Why? Because Jerry Coyne can mention this amazing conference, I can take a look at the luminaries speaking at it, and decide at the drop of a hat that I’m going. So this weekend, I’ll be spending my Halloween at a major conference on evolution. Yay!
Look forward to lots of liveblogging (I hope…if they have wi-fi in the conference halls. If not, there will be some massive data dumps in the evenings.)
Yesterday, I got a brief mention of a botch of a radio show on NPR that nattered on about a “deep rift” in atheism, but this morning on MPR you could have heard Richard Dawkins talking about evolution. He got the better gig.
This interview does make clear one difference in strategy between Dawkins and myself. The interviewer tries to hammer him on being less than respectful to religious believers, and Dawkins is always polite and tries his best to downplay the conflict. In a similar situation, I’d simply say, “Yes, I am openly contemptuous of religious belief. You want to make something of it?”
I guess I’m meaner than Dawkins.
Uh-oh! Deep rift, deep rift, DEEP RIFT!
One of my favorite examples of the step-by-step evolution of molecules has been the work coming out of Joe Thornton’s lab on glucocorticoid receptors. It’s marvelous stuff that nails down the changes, nucleotide by nucleotide.
It’s also work that Michael Behe called “piddling”, despite the fact that it directly addresses the claims of irreducible complexity. Have you ever noticed how the creationists will make grand demands (show me how a duck evolved from a crocodile!) and then reject every piece of fossil evidence you might show them because there are still “gaps”? This is the converse of that argument: when you’ve got a system where you can show each tiny molecular/genetic change, they dismiss that as trivial. You really can’t win.
Well, Thornton has been working hard and coming up with more and more details, while Behe is still sitting there, eyes clamped shut and ears stoppered, insisting that IT CAN’T HAPPEN LALALALAALALALALAAAA. Behe threw together some dreck claiming that not only didn’t Thornton’s work demonstrate evolution, but it actually supported Intelligent Design creationism!
Boy, did he make a mistake.
Remember how when the creationists started playing games with his work, it roused Richard Lenski to slap down Conservapædia hard? We’ve got a similar situation here.
Joe Thornton has written a beautiful response to Michael Behe.
Read it. Really. It’s a whole lesson in important principles in evolutionary theory all by itself. It exposes the ignorance of Behe through and through, and demolishes the premises of Behe’s latest foolish book. And it made me feel soooo gooooood.
I was just catching up on a few blogs, and noticed all this stuff I missed about Jonathan Wells’ visit to Oklahoma. And then I read Wells’ version of the event, and just about choked on my sweet mint tea.
The next person–apparently a professor of developmental biology–objected that the film ignored facts showing the unity of life, especially the universality of the genetic code, the remarkable similarity of about 500 housekeeping genes in all living things, the role of HOX genes in building animal body plans, and the similarity of HOX genes in all animal phyla, including sponges. 1Steve began by pointing out that the genetic code is not universal, but the questioner loudly complained that 2he was not answering her questions. I stepped up and pointed out that housekeeping genes are similar in all living things because without them life is not possible. I acknowledged that HOX gene mutations can be quite dramatic (causing a fly to sprout legs from its head in place of antennae, for example), but 3HOX genes become active midway through development, 4long after the body plan is already established. 5They are also remarkably non-specific; for example, if a fly lacks a particular HOX gene and a comparable mouse HOX gene is inserted in its place, the fly develops normal fly parts, not mouse parts. Furthermore, 6the similarity of HOX genes in so many animal phyla is actually a problem for neo-Darwinism: 7If evolutionary changes in body plans are due to changes in genes, and flies have HOX genes similar to those in a horse, why is a fly not a horse? Finally, 8the presence of HOX genes in sponges (which, everyone agrees, appeared in the pre-Cambrian) still leaves unanswered the question of how such complex specified genes evolved in the first place.
The questioner became agitated and shouted out something to the effect that HOX gene duplication explained the increase in information needed for the diversification of animal body plans. 9I replied that duplicating a gene doesn’t increase information content any more than photocopying a paper increases its information content. She obviously wanted to continue the argument, but the moderator took the microphone to someone else.
It blows my mind, man, it blows my freakin’ mind. How can this guy really be this stupid? He has a Ph.D. from UC Berkeley in developmental biology, and he either really doesn’t understand basic ideas in the field, or he’s maliciously misrepresenting them…he’s lying to the audience. He’s describing how he so adroitly fielded questions from the audience, including this one from a professor of developmental biology, who was no doubt agitated by the fact that Wells was feeding the audience steaming balls of rancid horseshit. I can’t blame her. That was an awesomely dishonest/ignorant performance, and Wells is proud of himself. People should be angry at that fraud.
I’ve just pulled out this small, two-paragraph fragment from his longer post, because it’s about all I can bear. I’ve flagged a few things that I’ll explain — the Meyer/Wells tag team really is a pair of smug incompetents.
1The genetic code is universal, and is one of the pieces of evidence for common descent. There are a few variants in the natural world, but they are the exceptions that prove the rule: they are slightly modified versions of the original code that are derived by evolutionary processes. For instance, we can find examples of stop codons in mitochondria that have acquired an amino acid translation. You can read more about natural variation in the genetic code here.
2That’s right, he wasn’t answering her questions. Meyer was apparently bidding for time until the big fat liar next to him could get up a good head of steam.
3This implication that Hox gene expression is irrelevant because it is “late” was a staple of Wells’ book, Icons of Evolution and the Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design. It’s a sham. The phylotypic stage, when the Hox genes are exhibiting their standard patterns of expression, of humans is at 4-5 weeks (out of 40 weeks), and in zebrafish it’s at 18-24 hours. These are relatively early events. The major landmarks before this period are gastrulation, when major tissue layers are established, and neurulation, when the neural tube forms. Embryos are like elongate slugs with the beginnings of a few tissues before this time.
4What? Patterned Hox gene expression is associated with the establishment of the body plan. Prior to this time, all the embryonic chordate has of a body plan is a couple of specified axes, a notochord, and a dorsal nerve tube. The pharyngula stage/phylotypic stage is the time when Hox gene expression is ordered and active, when organogenesis is ongoing, and when the hallmarks of chordate embryology, like segmental myotomes, a tailbud, and branchial arches are forming.
5Hox genes are not non-specific. They have very specific patterning roles; you can’t substitute abdominal-B for labial, for instance. They can be artificially swapped between individuals of different phyla and still function, which ought, to a rational person, be regarded as evidence of common origin, but they definitely do instigate the assembly of different structures in different species, which is not at all surprising. When you put a mouse gene in a fly, you are transplanting one gene out of the many hundreds of developmental genes needed to build an eye; the eye that is assembled is built of 99% fly genes and 1% (and a very early, general 1%) mouse genes. If it did build a mouse eye in a fly, we’d have to throw out a lot of our understanding of molecular genetics and become Intelligent Design creationists.
Hox genes are initiators or selectors; they are not the embryonic structure itself. Think of it this way: the Hox genes just mark a region of the embryo and tell other genes to get to work. It’s as if you are contracting out the building of a house, and you stand before your subcontractors and tell them to build a wall at some particular place. If you’ve got a team of carpenters, they’ll build one kind of wall; masons will build a different kind.
6No, the similarity of Hox genes is not a problem. It’s an indicator of common descent. It’s evidence for evolution.
7Good god.
Why is a fly not a horse? Because Hox genes are not the blueprint, they are not the totality of developmental events that lead to the development of an organism. You might as well complain that the people building a tarpaper shack down by the railroad tracks are using hammers and nails, while the people building a MacMansion on the lakefront are also using hammers and nails, so shouldn’t their buildings come out the same? Somebody who said that would be universally regarded as a clueless moron. Ditto for a supposed developmental biologist who thinks horses and flies should come out the same because they both have Hox genes.
8You can find homeobox-containing genes in plants. All that sequence is is a common motif that has the property of binding DNA at particular nucleotide sequences. What makes for a Hox gene, specifically, is its organization into a regulated cluster. How such genes and gene clusters could arise is simply trivial in principle, although working out the specific historical details of how it happened is more complex and interesting.
The case of sponges is enlightening, because they show us an early step in the formation of the Hox cluster. Current thinking is that sponges don’t actually have a Hox cluster (the first true Hox genes evolved in cnidarians), they have a Hox-like cluster of what are called NK genes. Apparently, grouping a set of transcription factors into a complex isn’t that uncommon in evolution.
9If you photocopy a paper, the paper doesn’t acquire more information. But if you’ve got two identical twins, A who is holding one copy of the paper, and B who is holding two copies of the same paper, B has somewhat more information. Wells’ analogy is a patent red herring.
The ancestral cnidarian proto-Hox cluster is thought to have contained four Hox genes. Humans have 39 Hox genes organized into four clusters. Which taxon contains more information in its Hox clusters? This is a trick question for Wells; people with normal intelligence, like most of you readers, would have no problem recognizing that 39 is a bigger number than 4. Jonathan Wells seems to have missed that day in his first grade arithmetic class.
It’s appalling, but this is the Discovery Institute’s style: to trot out a couple of crackpots with nice degrees, who then proceed to make crap up while pretending to be all sincere and informed and authoritative. It’s an annoying trick, and I can understand entirely why a few intelligent people with actual knowledge in the audience might find the performance infuriating. I do, too.
It’s yet another transitional fossil! Are you tired of them yet?
Darwinopterus modularis is a very pretty fossil of a Jurassic pterosaur, which also reveals some interesting modes of evolution; modes that I daresay are indicative of significant processes in development, although this work is not a developmental study (I wish…having some pterosaur embryos would be exciting). Here it is, one gorgeous animal.
One important general fact you need to understand to grasp the significance of this specimen: Mesozoic flying reptiles are not all alike! There are two broad groups that can be distinguished by some consistent morphological characters.
The pterosaurs are the older of the two groups, appearing in the late Triassic. They tend to have relatively short skulls with several distinct openings, long cervical (neck) ribs, a short metacarpus (like the palm or sole of the foot), a long tail (with some exceptions), and an expanded flight membrane suspended between the hind limbs, called the cruropatagium. They tend to be small to medium-sized.
The pterodactyls are a more derived group that appear in the late Jurassic. Their skulls are long and low, and have a single large opening in front of the eyes, instead of two. Those neck ribs are gone or reduced, they have a long metacarpus and short tails, and they’ve greatly reduced the cruropatagium. Some of the pterodactyls grew to a huge size.
Here’s a snapshot of their distribution in time and phylogenetic relationships. The pterosaurs are in red, and the pterodactyls are in blue.
Darwinopterus is in there, too—it’s the small purple box numbered “7”. You can see from this diagram that it is a pterosaur in a very interesting position, just off the branch that gave rise to the pterodactyls. How it got there is interesting, too: it’s basically a pterosaur body with the head of a pterodactyl. Literally. The authors of this work carried out multiple phylogenetic analyses, and if they left the head out of the data, the computer would spit out the conclusion that this was a pterosaur; if they left the body out and just analyzed the skull, the computer would declare it a pterodactyl.
What does this tell us about evolution in general? That it can be modular. The transitional form between two species isn’t necessarily a simple intermediate between the two in all characters, but may be a mosaic: the anatomy may be a mix of pieces that resemble one species more than the other. In this case, what happened in the evolution of the pterodactyls was that first a pterodactyl-like skull evolved in a pterosaur lineage, and that was successful; later, the proto-pterodactyls added the post-cranial specializations. Not everything happened all at once, but stepwise.
This should be a familiar concept. In pterodactyls, skulls evolved a specialized morphology first, and the body was shaped by evolutionary processes later. We can see a similar principle in operation in the hominid lineage, too, but switched around. We evolved bipedalism first, in species like Ardipithecus and Australopithecus, and the specializations of our skull (to contain that big brain of which we are so proud) came along later.
As I mentioned at the beginning, this is an example of development and evolution in congruence. We do find modularity in developmental process — we have genetic circuits that are expressed in tissue- and region-specific ways in development. We can talk about patterns of gene expression that follow independent programs to build regions of the body, under the control of regional patterning genes like the Hox complex. In that sense, what we see in Darwinopterus is completely unsurprising.
What is interesting, though, is that these modules, which we’re used to seeing within the finer-grained process of development, also retain enough coherence and autonomy to be visible at the level of macroevolutionary change. It caters to my biases that we shouldn’t just pretend that all the details of development are plastic enough to be averaged out, or that the underlying ontogenetic processes will be overwhelmed by the exigencies of environmental factors, like selection. Development matters — it shapes the direction evolution can take.
Lü J, Unwin DM, Jin X, Liu Y, Ji Q (2009) Evidence for modular evolution in a long-tailed pterosaur with a pterodactyloid skull. Proc. R. Soc. B published online 14 October 2009 doi: 10.1098/rspb.2009.1603
I should have mentioned that Darren Naish has a very thorough write-up on Darwinopterus!
The Smithsonian Institution is opening a new Hall of Human Origins in mid-March.
It’s crazy — they’ve spent $20 million on exhibits describing events that occurred before the universe even existed 6,000 years ago!
Josh Timonen has put up a video of my talk at AAI. Tear into it!
One of the things I neglected to say more clearly, but should have, is that what I’m complaining about is the creationists’ blithe conflation of complexity with order. We can build up immense amounts of complexity from nothing but noise, so just babbling about how complicated something is says nothing about the impossibility of its origin from chance events. Order, functionality, and, as Joe Felsenstein defined it, adaptedness are more relevant properties, and we have a natural mechanism for generating those, too. It’s called selection.
Someone over at the RDF also mentioned that he thought the Q&A was really good, too. I agree — I need to learn to shut up more and just get the interactivity going. Maybe my ideal talk would be 5 minutes of raillery and inflammatory incitement, followed by 55 minutes of questions and comments.
Perhaps I was too quick to declare that previous article the worst one yet on Ardipithecus…now the Family Research Council has weighed in. Would you believe that Ardi supports their anti-gay stance?
the article describes what C. Owen Lovejoy, an anthropologist at Kent State University, says about the social organization of this species:
The males, he argues, pair-bonded with females. Lovejoy sees male parental investment in the survival of offspring as a hallmark of the human lineage.
So, how long has marriage (i.e., “pair-bonding”) been a male-female union? About four million, four hundred thousand years, if this secular scientist is to be believed. And what was its purpose? To insure “male parental investment in the survival of offspring”–something which the advocates of same-sex “marriage” contend is now no longer necessary.
And what will we be discarding, if we change the definition of marriage from being a union of a man and a woman? Only “a hallmark of the human lineage.”
Marriage is not merely a religious institution, nor merely a civil institution. It is, rather, a natural institution, whose definition as the union of male and female is rooted in the order of nature itself. And it doesn’t take a Bible to prove it. In this case, evolutionary theory points to the exact same conclusion.
Wow. So much is wrong there.
Another characteristic of the human lineage is increased social behavior: Lovejoy could also talk about general male investment, or community investment. There’s this concept called inclusive fitness that means non-parental relatives can also benefit from providing care…and it doesn’t matter whether they are gay or not.
If you have same-sex marriage, you could have two males contributing to the success of their offspring. Male parental investment can occur in the absence of the females altogether! Another way to interpret this is that gay male parental investment is a further elaboration of this “hallmark of the human lineage.”
The naturalistic fallacy is still a fallacy. Even if this narrow (and inaccurate! Human sexual behavior has always been complicated, and there were almost certainly all kinds of homosexual behaviors going on) interpretation of what our ancestors were doing was correct, it says nothing about human behavior now. We have evidence of cannibalism in some fossils, this does not imply that we ought to start eating each other’s brains.
Most annoying of all to me is that the twit who wrote this piece, Peter Sprigg, also leads some of the FRC’s anti-evolution initiatives. This is the guy who promotes the creationist “strengths and weakness” approach to education. He doesn’t believe in evolution anyway!
Since when does the religious right use the sexual behavior of a couple of apes as a model for good Christian sexual relations?
So, basically, Sprigg is another liar for Jesus who hypocritically uses a mangled version of evolutionary theory to support results he likes, and wants it removed from our curricula when it leads to answers he doesn’t like.
Nicholas Wade has a very peculiar review of Richard Dawkins’ book, The Greatest Show on Earth, in the NY Times Review of Books. It’s strange because it is a positive review which strongly agrees with Dawkins’ position on the central importance of the theory of evolution in biology in the first half…but the second half is a jaw-droppingly stupid attack on a small point in the book. Wade has a very absolutist and wrong view of the definitions of some terms, and he goes on and on, whining about a topic that he doesn’t understand himself.
There is one point on which I believe Dawkins gets tripped up by his zeal. To refute the creationists, who like to dismiss evolution as “just a theory,” he keeps insisting that evolution is an undeniable fact. A moment’s reflection reveals the problem: we don’t speak of Darwin’s fact of evolution. So is evolution a fact or a theory? On this question, Dawkins, to use an English expression, gets his knickers in a twist.
Oh, man. Wade has really waded into it. This is a subject that has been amply discussed and explained and expounded upon, and I’m surprised that Wade is not only unfamiliar with it, but has thrown away half of his review in a misbegotten error of his own devising. Take it away, Stephen J. Gould:
In the American vernacular, “theory” often means “imperfect fact”—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is “only” a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can’t even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): “Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science–that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was.”
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don’t go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s in this century, but apples didn’t suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, “fact” doesn’t mean “absolute certainty”; there ain’t no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science “fact” can only mean “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.” I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory–natural selection–to explain the mechanism of evolution.
If he’d just written that one little paragraph, it would have been mildly embarrassing for him…but he just keeps stuffing his foot down his throat. It’s a good thing he keeps his pants on to hide the spectacle of his shoe poking out of his butt.
He [Dawkins] seems to have little appreciation for the cognitive structure of science. Philosophers of science, who are the arbiters of such issues, say science consists largely of facts, laws and theories. The facts are the facts, the laws summarize the regularities in the facts, and the theories explain the laws. Evolution can fall into only of of these categories, and it’s a theory.
Whoa. Scientists everywhere are doing a spit-take at those words. Philosophers, sweet as they may be, are most definitely not the “arbiters” of the cognitive structure of science. They are more like interested spectators, running alongside the locomotive of science, playing catch-up in order to figure out what it is doing, and occasionally shouting words of advice to the engineer, who might sometimes nod in interested agreement but is more likely to shrug and ignore the wacky academics with all the longwinded discourses. Personally, I think the philosophy of science is interesting stuff, and can surprise me with insights, but science is a much more pragmatic operation that doesn’t do a lot of self-reflection.
As for his definitions…sorry, but these ideas simply do not fit into the tidy pigeonholes Mr Wade wants to make for them. Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Trying to cram it into one category does violence to both evolution and his cognitive roll-top desk.
And Wade goes on with more! Here’s where we really need philosophers; they could have much more fun shredding the blithe assumptions Wade flings about.
Other systems of thought, like religion, are founded on immutable dogma, whereas science changes to accommodate new knowledge. So what part of science is it that changes during intellectual revolutions? Not the facts, one hopes, or the laws. It’s the highest level elements in the cognitive structure—the theories—that are sacrificed when fundamental change is needed. Ptolemaic theory yielded when astronomers found that Copernicus’s better explained the observations; Newton’s theory of gravitation turned out to be a special case of Einstein’s.
If a theory by nature is liable to change, it cannot be considered absolutely true. A theory, however strongly you believe in it, inherently holds a small question mark. The minute you erase the question mark, you’ve got yourself a dogma.
I don’t even like his dig at religion. There’s a funny thing about religious dogma: it evolves. It changes slowly, usually, and it’s not on the basis of reason or evidence, but more often to bend to popular expediency — I’d agree that it isn’t knowledge that changes it, but the utility of accommodating a human institution to popular perception.
I kind of agree with the general statement that facts won’t change (but as I’ll say below, the facts do shift as they are argued over), but it is possible to change the conceptual framework, the theories, we use to integrate a collection of facts into a useful model in our brains. It is entirely possible for a new model to emerge that does a better job of explaining the history of life on earth someday. After all, it’s already happened, and look, Darwin’s theory still remained a fact!
Darwin’s theory was expanded and replace roughly 70-75 years ago, with the incorporation of the science of genetics into that framework. Darwin was working with a seriously flawed idea of heredity, and all his ideas about the transmission of traits were wrong. Pangenesis was completely scrapped and replaced with Mendelian and population genetics. I can’t imagine a more radical change than that happening any time in the future — we have a solid grip on the rules of heredity now, and what we expect is refinement and the addition of details.
But notice that what happened was a reversal of Wade’s claim. A massive bolus of ‘facts’ were inserted into the theory, but the core of the theory itself, the idea that species changed over time driven by forces of selection, remained. Why? BECAUSE THAT IS ALSO A FACT. We have piled evidence high that shows the earth is old, there have been a succession of forms, that the properties of populations change from generation to generation, that all the diverse forms of life on earth are linked by molecular relationships that fit nicely into a tree of descent. A subsidiary assumption that generations changed by the transmission of acquired characters was discarded, but the big picture was unchanged…and was actually made sharper and stronger.
Any future hypothetical theory that is a better model must incorporate these facts of evolution. It’s one of the reasons creationists aren’t doing science, because they are compelled by ideology to reject the evidence. There will be no theory that denies that human beings are apes and the children of apes, no matter how objectionable creationists find that, because that is a fact. We’ll argue over the mechanisms, whether it was selection-driven or mostly chance divergence, whether group selection played a role, over which fossil fits most closely to the main path of the population that led to us, etc., etc., etc., but the fact of our ape ancestry and nature is established.
One more quibble: Wade insists that every theory must retain that little question mark of doubt, and that is true. However, it also holds true for the facts of science; we can have a fair amount of confidence in the data, but no one considers a published result to be unquestionable. It happens all the time that different labs will wrestle over the data, and the interpretation of the data. It’s one of the factors that drives science, that we work hard to confirm and disconfirm everything. What you’ll actually find when you look at the daily routine of science is that the theories are generally stable and are not strongly questioned — it takes such a massive amount of contradicting data to overthrow a theory that it’s hardly likely that your average individual or research group can demolish a major theory like evolution, or cell theory — and most of the haggling and conflict is over the day-to-day details. You know, that stuff that Wade would try to stuff in his pigeon hole labeled “facts”.
Wade concludes his little diversion into fantasy philosophy with a strange dig at Dawkins that suggests he doesn’t like his book much after all.
He [Dawkins] has become the Savonarola of science, condemning the doubters of evolution as “history-deniers” who are “worse than ignorant” and “deluded to the point of perversity. This is not the language of science, or civility. Creationists insist evolution is only a theory, Dawkins that it is only a fact. Neither claim is correct.
True, neither is crorrect…but then, I guarantee you that Dawkins does not consider evolution to be “only a fact.” Only someone who had not read his books with comprehension could come away with this freakish idea that Dawkins is unaware of the “cognitive structure of science.”
I agree that Dawkins’ words are relatively uncivil, but I’d argue that they’re too civil, and that we need more incivility. Wade does not seem to agree that creationists deny the depth of human history (I don’t understand how he could find fault with the FACT that believing the world is 6000 years old requires blindness to 13 billion years worth of time), or that by promoting false beliefs about our origins they are not merely passively unaware, but are malevolently ignorant, or that using Gould’s definition of a fact, they are in denial “to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.” Those are the facts that Mr Wade claims to be able to recognize, but ignores in this case.
I also will not accept sad tut-tutting over a lack of civility when Wade so obliviously compares Richard Dawkins to Savonarola. Savonarola? Really? You compare a gentlemanly scholar who writes books to oppose the rising tide of lunacy in the world to a book-burning puritanical fanatic who opposed the Renaissance and sought the death of homosexuals??
Hypocrite.
One other exhibit in the hall was for Evolutionary Genealogy, an excellent site run by Len Eisenberg of Ashland, Oregon. I was in Ashland a while back and got a tour of the geology walk he installed there, which is phenomenal — look it up if you’re ever in town.
He’s selling posters and t-shirts to support his work in evolution education. One of the hooks he uses to get people interested is to talk about relationships in the great big family of life on earth, and he estimates the number of generations that separate us from any organism you might be interested in. He’s got nice shirts that show how closely related you are to that animal; wouldn’t you know Jerry Coyne got in there early and snatched up the kitty-cat shirt? I got a dragonfly, because invertebrates are always much cooler.
