's what those kinds of people do. They think, then they put bumper stickers on their car to prove that they think in a way that no man has thunk before...I think.