"The common designation of 'evolution' then leads to one of the most frequent and portentous errors in our analysis of human life and history--the overly reductionist assumption that the Darwinian natural paradigm will fully encompass out social and technological history as well," p219.
More than any other reason, the quote exemplifies fear that inspires the desire to keep evolution out of classrooms. Slippery slope arguments that learning evolution will lead students to practice social Darwinism. I think we are capable of learning about natural selection without enforcing natural selection. Gould makes the case that human culture and social interactions defines humanity; ideas spread faster than natural selection and even though we are equipped with the same brain, our culture allows us to do so much more than our earliest ancestors.
"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," 230.
Darwin used these almost poet words to end the Origin of Species. Yes beautiful things have and are being evolved and yes some particularly nasty things have been evolved too. But everything that has ever lived has one thing in common: it came from an ancestor that survived long enough to replicate. Those survivors and reproducers are fulfilling their banal evolutionary goal; get some DNA into the next generation. Nature picks those winners and the variety and diversity of these winners is truly beautiful.
Sunday, August 17, 2014
Chp 14: The Power of the Modal Bacter, or Why the Tail Can't Wag the Dog p167-216
"All of the elements crucial to life--oxygen , nitrogen, phosphorus, sulfur, carbon--return to a usable form through the intervention of microbes....Ecology is based on the restorative decomposition of microbes and molds, acting on plants and animals after they have died to return their valuable chemical nutrients to the total living system of life on earth," p186.
Props to the guys behind the scene, the microbes, recycling the building blocks of life with the consequence that life can continue. The nitrogen cycle hinges on bacteria. The linchpin of understanding ecology lies in the understanding of the interactions amongst the bacteria. Clean energy, oil spills, fertilizers, medicine, all can be influenced by deep knowledge in the molecular interactions at the simplest level.
"One study doesn't prove a generality any more than a single swallow makes a summer, but when our first rigorous data point to a conclusion so at variance with traditional views, we must sit up and take notice, and [italics mine] then go out to make more tests," p208.
Science of course is skeptical and not eager to believe conclusions that are drawn from a single experiment. Peer review is important. But opposing the rigor of science is the gullibility of the public and the sometimes sensationalism of science writers. Too often, claims with novel ideas are published, but the studies inspired by scientists wishing to replicate the findings and unable to, rarely make the news. In Bad Pharma, Ben Goldacre describes an example of a scientific journal refusing to publish the data that refuted a study published previously in their own journal. As an undergrad and fifth author, I have an email attached to an non-influential journal, and I constantly am getting messages asking me to submit articles. I doubt the editors scrutinize received submissions too deeply. (That is another testable claim.)
"At any of a hundred thousand steps in the particular sequence that actually led to modern humans, a tiny and perfectly plausible variation would have produced a different outcome, making history cascade down another pathway that could never have led to Homo sapiens, or to any self-conscious creature...We are glorious accidents of an unpredictable process with no drive to complexity, not the expected results of evolutionary principles that yearn to produce a creature capable of understanding the mode of its own necessary construction," p215-216.
I think there is beauty in the view that we are accidents. That view makes me appreciate my existence more; of all the possible ways in which the history of life could have played out, this is the one that includes me and everyone that I know and love! I'm here and they are here. What should I be doing my gifted time? because whatever I do today, I trade one day of my life for it. Should be something good!
Chp 13: A Preliminary Example at the Smallest Scale, with Some Generalities on the Evolution of Body Size (p147-166)
"If forams smaller than 150 micrometers exist (and they do), they end up in the sink and do not appear in the figures," p158.
I am astounded that scientists would come to the conclusion that the size of forams [Foraminifera] is increasing, knowing that they are neglecting and failing to record all forams smaller than 150 micrometers. It is like having the hypothesis that suspect X is the murderer and ignoring all evidence that points to other suspects. Obviously, the data supports your hypothesis if you ignore all other data. The book, Bad Pharma, illustrates that drug companies make this error when they stop drug trials midway through the trial. If the data supports the drug: publish; if the data shows that the drug is harmful or no better than a placebo: do not publish. Therefore, the research that drug companies are doing to test their own drugs is disproportionately in favor of their drugs.
"There is no apparent...tendency to favor size increase; there is no strong indication of size-dependent longevity, and there is no indication of size dependence in speciation or extinction rates," p161
Gould uses the example of forams' size as a substitute for complexity. It taken for granted that throughout evolutionary time, size of the forams increased just as the obvious fact of increasing complexity and progress throughout evolutionary time. Both have little evidence to back it up (Gould is extremely convincing in his argument.) I see the connection, but I am wondering if the findings of "no indication of size dependence in speciation or extinction rates" is transferable to complex organisms. Gould does not answer my question in the following chapters, but I have a hunch (obviously a very testable hunch, and I know the danger of hunches) that more complex organisms and more specialized organisms are more prone to extinction.
I am astounded that scientists would come to the conclusion that the size of forams [Foraminifera] is increasing, knowing that they are neglecting and failing to record all forams smaller than 150 micrometers. It is like having the hypothesis that suspect X is the murderer and ignoring all evidence that points to other suspects. Obviously, the data supports your hypothesis if you ignore all other data. The book, Bad Pharma, illustrates that drug companies make this error when they stop drug trials midway through the trial. If the data supports the drug: publish; if the data shows that the drug is harmful or no better than a placebo: do not publish. Therefore, the research that drug companies are doing to test their own drugs is disproportionately in favor of their drugs.
"There is no apparent...tendency to favor size increase; there is no strong indication of size-dependent longevity, and there is no indication of size dependence in speciation or extinction rates," p161
Gould uses the example of forams' size as a substitute for complexity. It taken for granted that throughout evolutionary time, size of the forams increased just as the obvious fact of increasing complexity and progress throughout evolutionary time. Both have little evidence to back it up (Gould is extremely convincing in his argument.) I see the connection, but I am wondering if the findings of "no indication of size dependence in speciation or extinction rates" is transferable to complex organisms. Gould does not answer my question in the following chapters, but I have a hunch (obviously a very testable hunch, and I know the danger of hunches) that more complex organisms and more specialized organisms are more prone to extinction.
Chp 12: The Bare Bones of Natural Selection p 135-146
"As an adult, the famous parasite Sacculina, a barnacle by ancestry, looks like a formless bag of reproductive tissue attached to the underbelly of its crab host (with 'roots' of equally formless tissue anchored within the body of the crab itself)--a devilish device to be sure (at least by our aesthetic standards), but surely less anatomically complex than the barnacle on the bottom of your boat, waving its legs through the water in search of food," p139.
I had to look this creature up.
I had to look this creature up.
from toptenz.net/top-10-zombie-parasites.php
Supposedly it tricks the crab into taking care of the primitive sac as if it were the crab's own eggs. I am amazed that this parasite has the ability to manipulate the actions of its host to help Sacculina complete its life cycle. Parasites like this make a strong case for the possibility of a zombie apocalypse. Rabies already infects and controls the brains of dogs and bats to increase its prevalence and infects humans. If a mutation causes a change in the rabies virus where it would exploit humans to extend its life cycle (creating a rabid, violent, and a human-munching desire) that might be the start of World War Z.
"Natural selection can forge local adaptation--wondrously intricate in some cases, but always local and not a step in a series of general progress or complexification," p140.
I couldn't agree more. Natural selection works as a response to the particular environment. Behaviors that were selected for created a dodo bird that was perfectly adapted to life on a predatorless deserted island (not wasting energy on flight, not wasting resources protecting the nest). Natural selection did not have the foresight to worry about losing these defense mechanisms in a world without a need for defenses. Once predators were introduced, the change was too rapid and the dodo's were doomed; the dodo's would have been better off with the consistent selection pressure of predators and nest attackers. Dodo's would have kept their ability to fly. Sometimes it concerns me that humans are constantly fighting natural selection, but at the same time I have to be compassionate enough. Humans are constantly allowed to survive with traits that would have made death inevitable in the earliest days of man. Ex. If I broke my leg, I wouldn't be able to hunt. If I had bad vision, a lion might capture me. If I needed a Cesarean section to deliver a child, I'd be a goner. We are constantly fighting natural selection, which is the beauty of man.
Monday, August 11, 2014
Chp 11: A Philosophical Conclusion p129-132
"When the idiots on both sides in the great pissing contest of 1994 (otherwise known as a labor dispute) aborted the season and canceled the World Series, Tony Gwynn was batting 0,392 and on the rise," p132.
Tony Gwynn was awesome. A God amongst mortals; career more 4 hit games than 2 strike-out games. 434 career strikeouts in 10,232 appearances. Gwynn faced the bets pitchers and put up these numbers, yet never broke 0.400. 0.400 may never happen again unless the rules are changed. Clearly baseball is entering the realm of consistent excellence and stable averages.
Tony Gwynn was awesome. A God amongst mortals; career more 4 hit games than 2 strike-out games. 434 career strikeouts in 10,232 appearances. Gwynn faced the bets pitchers and put up these numbers, yet never broke 0.400. 0.400 may never happen again unless the rules are changed. Clearly baseball is entering the realm of consistent excellence and stable averages.
Chp 10: Why the Death of 0.400 Hitting Records Improvement of Play p111-128
"As a fine symbol of broader tolerance and variation, the 1896 Philadelphia Phillies actually experimented for seventy-three games with a lefty shortstop...He stank..." p113
I love baseball. And I think why I enjoy reading this book so much. Before this fact, Gould lists the pitcher as covering first base, the development of the cutoff play, the hit-and-run and signals from runners to batter as occurring in the 1890s. Things that I took as common place in baseball actually had to have their origins, but once they originated, the tactics spread like wildfire. Coaches invent something novel in baseball, but when others see that it works, it would be asinine not to adopt the strategy. Examples: coaches figured that they could waste time so they can have the clubhouse look at the video before requesting a replay. What an obvious strategy employed by all; although this tactic begs regulation.
"The list of the hundred best seasonal ERAs shows a remarkable imbalance. More than 90 percent of the entries were achieved before 1920," p126
This fact is the proof of the pudding for Gould. Hitting didn't become worse. Pitching alone didn't improve. Everything improved and the outliers disappeared. I would venture to say that any team, even the worst teams would be able to beat champions in the 1920s.
Gould made a similar point about evolution in his book Wonderful Life, phylum diversity was rich, but once competition created specialized species, a drastically new phylum would have so much pre-established competitors that phylum diversity decreased.
Chp 9: 0.400 Hitting Dies as the Right Tail Shrinks p98-110
"…I remain an adamant opponent of the DH rule -- the one vital subject in our culture that permits no middle ground. You gotta either love it or hate it," p99
The Milwaukee Brewers switched from the American League to the National League and the Houston Astros recently switched in the opposite direction. I for one side with Gould and hate the DH. No one should be able to specialize in batting and be allowed to only bat. Yes, some pitchers suck at hitting, but a pitcher with a bat can change the game. Greg Maddux was a great hitting pitcher. CC Sabathia loved batting with the Brewers after getting DH'd his entire career. Having the pitcher bat intrinsically protects batters; what pitcher would want to bean a batter knowing that he's on deck the next half inning.
"Several years later I redid the study by a better, albeit far more laborious, method of calculating the conventional measure of total variation -- the standard deviation--for all regular players in each year (three weeks at the computer for my research assistant--and did he ever relish the break from measuring snails!--rather than several enjoyable personal hours propped up in bed with the Baseball Encyclopedia)," p 106
This sentence exemplifies Gould's writing; long (four long dashes, an explanation point in the middle of it) but still is very understandable. The sentence sticks out in particular because it displays how scholars enter the ranks of scientists. We have no idea who this research assistant was, Gould doesn't mention their name. S/he spent 3 weeks to basically make a graph that Gould could analyze. Undergrad, graduate school, then a research assistant for one of the greatest evolutionary biologists in the world and you are stuck researching baseball stats one player at a time for every baseball season. Science can sometimes be unfulfilling, yet I imagine that every scientist has a story about how they spent too much time on a unfruitful project.
Chp 8: A Plausibility Argument for General improvement p89-97
"(False extrapolations of human populations-in a few centuries, for example, humans will form a solid mass equal to the volume of the earth and no escape into outer space will be possible because the rate of increase will cause the diameter of this human sphere to grow at greater than the speed of light..." p96
Hilarious. I guess this is one reason why we need to extrapolate with caution and only extrapolate for the short term. I think Mark Twain said something about the length of the Mississippi River being negative in a few millennium. A solution is more data and better models. There may be a linear trend in the decrease of female Boston marathon times, but obviously there must be a lower limit as they approach the physical limit. So in experimentation, vary the independent variable to see a bigger slice of data.
Chp 7: Conventional Explanation p 80-88
"I shall show that general improvement in hitting has not only kept pace with betterment in other aspects of play, but that baseball has constantly fiddled with its rules to assure that major factors remain in balance." p88
I feel this sentiment is contrary to Gould's statement on page 78: "Where else can you find a system that has operated with unchanged rules for a century (thus permitting meaningful comparison throughout)…" I am too lazy to look up the standard deviation of batting average or the difference between the top 5 and bottom 5 batting averages in the league. I wonder if there was a change at all or if the trends Gould noticed continued. Now we have a pitch tracker that tightens the strike zone across the league, steroids that plagued the 90s and 2000s, ball parks with limited space in foul territory, essentially creating a ballpark favoring the hitter. How does can Gould decide what constitutes a minimal difference in rules? just because the mean batting average didn't change.
|
Chp 6: Stating the Problem p77-79
"Boston Red Sox manager Joe McCarthy had offered to let [Ted] Williams sit out the meaningless doubleheader of the season's last day (the Yankees had clinched the pennant long before). Williams's average stood at 0.3995, and would have rounded up to an even 0.400," p77
Even in 1941, players were concerned about statistics and I applaud Williams for opting to play in the doubleheader. The reminds me of the duel between Ryan Braun and Jose Reyes for the batting title in 2011. Jose Reyes recorded a bunt single in his first at bat and sat out the rest of the meaningless game knowing that he'd probably hold on to the title unless Braun had an amazing day at the plate. To say that Jose Reyes behaved unethical compared to Ryan Braun seems laughable, but stat padding goes against the spirit of the game. If you're not injured or need a rest, play. When Favre allowed, and I'm only speculating that he allowed Michael Strahan to break the sack record, I was disgusted. Not only the sack look bad for the offensive lineman of Green Bay, the previous record holder deserved to have his record stand because the record was difficult to accomplish in the first place. Give the offensive line a chance to prevent the record, give the pitchers the opportunity to shut Reyes and Williams down. That's why the fans watch sports; not to watch records made and broken, but to watch people give their all.
Even in 1941, players were concerned about statistics and I applaud Williams for opting to play in the doubleheader. The reminds me of the duel between Ryan Braun and Jose Reyes for the batting title in 2011. Jose Reyes recorded a bunt single in his first at bat and sat out the rest of the meaningless game knowing that he'd probably hold on to the title unless Braun had an amazing day at the plate. To say that Jose Reyes behaved unethical compared to Ryan Braun seems laughable, but stat padding goes against the spirit of the game. If you're not injured or need a rest, play. When Favre allowed, and I'm only speculating that he allowed Michael Strahan to break the sack record, I was disgusted. Not only the sack look bad for the offensive lineman of Green Bay, the previous record holder deserved to have his record stand because the record was difficult to accomplish in the first place. Give the offensive line a chance to prevent the record, give the pitchers the opportunity to shut Reyes and Williams down. That's why the fans watch sports; not to watch records made and broken, but to watch people give their all.
Looking up the history, a player sitting to preserve the batting title happened more times that I expected.
Saturday, August 9, 2014
Chp 5: Case Two: Life's Little Joke p57-73
"Modern horses, in other words, are failures within a failure-about the worst possible exemplars of evolutionary progress, whatever such a term might mean," p71.
Gould is making an argument that I am having a difficult time fully grasping. I am understanding Gould's argument that evolution is about pruning a copious tree and that the evolution of modern horses cannot be looked at as progression. But to say that modern horses are a failure? True to say that horses are the last genus of a once diverse lineage, but to say that an existing species is a failure? A failure by what definition? They've had local disappearances, but the fact that horses still are around shows that they are still more successful than extant organisms. Horses are fulfilling their evolutionary role...survive long enough to reproduce. Who cares if the closest relatives are not around?
"Steady perissodactyl decline has been matched by a reciprocal rise to dominance of the contrasting artiodactyls, once a small group in the shadow of ruling perissodactyls, and now the most abundant order, by far, of large-bodied mammals, p72.
I still disagree with Gould's argument that modern horses are failures. Yes, the order might have only three surviving groups with seventeen species (horses 8 rhinos 5 and tapirs 4) and is losing ground to the artiodactyls, but they still have their niche. I doubt they could ever dominate the plains like competitors of a different order. Don't call modern horses a failure until they are extinct. I'd like to purpose a rewording for the first quote: "Modern horses, in other words, are fortunate survivors within a failing group..."
Gould is making an argument that I am having a difficult time fully grasping. I am understanding Gould's argument that evolution is about pruning a copious tree and that the evolution of modern horses cannot be looked at as progression. But to say that modern horses are a failure? True to say that horses are the last genus of a once diverse lineage, but to say that an existing species is a failure? A failure by what definition? They've had local disappearances, but the fact that horses still are around shows that they are still more successful than extant organisms. Horses are fulfilling their evolutionary role...survive long enough to reproduce. Who cares if the closest relatives are not around?
"Steady perissodactyl decline has been matched by a reciprocal rise to dominance of the contrasting artiodactyls, once a small group in the shadow of ruling perissodactyls, and now the most abundant order, by far, of large-bodied mammals, p72.
I still disagree with Gould's argument that modern horses are failures. Yes, the order might have only three surviving groups with seventeen species (horses 8 rhinos 5 and tapirs 4) and is losing ground to the artiodactyls, but they still have their niche. I doubt they could ever dominate the plains like competitors of a different order. Don't call modern horses a failure until they are extinct. I'd like to purpose a rewording for the first quote: "Modern horses, in other words, are fortunate survivors within a failing group..."
Chp 4: Case One: A Personal Story p45-56
"...we cannot overcome obstacles with ignorance," p46
I am struggling to think of an obstacle where ignorance is better than knowledge. Maybe a child's temporary ignorance is better than knowledge, especially if that knowledge is hard to understand quickly. Does a child need to know why she cannot play in the street? Or why fires are dangerous? No; a child's ignorance can be buffered by a trust and obedience in a guiding adult. But as adults, the more knowledge we have the better informed our decision will be in our attempts to overcome obstacles.
"But trying to keep an intellectual from books is about as effective as...ordering someone not to think about a rhinoceros," p46-7
The quote and my reflection on it is a tangent from the general theme of the book and chapter, but the quote is thought provoking nonetheless (I realize I made an unavoidable but unintentional tautology). Can we control the thoughts in our head, or are we products of our surroundings? I read the word rhinoceros and could not help but picture a rhinoceros. Maybe I could have avoided reading the book, but did I have a choice in the matter? I saw the book in the library, I designed this project because I learned it through a colleague. Do I have the control over anything I do, or is my life predetermined? It may be the latter, but who would live their life like that?
Chp 3 Different Parsings, Different Images of Trends p30-42
"...a famous statistician once showed a precise correlation between arrests for public drunkenness and the number of Baptist preachers in nineteenth-century America" p32
Correlation does not equal causation, but it is so easy to think that when two events occur concomitantly, one must cause the other. This pattern seeking serves us well in nature; we eat a berry and feel sick later that evening. Conclusion: the berry caused sickness and therefore I should avoid that type of berries in the future. Here we see that error in the vaccine scare: vaccines are given and now the child shows signs of autism; its easy for mothers to draw the conclusion that vaccines cause autism. Even though we have the science to debunk that falsity, the scare continues.
"...spin doctors for politicians in power often use mean incomes to paint dishonestly bright pictures," p37
Stats can be made to say anything. I remember a drivers education book that persuaded individuals to wear seat belts by negating one reason not to wear seat belts with a statistic. One anti-seat belt phrase was, and I'm paraphrasing, "I'm only going a short distance. I don't need to wear my seat belt." The book's response "95% of car accidents happen within 25 miles from home." First I thought, my God, it must be super safe once you leave the 25 mile radius of your house. Then I realized that probably 95% of driving occurs within 25 miles of one's home. Proximity of your house has nothing to do with the occurrence of accidents, but the authors wanted to tell whatever story they wanted to with their stats.
Chp 2 Darwin Amidst the Spin Doctors p17-29
"Sounds mighty nice and cozy, but I'll be damned if it means anything," p27
Gould was referring to those foisting their beliefs about love and humanity defying the natural laws of entropy. Sounds good, but is it realistic? I often ponder, is there something unique about humans that cannot eventually be explained away by science eventually? Are we just a bundle of molecules and atoms working together to form us? Is our brain just a serious of on and off switches that we have no absolute free will in controlling? These are tough and scary questions, and to listen to those that claim to have 'nice and cozy' answer can be comforting, but is there enough evidence for me to believe in their claims? There likely is and always will be things that exist outside the measurable, outside the testable and the observable, outside the realm of science. How can others then purport such knowledge?
"Nothing could be more antithetical to intellectual reform than an appeal against thoughtful scrutiny of our most hidebound mental habits - notions so "obviously" true that we stopped thinking about them generations ago, and moved them into our hearts and bosoms." p 28
This reminds me of a few of my favorite quotes.
"If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things." - Descartes
"Whatever may be the limitations which trammel inquiry elsewhere we believe the great state University of Wisconsin should ever encourage that continual and fearless sifting and winnowing by which alone the truth can be found." -1894 Ely trial committee final report
Nothing should be exempt from scrutiny. In science, we must require ample evidence to make a claim and demand worthy, universal and repeatable evidence from the claim-makers. No hypothesis or idea, as longstanding and accepted as it may be, deserves to be accepted unless it undergoes the sifting and winnowing of inquiry. Experiment.
Gould was referring to those foisting their beliefs about love and humanity defying the natural laws of entropy. Sounds good, but is it realistic? I often ponder, is there something unique about humans that cannot eventually be explained away by science eventually? Are we just a bundle of molecules and atoms working together to form us? Is our brain just a serious of on and off switches that we have no absolute free will in controlling? These are tough and scary questions, and to listen to those that claim to have 'nice and cozy' answer can be comforting, but is there enough evidence for me to believe in their claims? There likely is and always will be things that exist outside the measurable, outside the testable and the observable, outside the realm of science. How can others then purport such knowledge?
"Nothing could be more antithetical to intellectual reform than an appeal against thoughtful scrutiny of our most hidebound mental habits - notions so "obviously" true that we stopped thinking about them generations ago, and moved them into our hearts and bosoms." p 28
This reminds me of a few of my favorite quotes.
"If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things." - Descartes
"Whatever may be the limitations which trammel inquiry elsewhere we believe the great state University of Wisconsin should ever encourage that continual and fearless sifting and winnowing by which alone the truth can be found." -1894 Ely trial committee final report
Nothing should be exempt from scrutiny. In science, we must require ample evidence to make a claim and demand worthy, universal and repeatable evidence from the claim-makers. No hypothesis or idea, as longstanding and accepted as it may be, deserves to be accepted unless it undergoes the sifting and winnowing of inquiry. Experiment.
Wednesday, August 6, 2014
A Modest Proposal - p.1-4
"We must give up a conventional notion of human dominion, but we learn to cherish particulars, of which we are but one, and to revel in complete ranges to which we contribute a precious point," (p 4)
Huxley’s Chessboard p7-16
“We are the possessors of one extraordinary evolutionary invention called consciousness...” p15
Humans are unique and what makes us unique is consciousness. Something that I've always wondered about is, "What was it like to be the first human to develop consciousness?" I do not even have a decent definition of consciousness: what is the line that needs to be crossed for a species to be conscious? Do they need to be aware of their mortality? have a developed language? understand feelings of others? have feelings? As I write this, I am becoming less sure that humans are the only conscious animals.
Humans are unique and what makes us unique is consciousness. Something that I've always wondered about is, "What was it like to be the first human to develop consciousness?" I do not even have a decent definition of consciousness: what is the line that needs to be crossed for a species to be conscious? Do they need to be aware of their mortality? have a developed language? understand feelings of others? have feelings? As I write this, I am becoming less sure that humans are the only conscious animals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)