Why Evolution is True Feed

Today’s Jesus and Mo strip, called “whip,” came with the note, “You shouldn’t flip tables, Jesus.” It’s about as scathing an indictment of Islamism that I’ve seen in this strip. Mo, of course, is as clueless as ever.

Reader Mark Otten sent in some lovely photos taken by his wife Dianne. Mark’s (or Dianne’s) IDs are indented, and you can enlarge the photos by clicking on them.

These photos were taken by Dianne over the last 3 years in various locations in the greater Cincinnati, Ohio area.

Great blue heron (Ardea herodias) in a rock divide between two constructed ponds.

Female northern flicker (Colaptes auratus) showing the brightly-colored underside of the tail feathers typical of the eastern “yellow-shafted” form:

Spotted sandpiper (Actitis macularius):

Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus):

In July, 2023 a limpkin (Aramus guarauna), normally resident in Florida, the Caribbean, and Central and South America, showed up at a county park in the northern suburbs of Cincinnati.  It stayed around for about 2 weeks causing quite a stir among local birders.  Limpkins feed mostly on freshwater snails and mussels:

This female killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) and her mate used an existing ring of rocks along the margin of a walking path to make their nest.  Her four eggs are visible directly below her:

A killdeer chick a few days after hatching:

Male American kestrel (Falco sparverius):

The same kestrel a few minutes later with a grasshopper meal:

In 1979 there were only 4 confirmed nesting pairs of bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) in Ohio, all of them along Lake Erie. Eagles have since become a familiar sight in many locations.  A 2020 survey by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources recorded more than 700 eagle nests throughout the state.  This one, and its mate, have been nesting in a county park (about 11 miles north of downtown Cincinnati) for the last several years:

A family of red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) denned under the porch of a nearby church in 2022.  We were able to observe and photograph the adults and pups over several evenings.

One of the adult foxes with a light snack.  I’m not sure of the species, maybe a mockingbird:

There were at least 4 pups.  These 3 were playing in the lawn in front of the church:

We first observed this piebald white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) fawn in June, 2023 but were not able to get a good photo until late July.  The fawn was observed off and on until November, 2023.  We have not seen it since:

Piebald white-tailed deer fawn and (presumably) its sibling”

Here’s an archived link to an ad for a consultant oral maxillofacial surgeon at Dunedin Hospital. The curious thing—well, not so curious given that it’s New Zealand,—is the list of required qualifications. Click to read (a New Zealand dollar is worth about 57¢ in U.S. currency):

Some of the details:

About the role

In this newly created role that will be hospital based, we are seeking an Oral Maxillofacial Surgeon for a fulltime, permanent position at Dunedin Public Hospital. We would also welcome candidates with sub-specialty interests.

The successful applicant will be expected to provide the full scope of general Oral and Maxillofacial surgery including but not limited to the management of  facial trauma, pathology, infections and orthognathic surgery.  Duties includes active participation in inpatient and outpatient clinics, clinical audit, quality, clinical guidelines/pathways, professional development, appraisal and risk management.

Given the catchment area Te Whatu Ora Southern services, you will be able to take on cases that are diverse and complex; providing you with a rewarding role. There will be an on-call roster in place, this is set at 1:3. Our links with the University of Otago and affiliation with the Faculty of Dentistry means that you may be involved in the teaching of Dental and Medical Students.

Mōu ake | About you

• Eligibility for vocational registration with the Dental Council of New Zealand
• We would also welcome applications from advanced trainees.
• FRACDS (OMS) or equivalent board certification
• Excellent communication and time management skills

Here’s the part that stamps it as “from New Zealand”. I’ve added links and the translation from Māori, the latter in brackets:

You will also need:

• • Competency with te ao Māori [the Māori worldview], tikanga [the “right way to doing things” according to the Māori], and te reo Māori [the Māori language] or a commitment to starting your journey and taking ownership of your learning and growth
  • Experience in projects / initiatives which give effect to Te Tiriti [the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi] principals [sic] and frameworks, and the application of Mātauranga Māori [Māori “ways of knowing”] and Kaupapa Māori  [“Māori customary practices”] approaches, particularly as they apply in healthcare settings.

In other words, you need to know a great deal about Māori culture and also speak or be learning the language (however, out of 978,000 Māori in NZ, only 55% say they have “some knowledge” of the language and only about 5% say they can speak the language well.  This doesn’t say how many Māori understand English, but it’s surely close to 100%. The requirement that you either know the language or are learning it is, then, largely superfluous; in this way the ad is looking for people who can signal their virtue.

Finally, we have the ubiquitous but ambiguous requirement that the applicant have engaged in “projects/initiatives” that “give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi,” another completely superfluous requirement. “Te Tiriti,” as it’s called, has nothing to do with surgery; it simply specified in 1840 that the Māori would surrender sovereignty to England, but would keep and rule over their lands and villages, and would also acquire all the rights of a British citizen.  If you can tell me which “Te Tiriti-themed” projects are essential to have engaged in for this surgeon’s job, and why those projects are necessarily, I’d be glad to hear it.

The is once again an example of how indigenous people leverage their supposed modern oppression to get more “stuff,” how New Zealand has surrendered to that “victimhood” approach, and, above all, how merit is given at least equal priority to indigeneity. (If you’re a great surgeon but know squat about Te Tiriti and can’t speak Māori, I doubt you’d even be considered for the job.)

Over at Point of Order, which is consistently critical of this kind of stuff, Yvonne van Dongen takes the ad apart. Click below to read her snarky but accurate critique:

An excerpt:

If you had impacted wisdom teeth requiring surgery, would it comfort you to know the consultant surgeon was competent in te ao Māori?

Or, say, if you needed oral cancer surgery, is it a bonus if the person operating on your mouth has had experience in projects and initiatives which give effect to Te Tiriti principles?

How about if you had to go under the knife for facial trauma – does it ease your anxiety knowing that the consultant surgeon is steeped in the application of Mātauranga Māori and Kaupapa Māori approaches, particularly as they apply in healthcare settings?

Southern Health thinks the answer is yes to all the above.

This week an advertisement on their careers website for a consultant oral maxillofacial surgeon at Dunedin Hospital stated that competency in te ao Māori, tikanga, and te reo Māori was a requirement. Or at the very least “a commitment to starting your journey and taking ownership of your learning and growth.”

As well, they asked for

“Experience in projects / initiatives which give effect to Te Tiriti principals (sic) and frameworks, and the application of Mātauranga Māori and Kaupapa Māori approaches, particularly as they apply in healthcare settings.”

Apart from spelling principles incorrectly, Southern Health clearly thinks they know what the principles of the Treaty are, even though this is a topic hotly debated thanks to Act’s Treaty Principles Bill.

Apparently, after inquiries from the press, New Zealand Health is reassessing these requirements, and pondering that wondering whether, after all, just merit and experience should be the qualifications. The answer, of course, is “yes.”

Mordecai and Esther are still here, and looking fat, healthy and happy. I thought I’d show a few photos today in lieu of Readers’ Wildlife, and add a couple of videos. (I tried to get a photo of Esther quackling loudly, which she’s wont to do, but she didn’t perform yesterday, when I took all these photos and videos.)

First a photo of the ducks. Here’s Mordecai. Isn’t he handsome?

Here he is getting out of the pond after a bracing swim (It was chilly yesterday). Esther swims nearby (the camera was a bit wonky), about to follow him:

The lovely Queen Esther:

Here’s the pair on their favorite spot: the warm cement ledge on the east side of the Pond, where they rest and dry off in the afternoons. Esther has a quick drink, and they sun themselves and preen.

Mordecai looking around. I love his iridescent head.

The difference in appearance between males (drakes) and females (hens) is surely due to sexual selection. The females are well camouflaged in the grass, while males sacrifice some of that camouflage to attract females. We have no idea why females prefer yellow beaks and metallic green heads; the reason why females in different species prefer different traits is largely a mystery. (Of course there are some sex differences in traits, like antlers in elk and body size used for fighting in elephant seals, that are well understood; males win females–and offspring–by winning contests. Darwin called this the “law of battle.”)

Here they are both out of the water. Towards the end of this short video Mordecai engages in some stretching, which we call “duck yoga”. He also scratches his chin, though ducks don’t have chins.

Esther and Mordecai together on the edge. They’re both oiling their feathers. Mallards have an oil gland at the base of their tail, and they repeatedly dip their beaks in it and then spread the oil on their feathers to waterproof them. Hence the expression, “Like water off a duck’s back.” If you’ve ever seen a duck in the rain, you’ll see that the water just beads up and runs off their oily bodies.

One of the areas that Luana Maroja and I highlighted in our “Ideological Subversion of Biology” article, which analyzed six misguided statements about biology made in the service of ideology rather than scientific truth, was the last one:

6. Indigenous “ways of knowing” are equivalent to modern science and should be respected and taught as such.

Now both of us believe that indigenous people can produce and have produced knowledge, even though it’s usually of a restricted nature: trial-and-error truths limited to the geographic area that a group inhabits. But ideology, which has bought into the “authority of the sacred victim” mindset, has gone beyond that, as I’ve often written about New Zealand.

The assertions of adherents to this trope fall into several areas and share several characteristics:

a.) There are indigenous “ways of knowing” that are every bit as good as modern (they often say “Western”) science. These “knowledge acquisition methods” differ, but produce knowledge equally valid and important. (Note that the use of “Western” science is inaccurate, since science is now a worldwide endeavor. I will use “modern science” from now on.)

b.) The knowledge produced by indigenous “ways of knowing” has been ruthlessly suppressed by arrogant and bigoted Western scientists who think that their “way of knowing” is best.

c.) Indigenous knowledge is, in some cases, crucial in solving pressing problems for humanity. The most common example is global warming.

d.) Promoters of the value of indigenous ways of knowing usually adduce only a few examples to support their case.

All of these features are on display in a new article in the prestigious science journal Nature written by Oscar Allen, described as “a freelance writer in London,” though online information about him seems nearly nonexistent. You can read his article by clicking on the link below.

I’ll give some quotes demonstrating each of the four points above. Quotes from the article are indented; bold headings are mine, and the same as given above:

a.) There are indigenous “ways of knowing” that are every bit as good as modern (they often say “Western”) science. They are different, but produce knowledge just as solid.

. . . Indigenous and local communities hold unique insights that can enhance people’s shared understanding of the natural world and inform attempts to protect it. Recognizing this, scientists such as Cohall and Roué are working in partnership with Indigenous and local groups to preserve and amplify these insights, integrate them into their own research and co-produce fresh knowledge with these communities.

. . . . This loss continues today, in part because of the modern Westernized education system; “it might not directly suggest that you should not focus on Indigenous traditional practices,” Cohall says, “but it definitely emphasizes a different way of knowledge acquisition.” He also explains that urbanization has led more people to move to cities, away from the rural areas where they can experience nature and apply traditional practices

. . .other forms of Indigenous and local knowledge fit less easily into different epistemological systems. Often, ways of understanding the environment are formed through direct experience of nature and can be altered by when, where and in whom the knowledge exists.

“In our Western world, nature and culture are separated, and science pretends to be capable of giving knowledge without taking into account culture. Indigenous knowledge is more holistic,” says Roué.

A common claim is that because indigenous people live closer to nature than do “Western” scientists sequestered in their labs, they are more able to tell us things about nature. This is often part of the claim that indigenous people hold an important key to solving global warming. As for indigenous knowledge being more “holistic”, I’m not sure what that means.

. . .Most importantly, researchers should respect the equal value of Indigenous and local knowledge. Cohall says it is also formed through the same basic method as Western science: “Science is essentially making observations over a period of time and then drawing inferences.” The production of traditional knowledge is analogous, he says, but occurs in a less-controlled environment and is built up through generations of direct experiences with nature.

Neither method is necessarily better, but both can add to our understanding of the world,

I would take issue with all of these statements. “Equal value” is wrong; modern science, which progresses rapidly and on a worldwide basis, has improved human welfare (and not just local welfare) on a much broader scale and much more deeply.  Indigenous knowledge is produced largely through observation and trial-and-error methods, and is often passed down via legends or word of mouth.  Indigenous knowledge may draw inferences, but it lacks many of the tools of modern science that have made the latter far more effective: hypothesis testing, pervasive doubt and criticism, the use of statistics and mathematics, controlled experiments, and so on. Ask yourself: how much of your well-being derives from indigenous knowledge versus, say, the knowledge produced by science since the sixteenth century?  And yes, I assert that the difference in methodology makes modern science better than indigenous ways of knowing.

b.) The knowledge produced by indigenous “ways of knowing” has been ruthlessly suppressed by arrogant and bigoted Western scientists who think that their “way of knowing” is best. 

Similar dynamics have played out repeatedly over the past 500 years or more, as Western science has become imposed as the dominant knowledge system around most of the globe. In the process, many alternative ways of understanding the world have been marginalized. “There has been for a long time, and there is still, a distrust of Indigenous knowledge among scientists,” says Marie Roué, an environmental anthropologist at the French National Centre for Scientific Research in Paris. She says that Indigenous knowledge is often dismissed because it incorporates religious or spiritual elements. It also tends to be passed on orally and through cultural traditions, making it hard to formalize in the manner prized by the Western empirical method.

. . . Throughout history, various communities have settled, or been forced to settle, in the Caribbean. Each of these groups brought their traditions and culture and produced unique insights through their interactions with the natural environment. Sometimes the groups brought medicinal plants with them, which Cohall says might have happened with the periwinkle. But this knowledge has since been dismissed or suppressed. “A lot of those traditional Indigenous practices were pushed to the side because they were considered to be more primitive or not advanced or sophisticated, which led to a major loss of information,” Cohall says.

Here’s a bit from one of the two examples used: how the Sámi people find lichens to feed their reindeer. Modern scientists, it’s said, can’t abide the Sámi’s inability to say when or where lichens will appear every year because they are spotty, depending on weather:

Such thinking is, to some, infuriating. “I think that there’s an extraordinary arrogance that runs through many Euro-American knowledge systems,” says Luci Attala, a UK-based anthropologist and chair of the Tairona Heritage Trust, in Swansea, UK, which works to amplify the voices of the Indigenous Kogi people of northern Colombia. To her, researchers in the mainstream scientific establishment are culpable for the marginalization of Indigenous and local knowledge. “They’re part of the problem,” she says. “They’re part of the world that has spent years discounting other ways of being and assuming that their methodology is the one and only route to truth.”

Exploitation of indigenous knowledge is part of this theme, and we can’t deny that indigenous people have been exploited by modern scientists, as when their blood is taken for purposes other than what is said, or when animals and plants are removed from their environment without getting proper permission. That said:

. . . Reyes García is particularly sceptical about the premise of co-production, warning that it is often imposed and exploitative, rather than equitable. “Co-production is something that we scientists have invented because we are in big trouble; the environmental crisis, climate crisis, inequality crisis — we have messed up the world and we don’t know how to solve it,” she says. “And then we look at Indigenous people and see these people are actually managing well, so we think ‘Let’s just draw from their knowledge.’”

And here the ideological purpose behind distorting the value of indigenous knowledge becomes clear (my emphasis):

It is a critique that Roué is aware of. But she still feels that working towards better collaboration can help to place Indigenous and local knowledge in contexts that can convince industries and governments to make changes: “Our work begins by understanding and gathering knowledge, but it goes further and has also a political purpose — to empower Indigenous people.”

Empowering marginalized people is fine, but one has to know exactly what you’re trying to accomplish with a scientific project. Are you trying to find out things about the universe, or are you trying to empower marginalized people? These won’t always be the same, as we’ve learned from the money given to Māori in New Zealand to play whale songs and rub whale oil on kauri trees to save them from a parasite transmitted underground (see here and here). The Māori will be empowered (or rather, enriched), but no knowledge can possibly be gained, except the knowledge that following the dictates of ancient legends (the whale and kauri were created as “brothers”) is wrong.

c.) Indigenous knowledge is, in some cases, crucial in solving pressing problems for humanity. The most common example is global warming.

. . . The worsening climate and biodiversity crises are deeply affecting many Indigenous communities and other non-industrialized societies. These groups tend to be more reliant on and attuned to the health of the natural world, so their experience can provide valuable perspectives on environmental change.

This one again:

. . . “Co-production is something that we scientists have invented because we are in big trouble; the environmental crisis, climate crisis, inequality crisis — we have messed up the world and we don’t know how to solve it,” she says. “And then we look at Indigenous people and see these people are actually managing well, so we think ‘Let’s just draw from their knowledge.’”

Managing well? Then why does the article say this?

The worsening climate and biodiversity crises are deeply affecting many Indigenous communities and other non-industrialized societies.

While indigenous experience can tell us how climate changes over the short term can affect the local environment, let’s remember that the discovery of the phenomenon of global warming, the reason why it’s happening, and a lot of worldwide documentation of its effects (e.g., melting of sea ice) was determined by, yes, modern science.  Solving the problem is not critically dependent on a fusion of indigenous knowledge and modern science.

d.) Promoters of the value of indigenous ways of knowing usually adduce only a few examples to support their case.  The article gives only two examples, and neither is all that convincing.

The first involves the use of the Madagascar periwinkle around the world to treat diabetes and other maladies. Although the article notes that

Extracts from the flower are used as a remedy for eye infections in the Caribbean, where Damian Cohall, a Jamaican-born ethnopharmacologist at the University of the West Indies in Cave Hill, Barbados, learnt of it through interviews with elder members of local communities. Research in his laboratory identified compounds in the plant that inhibit an enzyme that regulates insulin levels and could lead to treatments for type 2 diabetes (see go.nature.com/3djmhyr). “The fact that these anti-diabetic properties are known in traditional practices validates the Indigenous science that existed well before Western knowledge systems,” Cohall says.

Well, we wouldn’t know if the drug really does have antidiabetic effects on people without a double-blind test, eminently possible here. Has such a test been done? Indeed, and it failed (see below). But this is the case for all of the many medicines derived from plants: there are reports that plants are useful (though some are not) in treating diseases, and then it’s given over to modern science to identify the relevant compounds and do the double-blind test to see if they work. In fact, Wikipedia says this about the Madagascar periwinkle:

It was not found to be anti-diabetic in double blinded controlled studies

Well, so much for Dr. Cohall . . . .

However, the isolation of periwinkle compounds turned up two: vincristine and vinblastine, that are still used in chemotherapy. The Wikipedia article says this about the flower: “Its use as an anti-tumor, anti-mutagenic agent is well documented in the ancient Ayurveda system of medicine and in the folk culture of Madagascar and Southern Africa.” So this is a good example of how indigenous knowledge can be turned into something really efficacious in modern medicine (I’m doubtful if they really cured cancer using the flower in indigenous cultures, and what are “mutagenic effects in ayurvedic medicine”????). But yes, if this is accurate, indigenous knowledge has led to knowledge that helps people worldwide.

The other example is that of the Sámi people, who live by herding reindeer. Those reindeer feed on lichen. The lichens are killed unless they are under snow, and the Sámi have a good idea about where lichen “pastures” can be found at different times.  But this indigenous knowledge is said to be thwarted by arrogant forestry companies, who, as I said, get peeved with the variability in appearance of lichens.

Further, one bit of “co-production” of knowledge produced by combining modern science and Sami knowledge is bizarre:

Controlled burning is commonly used to manage forests around the world, but is not widely used by Swedish forestry companies. Although there is no evidence to suggest that the Sámi have traditionally used the technique, the idea that fire can benefit biodiversity is conserved in the Indigenous language. “There is a Sámi word, roavve, that means ‘a forest that has burnt in the past’ but also ‘a forest that is rich in lichen’,” says Roturier.

Lars Nutti, a Sámi reindeer herder from the Sirges community, recognized the significance of this linguistic artefact. “Roavve is a description of an old sparse forest with good grazing for reindeer,” he says, “but recreating such forests is largely impossible with today’s policies.” After an expanse of forest burnt down near where Nutti lives, he approached Roturier with the idea of running a research project to investigate whether dispersing lichen in this area would result in healthier pastures. “And the results actually showed that it worked very well, beyond our expectations,” says Roturier.

So here we have a potential improvement from one smart Sámi, but an improvement that doesn’t derive from indigenous Sámi knowledge. The ethnic group never did controlled burns. Rather, it came from modern knowledge: one Sámi realized that controlled burns have been used in other places to good effect—as a substitute for natural burns that no longer occur. It’s still not clear whether the Sámi will actually burn their forests to raise the titer of lichens, but this isn’t really a demonstration of indigenous knowledge; rather, it’s a potentially good idea derived from knowledge coming from modern conservationists.

And that’s it: the only two examples in the whole article. There is much palaver about the coequality of indigenous knowledge and science, but a dearth of examples of how they can work together to cause benefit the world.

This kind of hype is typical. It may be baffling if you haven’t encountered this species of article before, but realize that its main purpose is not to advance science but to advance people considered marginalized. When the author says this:

Most importantly, researchers should respect the equal value of Indigenous and local knowledge. . . Neither method is necessarily better, but both can add to our understanding of the world,

the proper response is “no they are not equal. Sure, indigenous knowledge can add to our understanding of the world, but modern science can add infinitely more.”

There’s a book to be written about all of this stuff, but I’m not going to write it, and no publisher in the world would touch it.

The latest comedy-and-news segment of Bill Maher’s “Real Time” show is about the bloated defense budget, asking why Trump doesn’t cut the fat from the military (apparently they cut $580 million).  Even Musk has asked that question, referring to the stratospheric price of fighter jets, now largely obsolete in the age of drones.

Maher points out how much larger our defense budget is than that of any other country, including China and Russia, and even the U.S. military says it has  19% more bases than it needs.

Why? It’s the military-industrial complex, Jake!

This is a pretty good one. It’s funny but makes several serious points.

Well, I don’t mean the entire journal Nature, but one strongly-written op-ed (Nature 639, 548), though I have absolutely no doubt that Nature adheres to its view. And the view of the author, bioethicist Arthur Caplan, is that despite Trump’s threats to withhold federal money from universities that maintain DEI programs, we have to push back hard on this initiative, for DEI is simply wonderful: a boon to science and society.  All of that, of course, is debatable, and, sadly, Caplan makes a number of assertions about DEI without a single reference to support them.

Click below to read his short piece (I hope you can see it):

Caplan strives to be clever by beginning with the hypothesis that had social media and grants been around in the days of Galileo, he would have been censored and lost government money. I laughed so loud! (Not!) At any rate, here’s Caplan’s view of what we must do with DEI, which he never defines:

More scholars must push back. The idea that scientists can keep doing what they know must be done to incorporate DEI into their work while adjusting terms to fit the demands of bigoted autocrats bent on hobbling science is to whistle loudly past a graveyard of avoidable error, continued financial cuts and censorship. That diversity matters to science is a truth — albeit one that has only recently begun to be accepted and applied.

But the “DEI” that many universities use, and which many of us object to, is much more than the statement, “All people, regardless of identity, religion, sex, able-ness, and so on, will be treated equally.” Who could object to that?

No, the DEI that Trump is trying to weed out is the ideological form of DEI. It is the assumption that there are different truths for different groups that are more or less equal; that adjudicating these truths is done by seeing which groups are more powerful; that there is a certain “progressive” ideology around sex and gender; that society (and science) is to be framed as a battle between the oppressor and the oppressed; and that “equity”–the representation of identity groups in proportion to their occurrence in society–is a goal we all must strive for, because inequities surely reflect ongoing bigotry.

Yet Caplan conceives of “DEI” in other ways, some of them bing okay. Here are two:

First, clinical and social-science research requires diversity to be valid. Genomics has established that different groups of people respond differently to drugs and vaccines. The individuals recruited to and participating in clinical trials must be representative of those who will use those treatments in real life. Attention to DEI allows researchers to identify differences in safety and efficacy between groups early on in the testing process.

Likewise, social scientists are well aware that understanding behaviour and implementing desired change requires studying populations besides white, Western, university psychology students — the group from which psychologists have mainly sourced participants for decades. This is the case whether researchers seek to overcome vaccine hesitancy, prevent self-harm, improve reading skills, change recycling habits or prevent obesity.

And I’m prepared to believe this one, though again no references are given, as it makes some sense and there are arguments that support it (one here). But the evidence seems thin:

 . . . .  diversity in the scientific workforce brings a multitude of ideas, approaches, perspectives and values to the table. Thinking outside the box matters in tackling all manner of problems in artificial intelligence, engineering, mathematics, economics and astrophysics. Diverse minds can find connections and patterns, provide perspectives and draw conclusions that might not occur to a group of less-inclusive researchers.

To me, the above aren’t problematic, but we all know that the “D” in “DEI” refers to race or sex, not viewpoint or studying different groups in anthropology. And then Caplan treats on more problematic ground:

Second, research has shown again and again that DEI matters when it comes to providing health care. A diverse and representative health-care workforce improves people’s satisfaction with the care that they receive and health outcomes, especially for individuals of colour. When Black people are treated by Black doctors, they are more likely to receive the preventive care that they need and more likely to agree to recommended interventions, such as blood tests and flu shots.

There are no references given here, and I’d like to see them. Remember the widely-publicized report that black newborns have higher mortality when treated by white doctors than black ones? It was attributed to racism, but later discovered that the effect was entirely due to white doctors having to deal with infants of the lowest birth weights, and hence having higher mortalities (see here and here).  People are simply too quick to impute all disparities to racism, and this is another of the big weaknesses of DEI.

Finally, there are two other contestable reasons why Caplan sees DEI as admirable:

Second, research has shown again and again that DEI matters when it comes to providing health care. A diverse and representative health-care workforce improves people’s satisfaction with the care that they receive and health outcomes, especially for individuals of colour. When Black people are treated by Black doctors, they are more likely to receive the preventive care that they need and more likely to agree to recommended interventions, such as blood tests and flu shots.

A DEI-oriented workforce improves learning and outcomes for all. Many veterans seeking mental-health care or rehabilitation after trauma specifically request a psychologist who is a veteran. Attention to DEI helps to ensure that health-care providers’ opportunities to learn are not missed, and that problems facing rural communities, minority ethnic groups and those with rare diseases are not neglected.

Again, I’d like to see the references. Maybe there is some literature out that that I just don’t know about.  But I will say this: satisfaction with health care is one thing, but health outcomes are another. Does DEI improve healthcare, degrade it because it erodes merit, or have no effect? But really, these two scenarios have little to do with DEI save that people like to be treated by people who look like them. That’s a form of tribalism, and isn’t so bad; but the ultimate arbiter of DEI here is whether choosing doctors or psychologists by identity rather than merit gives better outcomes than prioritizing (or at least giving heavy weight) to identity. After all, there are plenty of psychologists who are already veterans, so is there a need to prioritize “veteran status” when admitting someone to training as a psychologist?

In the end, Caplan goes back to DEI as it is actually used in universities: the version that derives from postmodernism with all the new trimmings. He bawls that we have to support it, implying that now that Trump is in power, it’s especially important to defend DEI:

Scientists, their funders and their professional societies must follow in Galileo’s perhaps apocryphal footsteps and speak up about DEI’s crucial role in science. They must urge patient-advocacy organizations, environmentalists and other citizen groups to declare that they don’t want their or their children’s health and well-being jeopardized by the bad science that a lack of attention to DEI will produce. They must emphasize DEI in their publications whenever the denial of its relevance to a scientific issue is demanded by political inquisitors.

These are dangerous times. Scientists globally must stand together for sound science and resist bigotry, bias and hate. If science is to honour one of its core values — a commitment to the truth wherever it might lead — scientists must stand up when DEI matters. Galileo’s story should remind us all: the only way forward is speaking truth to power.

Back to Galileo again!  I stand for good science and against bigotry, bias, and unwarranted hate. But when does DEI matter? Show me some cases and some data, and I’ll decide whether or not to stand up. To me, the only kind of DEI I now support at the university level is the principle that “all people must be treated equally despite their immutable identities.”

Two days ago I was perusing the website of the Society for the Study of Evolution (SSE), which, along with the American Society of Naturalists (ASN) and the Society of Systematic Biologists (SSB), wrote a statement to President Trump and Congress in early February asserting that sex forms a “continuum” in all species (see our rebuttal here).  Although the SSE’s statement is both biologically wrong and embarrassing, published just to conform to gender-activist ideology, it remains online (archived here), though the three Presidents who signed it haven’t yet seen fit to send it to the recipients, nor will they give us permission to post their response to our critique—a response sent to 125 signers of our letter.

That’s just for background.  While it’s within the ambit of the SSE, ASN, and SSB to try correcting governmental misstatements about science, in this case the government’s executive order on biological sex gave the correct definition (and a note that it’s binary), while the statement of the three societies was flatly wrong.  It’s not okay to distort biology in the name of politics.  People will perceive this as a sign that the SSE is becoming “progressive” or “woke”, and that leads, as we know, to public mistrust of science and scientists.

But on Friday I found another sign that the SSE is getting politicized, and it’s a more blatant statement. This statement (below) shows that the SSE has been fully ideologically captured and has no truck with Republicans.  That is fine for individuals, but when an entire scientific society tells us that Republicans—in this case Elon Musk—are unethical, that’s not good for the society, for its members, or for science in general.

Scientific organizations and journals should not take ideological sides (save when science itself is at issue), as we know from when the journal Nature broke precedent in 2024 and endorsed Biden for President in 2020. A paper on the outcome was published in Nature Human Behavior, of all places, and the results don’t speak well for journals taking sides. Here’s its abstract (bolding is mine):

High-profile political endorsements by scientific publications have become common in recent years, raising concerns about backlash against the endorsing organizations and scientific expertise. In a preregistered large-sample controlled experiment, I randomly assigned participants to receive information about the endorsement of Joe Biden by the scientific journal Nature during the COVID-19 pandemic. The endorsement message caused large reductions in stated trust in Nature among Trump supporters. This distrust lowered the demand for COVID-related information provided by Nature, as evidenced by substantially reduced requests for Nature articles on vaccine efficacy when offered. The endorsement also reduced Trump supporters’ trust in scientists in general. The estimated effects on Biden supporters’ trust in Nature and scientists were positive, small and mostly statistically insignificant. I found little evidence that the endorsement changed views about Biden and Trump. These results suggest that political endorsement by scientific journals can undermine and polarize public confidence in the endorsing journals and the scientific community.

That implies that journals and scientific societies should just shut up about ideological, moral, or political issues save when the issues deal with the mission of the organization. (This is the same kind of “ideological neutrality” adopted by several dozen universities, including mine.)

But the SSE can’t help itself. It galls me that a Society of which I was once President has become the Teen Vogue of evolutionary biology.  Now I don’t like Elon Musk’s political behavior, for he’s breaking our government like a bull in a china shop (his work as an “engineering leader,” however, is admirable).  But Twitter has its uses, and I remain on it, calling attention to all my pieces here.  And when I post there I don’t feel that I’m telling people, “I love Elon Musk!”

But the SSE can’t survive without going after Musk, and so they’ve announced their withdrawal from Twitter, which you can see here. I reproduce their announcement below (indented):

SSE on Social Media

Contributed by kjm34 on Mar 14, 2025 – 04:33 PM

SSE Council recently voted to cease activity on the SSE account (@sse_evolution) on X/Twitter after April 15. This motion was raised due to the platform’s ethical misalignment with SSE’s mission and vision, particularly around equity, inclusiveness, and responsible communication of science. We encourage our members to follow us on other social media platforms in order to stay up to date with the latest SSE news.

Find SSE on Bluesky, Mastodon, and Facebook. 

Announcements are also sent to all SSE members via email in our monthly newsletter. Make sure your email address is up to date by logging in here.

The Evolution and Evolution Letters journals will also stop posting to Twitter – follow Evolution on Bluesky, Mastodon, and Facebook and Evolution Letters on Bluesky and Mastodon.

You can still find the SSE Graduate Student Advisory Committee (GSAC) on Bluesky and Twitter, and Evolution Meetings on Bluesky and Twitter.

Why did they do this? It’s no mystery: the Society is announcing its dislike of Elon Musk, who owns “X” (Twitter). And because the SSE sees Twitter as being in “ethical misalignment with SSE’s mission and vision, particularly around equity, inclusiveness, and responsible communication of science,” they must sever most ties with that social-media platform. (Note that they don’t explain this “ethical misalignment”, but I guess it consists of simply this: “We don’t like Elon Musk and won’t post on his site.)

Except that they still do keep ties with the site!  As you see above, the SSE will continue to post announcements from the Grad Student Advisory Committee and announcements about the annual SSE meetings on Twitter. What is that about? If it’s unethical for the SSE to align with Twitter, then it must be unethical for its grad students, too, and especially unethical to use Musk’s site to harbor stuff about the annual meeting.

What about those other two societies? Well, I guess they haven’t yet gotten the message that their posting on Twitter constitutes unethical behavior. The American Society of Naturalists remains on Twitter (“X”), as does The Society of Systematic Biologists. Nor can I find any announcement of misalignment at the ASN’s own site or the SSB’s own site.

It mystifies me how among these three societies, which are closely aligned, only one has quit Twitter because it sees posting there as unethical. Come on, ASN and SSB, get on the progressive bandwagon!

Today we have another installment of John Avise‘s alphabetized list of photos of North American butterflies. John’s captions and IDs are indented, and you can enlarge the photos by clicking on them.

Butterflies in North America, Part 15  

This week continues my many-part series on butterflies that I’ve photographed in North America.  I’m continuing to go down my list of species in alphabetical order by common name.

Reakirt’s Blue (Echinargus isola), female:

Red Admiral (Vanessa atalanta), upperwing:

Red Admiral, underwing:

Red-banded Hairstreak (Calycopis cecrops), underwing:

Red-spotted Purple (Limenitis arthemis):

Ruddy Daggerwing (Marpesia petreus),upperwing:

Rural Skipper (Ochlodes agricola), upperwing:

Rural Skipper, underwing:

Sandhill Skipper (Polites sabuleti), upperwing:

Silver-bordered Fritillary (Boloria selene), upperwing:

Silver-bordered Fritillary, underwing:

Silver-spotted Skipper (Epargyreus clarus), upperwing:

In 2013, I posed some questions to readers about the meaning of life, and there were a lot of responses (373 of them!). To quote part of my post:

Here’s survey I’m taking to see whether a theory I have, which is mine, bears any resemblance to reality. Here are two questions I’d like readers to answer in the comments. Here we go:

If a friend asked you these questions, how would you answer them?

1.) What do you consider the purpose of your life?

2.) What do you see as the meaning of your life?

There was general agreement that the meaning and purpose of life is self-made: there was no intrinsic meaning or purpose.  Only religious people think there’s a pre-made meaning and purpose, and it’s always to follow the dictates of one’s god or faith. And there aren’t too many believers around here.

Now the Guardian has an article posing the same question, but asking 15 different people, many of them notables. The answers vary, and I’ll give a few (click the screenshot below to see the article). As Reader Alan remarked after reading the Guardian piece and sending me the link,  “No one mentions God and none seem to have a God shaped hole in their lives.” 

So much for Ross Douthat and what I call “The New Believers” to go along with “The New Atheists.”  The New Believers I see as smart people who have thrown in their lot with superstition and unevidenced faith; they include Doubthat, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Jordan Peterson, and, apparently, the staff of The Free Press. 

Bailey’s intro:

Like any millennial, I turned to Google for the answers. I trawled through essays, newspaper articles, countless YouTube videos, various dictionary definitions and numerous references to the number 42, before I discovered an intriguing project carried out by the philosopher Will Durant during the 1930s. Durant had written to Ivy League presidents, Nobel prize winners, psychologists, novelists, professors, poets, scientists, artists and athletes to ask for their take on the meaning of life. His findings were collated in the book On the Meaning of Life, published in 1932.

I decided that I should recreate Durant’s experiment and seek my own answers. I scoured websites searching for contact details, and spent hours carefully writing the letters, neatly sealing them inside envelopes and licking the stamps. Then I dropped them all into the postbox and waited …

Days, and then weeks, passed with no responses. I began to worry that I’d blown what little money I had on stamps and stationery. Surely, at least one person would respond?

. . . . . What follows is a small selection of the responses, from philosophers to politicians, prisoners to playwrights. Some were handwritten, some typed, some emailed. Some were scrawled on scrap paper, some on parchment. Some are pithy one-liners, some are lengthy memoirs. I sincerely hope you can take something from these letters, just as I did.

And his question:

I am currently replicating Durant’s study, and I’d be most appreciative if you could tell me what you think the meaning of life is, and how you find meaning, purpose and fulfilment in your own life?

A selection of my favorites:

Hillary Mantel, author (I’m reading her Wolf Hall at the moment; it won the Booker Prize):

I’ve had your letter for a fortnight, but I had to think about it a bit. You use two terms interchangeably: “meaning” and “purpose”. I don’t think they’re the same. I’m not sure life has a meaning, in the abstract. But it can have a definite purpose if you decide so – and the carrying through, the effort to realise the purpose, makes the meaning for you.

It’s like alchemy. The alchemists were on a futile quest, we think. There wasn’t a philosopher’s stone, and they couldn’t make gold. But after many years of patience exercised, the alchemist saw he had developed tenacity, vision, patience, hope, precision – a range of subtle virtues. He had the spiritual gold, and he understood his life in the light of it. Meaning had emerged.

I’m not sure that many people decide to have a purpose, with the meaning emerging later, but some do. A doctor or nurse, for example, might see their purpose to save lives or help the ill.  I suppose I could say my purpose was to “do science,” but that’s only because that’s what I enjoyed, and I didn’t see doing evolutionary genetics it as a “purpose.”

Kathryn Mannix, palliative care specialist.  I always like to see what those who take care of the dying say about their patients, as I think I could learn about how to live from those at the end of their lives. Sadly, the lesson is always the same: “Live life to the fullest.” That is not so easy to do! Her words:

Every moment is precious – even the terrible moments. That’s what I’ve learned from spending 40 years caring for people with incurable illnesses, gleaning insights into what gives our lives meaning. Watching people living their dying has been an enormous privilege, especially as it’s shown me that it isn’t until we really grasp the truth of our own mortality that we awaken to the preciousness of being alive.

Every life is a journey from innocence to wisdom. Fairy stories and folk myths, philosophers and poets all tell us this. Our innocence is chipped away, often gently but sometimes brutally, by what happens to us. Gradually, innocence is transformed to experience, and we begin to understand who we are, how the world is, and what matters most to us.

The threat of having our very existence taken away by death brings a mighty focus to the idea of what matters most to us. I’ve seen it so many times, and even though it’s unique for everyone, there are some universal patterns. What matters most isn’t success, or wealth, or stuff. It’s connection and relationships and love. Reaching an understanding like this is the beginning of wisdom: a wisdom that recognises the pricelessness of this moment. Instead of yearning for the lost past, or leaning in to the unguaranteed future, we are most truly alive when we give our full attention to what is here, right now.

Whatever is happening, experiencing it fully means both being present and being aware of being present. The only moment in our lives that we can ever have any choice about is this one. Even then, we cannot choose our circumstances, but we can choose how we respond: we can rejoice in the good things, relax into the delightful, be intrigued by the unexpected, and we can inhabit our own emotions, from joy to fear to sorrow, as part of our experience of being fully alive.

I’ve observed that serenity is both precious and evanescent. It’s a state of flow that comes from relaxing into what is, without becoming distracted by what might follow. It’s a state of mind that rests in appreciation of what we have, rather than resisting it or disparaging it. The wisest people I have met have often been those who live the most simply, whose serenity radiates loving kindness to those around them, who have understood that all they have is this present moment.

That’s what I’ve learned so far, but it’s still a work in progress. Because it turns out that every moment of our lives is still a work in progress, right to our final  breath.

This is more or less what Sam Harris has to say in many of his meditation “moments.”  Sadly, living each day to the fullest is hard to do, at least for me.

Gretchen Rubin, author and happiness expert.  She’s written and studied a lot about happiness, so she should know:

In my study of happiness and human nature, and in my own experiences, I have found that the meaning of life comes through love. In the end, it is love – all kinds of love – that makes meaning.

In my own life, I find meaning, purpose and fulfilment by connecting to other people – my family, my friends, my community, the world. In some cases, I make these connections face-to-face, and in others, I do it through reading. Reading is my cubicle and my treehouse; reading allows me better to understand both myself and other people.

I agree with her 100% on reading, and there are many times that I’d rather be curled up with a good book than socializing. However, we evolved in small groups of people and clearly are meant to be comfortable in these groups and bereft without them. Though we can overcome that, evolution tells us a bit about what kinds of things we should find fulfilling.

Matt Ridley, science writer.

There never has been and never will be a scientific discovery as surprising, unexpected and significant as that which happened on 28 February 1953 in Cambridge, when James Watson and Francis Crick found the double-helix structure of DNA and realised that the secret of life is actually a very simple thing: it’s infinite possibilities of information spelled out in a four-letter alphabet in a form that copies itself.

I think he fluffed the question, which is given above.  He says nothing about how he finds meaning, fulfillment, and purpose in his own life. Nothing!

One more:

Charles Duhigg, author of The Power of Habit:

What is the meaning of life? I can honestly say: I have no idea. But I write this in London, where I am visiting with my wife and two boys. And they are healthy and safe, and (mostly) happy, and there’s joy in watching their delights: a clothing stall with a jacket they’ve long wanted; the way the double-decker bus carries us above the fray; a monument to scientific discoveries beside a flower garden and goats.

I’m surrounded by evidence – of the blitz, D-day, colonies despoiled, JFK and MLK and 9/11 – that all could be otherwise. I hear about bombs falling on innocents, an uncertain election, a faltering climate, and many of us lacking the will (or charity) to change.

Yet still I marvel that we flew here in under 12 hours – while my ancestors required months and tragedies to transit in reverse – and that I will send this note simply by hitting a button, and we can love whomever we want, and see and speak to them at any hour, and a pandemic did not end my life, did not kill my children’s dreams, did not make society selfish and cruel.

And, for now, that’s enough. I do not need to know the meaning of life. I do not need to know the purpose of it all. Simply breathing while healthy and safe, and (mostly) happy is such a surprising, awe-inducing, humbling gift that I have no right to question it. I won’t tempt fate. I won’t look that gift horse in the mouth. I’ll simply hope my good fortune continues, work hard to share it with others, and pray I will remember this day, this moment, if my luck fades .

 This is an edited extract from The Meaning of Life: Letters from Extraordinary People and their Answer to Life’s Biggest Question, edited by James Bailey and published by Robinson on 3 April.

He finds meaning and purpose, as I’ve said myself, in simply doing what gives you pleasure, but Duhigg adds on that he extracts extra meaning from being amazed at what humans can do, and that he is not suffering like others.

Now is your chance to weigh in. How would you answer Bailey’s question? I would, as I said, say that there is no intrinsic meaning and purpose in life; I do what brings me pleasure or satisfaction, and then, post facto, pretend that that is my meaning and purpose.

We begin today’s cat trifecta with the in comparable Kiffness, who often makes songs out of cat noises. Here he presents a song called “Look I’m Gay (Why Are You Gay?” I suppose the answer is, “I was born that way.”

********************

 

This article from ZME Science (click screenshot to read) gives you an opportunity to participate in a citizen-science project about can ancestry and behavior, even getting a DNA sample from your cat (that costs extra);

An excerpt:

“Cats are one of the least-studied companion animals in genomics, and as a result we are missing out on all that genetics can tell us about their ancestry, behavior, and health,” said Dr. Elinor Karlsson, Chief Scientist at Darwin’s Ark and Director of the Vertebrate Genomics Group at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. “That’s why I’m so excited about Darwin’s Cats’ fur-based DNA collection. It’s easy on the cat and easy to scale, making it possible for us to level up cat genetics research.”

Warning: clicking on the link above takes you to a post on the de-extinction of the woolly mammoth. The “Darwin’s Cats” page is here.

Darwin’s Cats was launched in mid-2024 and has already analyzed genetic data from over 3,000 cats. Traditionally, collecting an animal’s DNA required either a cheek swab or, worse, a blood draw — both of which cats tend to resent. Darwin’s Cats is bypassing the battle with claws and fangs by introducing a revolutionary, stress-free method: DNA extraction from fur.

Joining is simple. Any cat owner can sign up for free. You then share details about your cat’s appearance, health, and behavior. Those who wish to go a step further can order a DNA sequencing kit with a tax-deductible $150 donation, which covers the cost of sequencing and analysis. Once 1,000 samples have been processed, participants will receive insights into their cat’s genetic background.

. . . Cats have lived alongside humans for thousands of years, yet they remain, in many ways, an enigma. Unlike dogs, whose domestication was carefully shaped by human breeding, cats largely domesticated themselves. Understanding their genetics could reveal not just the hidden history of our housecats, but also help us figure out ways to keep them healthier for longer.

And while this project is about unraveling feline DNA, it’s also about something bigger: bringing everyday people (and cats) into the world of genetic research. By crowd-sourcing data from thousands of cats, researchers can finally fill the gaps in our understanding of feline evolution and domestication. In short, this study could help cats live longer, healthier, and happier lives.

Researchers who weren’t involved with the study also praised the initiative. A spokesperson for the charity International Cat Care (iCatCare) told The Guardian: “We’re really interested in the collaborative approach of Darwin’s Ark, particularly in encouraging pet owners as community scientists to help advance the collective scientific understanding of cats as a species.”

You have to sign up to do this, and yes, you can take research surveys, but the main point seems to be to squeeze money out of you to get your cat’s DNA sequenced. What will that tell you? “50% alley, 10% Persian, 40% Ashkenazi Jew”?  But there are other sites that do this too. Here’s one that will sequence your cat’s entire genome for $499.  The Guardian has an article on this project that makes it seem more serious (click to read):

 

An excerpt:

Cat owners are being asked share their pet’s quirky traits and even post researchers their fur in an effort to shed light on how cats’ health and behaviour are influenced by their genetics.

The scientists behind the project, Darwin’s Cats, are hoping to enrol 100,000 felines, from pedigrees to moggies, with the DNA of 5,000 cats expected to be sequenced in the next year.

The team say the goal is to produce the world’s largest feline genetic database.

“Unlike most existing databases, which tend to focus on specific breeds or veterinary applications, Darwin’s Cats is building a diverse, large-scale dataset that includes pet cats, strays and mixed breeds from all walks of life,” said Dr Elinor Karlsson, the chief scientist at the US nonprofit organisation Darwin’s Ark, director of the vertebrate genomics group at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard and associate professor at the UMass Chan medical school.

“It’s important to note, this is an open data project, so we will share the data with other scientists as the dataset grows,” she added.

The project follows on the heels of Darwin’s Dogs, a similar endeavour that has shed light on aspects of canine behaviour, disease and the genetic origins of modern breeds.

Darwin’s Cats was launched in mid-2024 and already has more than 3,000 cats enrolled, although not all have submitted fur samples.

Participants from all parts of the world are asked to complete a number of free surveys about their pet’s physical traits, behaviour, environment, and health.

However, at present, DNA kits – for owners to submit fur samples – can be sent only to US residents, and a donation of $150 (£120) for one cat is requested to cover the cost of sequencing and help fund the research.

Karlsson added the team had developed a method to obtain high-quality DNA from loose fur without needing its roots – meaning samples can simply be collected by brushing.

The researchers hope that by combining insights from cats’ DNA with the survey results they can shed light on how feline genetics influences what cats look like, how they act and the diseases they experience.

But of course if they’re building a genetic database they need genetics, and that means they need that $150 out of your pocket. If you’re willing to do that, fine, but do you get any information back about your cat, or are you just funding another group’s research project? I don’t know, but if you’re helping them, you shouldn’t have to pay!

*************************

Finally, from Instagram, a “1970s vintage psychedelic disco cat ballet”.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Psychedelic Archives (@psychedelicarchives)

*************************

Lagniappe: Cats react to mice shown on t.v.: a “Whak-A-Mouse” game that seems to keep the cat entertained.

h/t: Debra, Ginger K.

As I wrote on February 13:

. . . . the Presidents of three organismal-biology societies, the Society for the Study of Evolution (SSE), the American Society of Naturalists (ASN) and the Society of Systematic Biologists (SSB) sent a declaration addressed to President Trump and all the members of Congress. (declaration archived here)  Implicitly claiming that its sentiments were endorsed by the 3500 members of the societies, the declaration also claimed that there is a scientific consensus on the definition of sex, and that is that sex is NOT binary but rather some unspecified but multivariate combination of different traits, a definition that makes sex a continuum or spectrum—and in all species!

You can see the tri-Societies’ announcement, published on February 5 on the SSE’s website, by clicking on the headline below:

On Feb. 13,, 23 biologists wrote to the Presidents of the three societies (our letter is at the link above), correcting their view that sex is a “construct” and is multidimensional. (Our response was largely confected by Luana Maroja of Williams College.) We emphasized that biological sex in humans (and in other animals and vascular plants) is as close to a binary as you can get (exceptions in humans range from 0.005% to .018%). We noted as well that biological sex is defined by the nature of the two observed reproductive systems in nature: one designed to produce large, immobile gametes (females) or small, mobile gametes (males). In some species of plants there are individuals of both sexes (“hermaphrodites”), but there are only two separate sexes, and each species has only two types of gametes.

We later got more people to sign the letter to the societies, ending up with 125 signatures of people willing to reveal their names.

The Presidents of the three Societies did not answer us at first, though eventually they did respond, though we cannot publicize their private email.  I’ve outlined the tenor of their response here, saying that they largely conceded our points:

 I will say that [the Society Presidents] admitted that they think they’re in close agreement with us (I am not so sure!), that their letter wasn’t properly phrased, that some of our differences come from different semantic interpretations of words like “binary” and “continuum”(nope), and that they didn’t send the letter anyway because a federal judge changed the Executive Order on sex (this didn’t affect our criticisms). At any rate, the tri-Societies letter is on hold because the organizations are now concerned with more serious threats from the Trump Administration, like science funding.

So the letter was never sent, and is still sitting on the SSE website, an embarrassing and biologically misleading example of virtue signaling. Nor did they answer Luana Maroja’s subsequent email asking whether they would remove the announcement from the SSE website and inform the Societies’ members of the change.  They have been notably unresponsive, and, although admitting problems with their announcement about sex, they have neither changed the letter nor explained how it is misleading.

You can see all my posts about this kerfuffle here. Besides our weighing in, Richard Dawkins put up two relevant posts on his website, one mentioning the kerfuffle and explaining very clearly why there are only two sexes, and the other showing that even the three Presidents who wrote the declarations implicitly accepted the binary nature of sex in their own published research.

Given that the three Society Presidents who wrote the letter never sent it, and have backed off on its assertions, I call on them to either retract the letter or clarify and qualify it. Right now it stands as an embarrassment to not just the Societies, but to biologists in general—people who are supposed to be wedded to the truth and not to woke ideology. It goes without saying that the claim that sex is nonbinary is made simply to make people who feel that they’re neither male nor female feel better about themselves. But someone’s self-image should not depend on biological definitions and realities. It does not “erase” non-binary people, nor diminish their worth, to note that biological sex is binary.

I will echo Ronald Reagan, “Please, Society Presidents, tear down that announcement.”

***********

Finally, in a new post called “Debunking Mainstream Media Lies about Biological Sex,” Colin Wright shows that this kind of distortion is widespread in the media. Here’s how he begins his defense of the sex binary—by showing  misleading articles in the media (he mentions the SSE statement):

On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order affirming the binary nature of sex in federal law, a move that was solidified a month later by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) with a scientifically robust definition of sex and the sexes: male and female. This reaffirmation of biological reality sent left-wing media into a frenzy, unleashing a flood of articles attempting to deconstruct and redefine sex through the lens of progressive queer ideology.

The Society for the Study of Evolution quickly issued a statement, purportedly on behalf of all 3,500 of its members, claiming that the executive order’s recognition of the sex binary “is contradicted by extensive scientific evidence,” and, remarkably, even invoked the subjective “lived experience of people” as part of their counterargument. The Washington Post followed suit on February 19 with an article titled, “Trump says there are ‘two sexes.’ Experts and science say it’s not binary.” A piece in The Hill this week accused the executive order and HHS guidelines of containing “profound scientific inaccuracies,” while Science News proclaimed that “sex is messy” and that “choosing any single definer of sex is bound to sow confusion.” Similar articles challenging the definitions outlined in Trump’s executive order and the HHS guidance have also appeared in Time Magazine, The Boston Globe, Scientific American, The Guardian, and numerous other outlets.

These responses have come in waves, with new attempts to muddy the waters appearing weekly. But one recent article from NPR—“How is sex determined? Scientists say it’s complicated”—encapsulates virtually every fallacious argument and pseudoscientific distortion used in the others. As such, it serves as the ideal target to be used for a collective rebuttal.

He then proceeds with the debunking and ends with this:

The left’s assault on the binary reality of sex is not about science—it is about politics. The goal is to deconstruct and redefine fundamental biological truths to serve ideological ends, whether that be justifying the inclusion of males in female sports, allowing men into women’s prisons, or pushing irreversible medical interventions on children under the guise of “gender-affirming care.”

Yep, it was inevitable that the greatest writer in the English language, but one who wrote several centuries ago, would have to be “decolonized.”  You know, of course, that Shakespeare’s plays are full of stereotypes, dirty jokes, and filthy words, and that can’t be allowed to stand. But it’s worse than that: he’s made out to be a white bigot: a sixteenth-century Nazi.

And so, according to this new piece in Spiked (click below to read), the Pecksniffs have decided to place the Bard in perspective for the public, including the fact he adhered to the ideology of white supremacy. But read Johanna Williams’s article below, largely riffing on a Torygraph article that seems credible:

Some excerpts:

What is it with Britain’s cultural custodians and their hatred of everything British? National self-loathing drips from curators and directors alike, revealed in a Tourette’s-like compulsion to blurt out ‘Decolonise!’ at everything they see. They are currently getting hot under the collar  [JAC: archived here] in the sleepy town of Stratford-upon-Avon, where they have Shakespeare’s birthplace in their sights.

The links above and in the three paragraphs below the next excerpt go to a Torygraph piece (archived here) that says this:

The claims were made in a 2022 collaborative research project between the trust and Dr Helen Hopkins, an academic at the University of Birmingham.

The research took issue with the trust’s quaint Stratford attractions, comprising the supposed childhood homes and shared family home of Shakespeare and Anne Hathaway, his wife, because the Bard was presented as a “universal” genius.

This idea of Shakespeare’s universal genius “benefits the ideology of white European supremacy”, it was claimed.

This is because it presents European culture as the world standard for high art, a standard which was pushed through “colonial inculcation” and the use of Shakespeare as a symbol of “British cultural superiority” and “Anglo-cultural supremacy”.

Veneration of Shakespeare is therefore part of a “white Anglo-centric, Eurocentric, and increasingly ‘West-centric’ worldviews that continue to do harm in the world today”.

. . . The project recommended that Shakespeare’s Birthplace Trust recognise that “the narrative of Shakespeare’s greatness has caused harm – through the epistemic violence”.

The project also recommended that the trust present Shakespeare not as the “greatest”, but as “part of a community of equal and different writers and artists from around the world”.

And as the Pecksniffs kvetch, so the Birthplace Trust follows:

. . . The trust will continue looking at updating the “current and future interpretation” of objects in its collection. It will also explore how objects could be used as the focus for new interpretations which tell more international stories, in order to appeal to a more diverse audience.

It has additionally pledged to remove offensive language from its collections information, as part of a “long, thoughtful” process.

. . . The Globe Theatre in London ran a series of seminars titled Anti-Racist Shakespeare which promoted scholarship focused on the idea of race in his plays.

Academies taking part in the series made a number of claims, including that King Lear was about “whiteness”, and that the character of Prince Hamlet holds “racist” views of black people.

Back to Spiked:

Where normal people admire timber-framed houses and marvel at the schoolroom where Shakespeare learnt the classics, our cultural elites see ‘white supremacy’. Where you and I see genius in plays like King Lear, Hamlet and Othello, they see a symbol of ‘British cultural superiority’. They seem to imagine that racist thugs have swapped sharing memes on Telegram for watching Macbeth at the local theatre. Labelling the Bard as a vehicle for white supremacy really is that insane.

With hatred comes flagellation. As such, Shakespeare’s Birthplace Trust – the charity tasked with preserving Shakespeare-related heritage sites in historic Stratford-upon-Avon – is now ‘decolonising’ its vast collection. This means that, just as in practically every other museum and art gallery across the UK, exhibits will be labelled to make clear ‘the continued impact of Empire’ or the ‘impact of colonialism’. In Stratford-upon-Avon, the special twist will be to show how Shakepeare’s legacy has allegedly played a part in this litany of sin.

Shakespeare’s Birthplace Trust has also warned visitors that some items in its collections may contain ‘language or depictions that are racist, sexist, homophobic or otherwise harmful’. Of course they will. The past was a different time, with different attitudes and values. Shakespeare was not subjected to training in diversity, equity and inclusion. Nor was he presented with a style guide advising him as to the correct pronouns to use for his many crossdressing characters. Thank goodness.

And Williams’s conclusion, the first paragraph of which is spot on:

Just as Shakespeare is integral to being British, his work also absolutely has universal value. He portrays emotions such as joy, grief and anger, and experiences like being young, falling in love and growing old that are fundamental not to being British or even European, but to being human. This is why his legacy endures. His genius is to transcend racial, national and generational differences and point to what we have in common, rather than what divides us. That Shakespeare is English is incidental to the common humanity in his work, but it is entirely relevant to the historical circumstances that made his prodigious talent possible. To boil all this down to ‘white supremacy’ is ridiculous.

The Birthplace Trust’s real concern is to stop British people taking pride in Shakespeare and seeing his work as a symbol of ‘British cultural superiority’. It wants him to be viewed not as the ‘greatest’, but as ‘part of a community of equal and different writers and artists from around the world’. But if academics and curators really cannot say that Shakespeare’s plays are better than a Nigerian soap opera or a Brazilian drag-queen performance, then we really are in trouble. If even Shakespeare’s custodians cannot say that his work is the pinnacle of human achievement, then the Bard has no need of enemies. The barbarians are not at the gate, they are sitting in the stalls.

There is no older work that cannot be scrutinized for violations of wokeness, and they inevitably find it.  Now Shakespeare must always be put in “context” when his works are taught in schools—if they’re taught at all. After all, do we really want our kids to read plays written by a Nazi?

h/t: Ginger K.

Whether you like it or not, you’re going to look at photos of my ducks today: Esther and Mordecai. (This is the equivalent of a proud parent showing off pictures of their kid.)  They have now been here well over a week, and have settled in nicely, having learned to navigate most of the pond (except for the parts blocked by netting.)  They have also mated at least once, though mallards mate several to many times before the female finally nests.

Esther hasn’t yet started building a nest. Once she does—and I hope it’s on a windowsill instead of the ground—she will lay all her eggs, one per day, and then, when they’re all laid, she will sit tight on them, brooding them for just about 28 days, when they will all hatch within one day. And then. . . ducklings on the pond!

Although mallards are ground-nesters, somehow the Botany Pond ducks have learned to nest on the windowsills of the adjacent buildings, which affords them protection from both predators and the elements. But Esther seems to be a young and rather wild duck, and I hope she doesn’t put her nest on the ground, where predators and errant humans could disturb it.

The good news is that both ducks have learned to come to my whistle for a nosh, and when I make my characteristic call, they both come swimming towards me. This is something that’s happened only in the last two days. Ducks learn fast!  Here are some photos, all taken yesterday.

BREAKING NEWS: When I went to see the pair this morning, I couldn’t find Esther, though Mordecai was on the east side of the pond. I had a feeling, and so I looked up. Sure enough, there was Esther sitting on a ledge in a window of the second floor of Erman, the building next to the pond. She is clearly scoping out nesting spots (“nest shopping”, we call it), and so the next step in the breeding process has occurred. She will pick out a good ledge (that’s a nice one, above soft ground), build a nest, and then lay eggs. I’m glad she knows enough to nest on a ledge and not on the ground. These ducks are not dumb!  To see two films of Honey and her ducks jumping off the ledge, be sure to go here and watch the movies

Below: the pair swimming together. They are NEVER far apart, and if they get separated by too great a distance, Esther will quack loudly at Mordecai and he will come swimming to her. (He’s a good husband.)  Remember, only female mallards can make the characteristic quack that we associate with mallards.

After her swim, Esther dried off on the warm cement facing the sun:

As I’ve said, hens are particularly cute when they tilt their heads, which, given the placement of their eyes, they have to do to see above them. They often do this when a hawk or other possible predator flies overhead:

Swimming. If you haven’t seen our mallards before, the blue stripe on the wings is called the speculum, and we don’t really know why it’s there.

Mordecai swimming. His neck is stretched out because he hears something. Note his curly tail feathers:

Mordecai swimming, neck in normal position. I like the psychedelic patterns in the water:

Esther chilling (or rather, warming) on the cement edge, eastern part of pond:

Mordecai standing just a few feet away from her. He doesn’t want to neglect his reproductive investment! Note that both ducks are in good condition, healthy and plump:

As Esther jumps up onto the edge from the water, she uses her wings to assist, and you can clearly see her speculum. Each blue feather (these are called “secondary” feathers, with the “primaries” being the main flight feathers) has a white stripe on it. I still have several speculum feathers from Honey, as mallards molt and regrow all their feathers after they have babies. During this period of a few weeks, they’re unable to fly.

This new 232-page government-commissioned study, called “the Sullivan Report” after its leader, opens this way (click on the screenshot below to see the whole thing).

This independent review was commissioned in February 2024 by the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology.

The aims of the review are as follows:

i. Identifying obstacles to accurate data collection and research on sex and on gender identity in public bodies and in the research system

ii. Setting out good practice guidance for how to collect data on sex and gender identity

All public bodies, as defined by the Cabinet Office, are in scope of the review. The review also considers research institutions and organisations from outside the public sector, where relevant to the aims of the review.

The review is UK wide, respecting the devolved nature of areas of responsibility within the research and development landscape and the collection of relevant areas of data and statistics. This report concerns data and statistics. A further report will examine barriers to research.

The review is led by Professor Alice Sullivan, University College London, assisted by policy analysts Murray Blackburn Mackenzie, and Dr Kathryn Webb, University of Oxford.

I’ll confess that I’ve only skimmed it, and am relying on the summary given by the Times of London. (If you subscribe click the headline below, or find the piece archived here.) It does, however, appear to draw on many studies: over 500 of them.

The upshot is that biological sex (male or female, with a very, very tiny proportion of true intersexes) is not consistently identified in government documents, even though some of them mandate “gender identification”.  While having both is usually okay by me, the absence of biological sex has, so the report (and the Times article) argue, caused the loss of useful data as well as harm to people.  On pp. 5-6 the report makes ten recommendations, and here are just three:

2. Data on sex should be collected by default in all research and data collection commissioned by government and quasi-governmental organisations. By default, both sexes should be included in all research, including clinical trials, and sex should be considered as a factor in analysis and reporting. As a general rule (with some obvious exceptions), a 50/50 sex ratio is desirable in studies

3. The default target of any sex question should be sex (in other words, biological sex, natal sex, sex at birth). Questions which combine sex with gender identity, including gender identity as recognised by a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) have a mixed target. Sex as a biological category is constant across time and across jurisdictions, whereas the concept of ’legal sex’ subject to a GRC may be subject to change in the future and varies across jurisdictions. Using natal sex future-proofs data collection against any such change, ensuring consistency.

6. The word ‘gender’ should be avoided in question wording, as it has multiple distinct meanings, including: a synonym for sex; social structures and stereotypes associated with sex; and gender identity. If a question targeting gender identity is worded as a question on gender, this is likely to mislead many respondents. Questions on sex have also often been labelled as ‘gender’. Change in the use of the term ‘gender’ means that it is important that questions on sex are labelled explicitly as such.

Plus given that there are over a hundred genders on lists I’ve seen, what does it add to a survey to add “gender identity”? I don’t really object to it, but really, what does gender add for official forms if biological sex is already specified?

Here are some ways the data are erratic (I’m not sure that any study asked for “natal sex” or “biological sex” sex rather than just “sex,” which these days is ambiguous.  (That information might be in the long report.) Quotes from the Times:

The study, led by Professor Alice Sullivan from University College London, investigated all public bodies and found “the meaning of sex is no longer stable in administrative or major survey data”.

Sullivan’s review found inconsistencies in the way sex and gender were recorded and conflated. Some official surveys were found to remove sex altogether and only collected information on gender identity.

This included a Royal Navy sexual harassment survey, which asked how respondents identified rather than asking for their sex “despite its obvious relevance to the subject matter”.

In another case, a children’s camping programme raised safeguarding concerns through collecting data on gender identity, with male, female and “other” response options.

. . .The Office for National Statistics (ONS) also previously caused confusion by proposing respondents to the 2021 England and Wales census could answer the sex question in terms of their subjective gender identity, rather than their sex. It was later forced to change this through judicial review.

This ambiguity also occurs in the National Health Service (NHS):

The review found that across the NHS “gender identity is consistently prioritised over or replaces sex”. She said that records that traditionally represented biological sex were “unreliable and can be altered on request by the patient” and that there had been a “gradual shift away from recording and analysing sex in NHS datasets”.

And the report describes some of the palpable harms deriving from this inconsistency. Bold headings are mine:

Medical Harm:

This meant there were “clear clinical risks”, such as patients not being called up for cervical smear tests or prostate exams, or the misinterpretation of lab results. Sullivan said: “This has potentially fatal consequences for trans people.”

In one case a paediatrician said that a child had been brought up in the preferred gender of the mother, which was different to their birth-assigned gender. “She [the mother] had gone to the GP and requested a change of gender/NHS number when the baby was a few weeks old and the GP had complied. Children’s social care did not perceive this as a child protection issue,” the doctor reported.

It’s even worse because in the UK (and many states in the U.S.) people can change their official records to a non-natal sex, which can also be harmful:

Sullivan’s review said the patient’s ability to change their records “puts transgender individuals at a particular disadvantage and as such is potentially discriminatory”. She said that in some cases samples such as blood tests could be rejected by laboratories or sex-specific cancer referrals could be missed.

Legal Harm:

In the justice system Sullivan found that definitions of sex and gender were “highly inconsistent”.

Sex can be recorded differently across the prison service, while many police forces record sex as the gender given in a gender recognition certificate.

The review said it meant that data across police forces was not reliable, particularly in patterns of female offending and “the classification of a small number of males within the female category may result in artificial significant increase in female offending rates”.

She said: “Many police forces record crimes by male suspects as though they were committed by women at the request of the perpetrator or based on how a person ‘presents’.”

Guidance notes for officers on the Police National Computer (PNC) state that it is “quite possible” that an arrested person who has acquired a gender recognition certificate and not informed the police “could be released or otherwise dealt with before any link to their previous offending history is known (through confirmation by fingerprints)”. The review found that this was also likely to be true of those who self-declared a different sex and name.

Distortion of educational data:

In schools and universities, the review found that children and young adults were more likely to report being transgender but that without biological sex being recorded data that showed the different life outcomes, including earnings, could not be relied upon.

The review said: “Significant sex-based effects could either be missed, because they are wrongly assumed to be due to changing practices in self-identification, or conversely wrongly inferred, as the data has become impossible to read reliably for sex-based effects.”

Pay differentials:

The lack of reliable data was also found to have an impact on pay gap reporting.

UK public authorities and private sector employers with headcounts of 250 or more have been required by law to report annually on their gender pay gap — which records how much less women earn than men.

However, those who identify as non-binary are excluded from the data and gender identity is recorded rather than sex.

Sullivan’s recommendations.  These are given in extenso following p. 6 in the report, but Sullivan is opposed to reporting gender identity (and I think this means non-natal sex for transsexuals):

It has been argued that recording biological sex alongside gender identity could interfere with a person’s human rights.

However, Sullivan found — and presented legal advice to back it up — that recording sex as gender identity was in itself likely to breach UK data laws and potentially human rights laws.

She said: “There are things that statistics cannot do. Statistics are not a means of personal self-expression. They can neither validate nor invalidate individual identities, and they cannot see into people’s souls.”

Remember that this is a report commissioned by the UK government, so take it up with them if you don’t like what it says. However, I do agree that on birth certificates and official documents, like driver’s licenses, what should appear is not gender identity but biological sex. If you want to add “gender self-assignment” to things like medical records, I don’t have a huge objection to that so long as biological sex is the primary thing identified, because I see no medical advantage, and palpable disadvantage, to recording only gender identity.

I’m still waiting to see how advocates of the “multidimensional, multivariate” concept of sex tell us how to DEFINE AND DETERMINE people’s sex. For the Sullivan Report, at least, trans women are not women, nor are trans men men—not in the official sense.

h/t: Richard

Once again we have a conflict between science and the unevidenced claims of superstition. This time it’s from Australia.

Some of the “Willandra lakes fossils” from New South Wales, which include the famous “Lake Mungo remains” (three sets of hominin fossils that are the oldest ones known from Australia), have been or are scheduled to be reburied without further study. You can guess why: the indigenous people claim that these are their ancestors, giving them, so they say, moral rights to do what they want with all ancient bones that are found. I first learned about it from the two tweets below, but had a lot of trouble finding any news. I suspect that the news has been suppressed by the media because any intimation that these fossils derived from ancestors in other places is abhorrent, violating their superstitions. As the Australian National Museum notes:

From an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander view of creation, people have always been in Australia since the land was created.

On mainland Australia, the Dreaming is a system of belief held by many first Australians to account for their origins. In the Dreaming all-powerful beings roamed the landscape and laid the moral and physical groundwork for human society.

Prior to the Dreaming there was a ‘land before time’ when the earth was flat. Ancestral beings moulded the landscape through their actions and gave life to the first people and their culture. No one can say exactly how old the Dreaming is. From an Indigenous perspective the Dreaming has existed from the beginning of time.

And that led to the situation that I saw in these two tweets:

The Willandra Lakes fossils made the region a World Heritage Site

But now our evolutionary heritage is being reburied by the government, against the protests of UNESCO, archaeologists and some Aboriginal groups

Please sign the petition to stop this destruction (link below) https://t.co/6D3DNEqL2k pic.twitter.com/TgOEqoj0Zp

— Mungo Manic (@MungoManic) March 2, 2025

I link to the petition below.

This week, one of the most important fossils ever found in Australia (and perhaps the world) was taken to an undisclosed location, put in a hole and covered with dirt

WLH-50, the Garnpung Giant pic.twitter.com/ikot0CMzLd

— Mungo Manic (@MungoManic) March 18, 2025

You can read about the Garnpung Giant, WLH-50, here, on a site by Peter Brown. (The fossil is called “Giant” because its head is unusually large). It hasn’t been studied much, but has already been reburied to satisfy the wishes of indigenous people. I truly wonder why many of the aboriginals (not all of them) prefer these fossils to be buried rather than studied, but, as I said, scientific study might show these fossils to themselves have been from “settler colonialists”!

Willandra Lakes Hominid 50 was recovered from a deflating land surface in the Garnpung/Leaghur Lake region of south-western New South Wales, with the first published report in Flood (1983). This skeleton has not been reliably dated, has not been formally described, and is probably pathological. These circumstances result in some unease over the extreme claims made about the relevance of WLH 50 to interpretations of the Australasian evolutionary sequence (Stringer 1992; Brown 1992; Stringer and Bräuer 1994). In particular WLH 50 regularly appears as a corner stone in arguments for evolutionary continuity between the Indonesian and Australian regions published over the last two decades (Thorne 1984; Wolpoff 1992, 1995; Thorne and Wolpoff 1992; Frayer et al. 1993; Frayer et al. 1994; Hawks et al. 2000) which is an unusual circumstance for an undescribed and poorly provenanced fossil.

Attempts to date WLH 50 have obtained controversial results. Initial attempts to obtain a radiocarbon date achieved a result much younger than expected. It is possible that the specimen was contaminated and material other than collagen was dated. It is also possible that the fossil is a lot younger than some people would like.

WLH 50 consists of a fragmentary cranial vault, with damage to the basal and temporal segments, some facial fragments, parts of an elbow joint and some smaller postcranial pieces. The most striking feature of the cranial vault, malar fragments and elbow is of great size. Although glabella is not preserved, maximum cranial length can be estimated (±3 mm) to 212 mm, with a maximum cranial breadth of 151 mm and maximum supraorbital breadth greater than 131 mm. These dimensions exceed the recorded Aboriginal range of variation (Brown 1989). Even with the pathologically thickened vault, discussed below, endocranial volume was approximately 1540 ml compared with the Holocene Aboriginal male mean of 1271 ml Brown (1992b) . The extremely large size of WLH 50 should be of some concern to those who argue that this skeleton is in some manner representative of ‘Late Pleistocene’ Australians (Thorne 1984; Wolpoff 1992, 1995; Thorne and Wolpoff 1992; Frayer et al. 1993; Frayer et al. 1994).

There’s more at the site linked above, but the large cranial vault made it especially imperative to study this specimen. Sadly, it’s now deteriorating below ground, thanks to the demands of the indigenous people.

As Wikipedia notes, this region has harbored humans for the last 40,000 years, some of the oldest H. sapiens fossils known. (Remember, the humans who populated the world left Africa roughly 70,000 years ago, and colonized Australia only 5,000 years after that). That makes these fossils especially important for scientific study.  But when they’re reburied, as all three of the major Lake Mungo fossils have been, no further study is possible, and the bones will be destroyed. And look at this:

In 1989, the skeleton of a child believed to be contemporary with Mungo man was discovered. Investigation of the remains was blocked by the 3TTG with the remains subsequently protected but remaining in-situ. An adult skeleton was exposed by erosion in 2005 but by late 2006 had been completely destroyed by wind and rain. This loss resulted in the Indigenous custodians’ receiving a government grant of $735,000 to survey and improve the conservation of skeletons, hearths and middens that were eroding from the dunes. Conservation is in-situ and no research is permitted.

At any rate, two readers managed to find two article on this from the ABC. The first one is from 2022, but the second is from this week, showing that the dispute is ongoing.

From 2022 (click to read):

An excerpt:

First Nations people with direct links to Australia’s oldest human remains say they should have the ultimate voting rights to re-inter the skeleton, not the federal Environment Minister.

The Willandra Lake Region, near Ivanhoe in the far Central West, is home to Mungo Man’s 42,000-year-old remains, the oldest in Australia and first recorded evidence of a ceremonial burying.

In 1974, Mungo Man’s body was removed from the ancient burial site, along with more than 100 other Aboriginal graves.

In 2017, the body was returned to the region but has remained in the Lake Mungo visitor centre.

JAC: It’s not there any more: Mungo Man and Mungo Lady were reburied about a week after the article above appeared. Researchers and elders tried to work out some compromise under which the bones would be “reburied” (presumably put in a facility below ground) while still accessible to scientists. But it failed. More:

According to the National Native Title Tribunal, the majority of Lake Mungo falls within the Paakantyi people’s land.

Paakantyi man Michael Young said Ms Ley having the final say was an example of settler colonialism.

“We have had that for 234 years and we are really over that side of it,” he said.

“We want our people re-established in those areas so they can determine what is best for their country and their people.”

I am not moved by the “settler-colonialism” argument. No living indigenous people know whether these remains are ancestral. The people represented by known Mungo fossils might not have reproduced, or might have left no living descendants if they did.  Their relationship to living First Nations people is unknown, and it’s a loss to science to cater to these unevidenced claims. Sure, there can be displays with casts and appreciation for the history of ancient humans that came to Australia, but what a loss to science to rebury some of the oldest H. sapiens remains known from out of Africa!

The article below (click to read) came out two days ago on the ABC:

Excerpt:

The discovery of Mungo Man and Mungo Lady, some of the most significant remains ever found in Australia, helped to re-write the history of this country and its First Peoples.

But how they, and the 106 other remains found with them, should be laid to rest has led to decades of division, secret burials and two federal court cases.

The reburial of the final skeletal remains into undisturbed and unmarked grave sites — overseen by a group of elders — is currently underway.

But some traditional owners hope a last-ditch federal court case will stop the reburials and allow a public “keeping place” to preserve the remains for further scientific study.

. . . Mungo Man is the oldest skeleton ever found in Australia at approximately 42 thousand years old — older than the pyramids in Egypt — and some of the earliest human remains discovered anywhere in the world.

This finding confirmed how long First Nations people have lived on this continent and revealed new details about how they lived at the time.

Over the 1960s and 1970s, 106 other Indigenous skeletons were removed from the same region and taken to Canberra.

The information gathered at the site led to the region being listed on the World Heritage Register in 1981, one of the first in Australia.

But the removal of the bones without their consent angered traditional owners of the three groups in the area, the Mutthi Mutthi, Paakantji (Barkindji) and Ngiyampaa people.

This sounds like a good compromise, and even some tribal elders agree with that suggestion:

Wamba Wamba and Mutthi Mutthi man Jason Kelly and other community members have long believed the remains should go to a ‘keeping place’ that would remain accessible to both scientists and descendants, as was requested by his elders.

But even the elders don’t have authority here!

But members of the Willandra Lakes Region Aboriginal Advisory Group (AAG), an advisory group of community-elected representatives of the three traditional owner groups, want the remains reburied in a secret location with a traditional ceremony so they could finally be at peace.

“A keeping place is no good for our ancestors,” Barkindji man and AAG member Ivan Johnson told ABC Mildura.

“Our ancestors were buried in the ground, and we should put them back in the ground and leave them there to rest.”

Rest? Being at peace at last? They aren’t resting, they are DEAD and only their bones remain, bones that can give us clues to human migration and evolution. What about the Garnpung Giant? Could it possibly be a specimen of Homo erectus (thought to have gone extinct about 110,000 years ago)? We won’t know.

And of course the scientists object, though there are some who have been cowed by the Authority of the Sacred Victims. Read the article to learn more. .

As the reburials proceed, so too does a federal court application brought by Jason Kelly seeking to force Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek to bring them to a halt.

He also wants the locations of the burial sites to be recorded and have burial mounds erected so descendants and the public can pay their respects.

A decision is expected to be handed down within the next week.

You can sign a petition about it having the fossils accessible in a “keeping place” here (though it won’t do much good, I suspect). Not many people have signed the petition (just over a thousand); imagine if every subscriber here signed it!  I find it unconscionable that false legands and dubious claims about ancestry impede science in this way. A “keeping place” can both respect the wishes of the indigenous people and at the same time allow scientists to study the remains.

Here’s a video from The Australian in which the anthropologist who apparently discovered Mungo Man and Mungo Lady argues for a keeping place that will allow study of the fossils.  He notes that in 20 years there will surely be new methods for studying fossils like this, making their preservation especially important.

h/t: Cate, Al

Today we have some lovely bird pictures by reader Paul Handford. Paul’s captions and IDs are indented, and you can enlarge the photos by clicking on them.

A few words about me.  I am an evolutionary biologist, retired since 2010.  I grew up in UK, did my doctorate in E.B. Ford’s group, then to Rockefeller U, NYC, for post-doc (on possible genetic correlates of vocal dialects in the Rufous-collared sparrow, Zonotrichia capensis, in n.w. Argentina), then to Canada, home of my main career, on faculty at Western University Biology Dept, in London, Ontario.  After a decade or so post-retirement living in British Columbia, we moved definitively to Ireland.

This these are all passerine birds from Ireland, mostly from the general Dublin area, taken in the past 2-3 years.

Male Chaffinch, Fringilla coelebs.  Drumcondra, Dublin, Mar, 2023:

European Goldfinch, Carduelis carduelis. Kilmainham, Dublin.  Mar, 2022:

Grey Wagtail, Motacilla cinerea. River Tolka, Drumcondra.  Feb 2023:

European Robin, Erithacus rubecula. Castletown, Celbridge, Dec 2021:

Eurasian Blackbird, Turdus merula. Drumcondra, Feb, 2023:

Song Thrush, Turdus philomelos, River Dodder, Dublin. Jan, 2022:

These shots are essentially portrait shots, so little to say about behaviour etc. (except the singing robin!)

More shots from around Dublin. You might be surprised to see the humble and much-maligned starling here;  but though ubiquitous and pushy, close inspection shows them to be quite beautiful, and they are remarkable vocal mimics, with a highly complex song.

Eurasian Skylark, Alauda arvensis.  Bull Island, Dublin Bay. Mar 2022:

White-throated Dipper, Cinclus cinclus.  River Dodder.  Apr 2023:

Eurasian Blue Tit, Cyanistes caeruleus.  Drumcondra.  Feb 2022:

Great Tit, Parus major.  River Liffey, Kilmainham. Feb 2022:

European Starling, Sturnus vulgaris.  Bull Island.  Apr 2022:

Eurasian wren, Troglodytes troglodytes.  River Dodder.  Apr 2023:

Camera:  Canon  EOS 90D;  lens:  Canon EF 100-400mm 1:4.5-5.6 L IS II USM

As of five minutes ago. But last night we had bad storms in Chicago and now it’s snowing. I hope the ducks are okay. Esther looks to have motherhood in her future.

I’ve posted quite a bit on the futility of attempts to bring back the woolly mammoth via genetic engineering. In my view, it’s close to a scam that deludes the public about what the geneticists really intend to produce, which, as Dr Tori Herridge at the University of Sheffield calls it, is simply “an elephant in a fur coat”. For my posts on this debacle, inspired by conversations with Matthew Cobb, go here. But there are two other useful references that Matthew provided, with links:

An extract from his book As Gods: A Moral History of the Genetic Age

and

A Vox article dealing with this mishigas. The geneticists also want to resurrect the dodo and the thylacine, equally futile endeavors. But despite all the problems that scientists have noted, for some reason many science journalists are still selling the “mammoth resurrection” tale as told by Colossal Biosciences, a company with $10.2 billion dollars in funds.

As I watched NBC News last night, I was upset to see that NBC had also bought the story, selling it as the program’s final “There’s good news tonight” upbeat story. You can watch it below, but do it today as they replace the news each day. Click on the screenshot below and start the segment at 18:29 (turn up the sound using the icon at the left bottom of the screen):

First, Colossal’s CEO Ben Lamm says that the company aims, besides producing mammoths, to  “return balance to ailing ecosystems.” That is ridiculous. Is the tundra ailing because of the absence of mammoths, and, if so, will a couple of elephants in fur coats, not adapted to that ecosystem, cure it? Which ecosystem will the dodos “cure”?

He adds, misleadingly, “We actually took the genes that made a mammoth a mammoth, mapped them to mice, and then in only one month we produced living, healthy mice.”  He doesn’t mention the huge mortality in this experiment, nor that they didn’t REALLY use mammoth genes, but mice genes that had a few DNA bases changed to the mammoth version (As I recall, they changed I think only three bases in seven mouse genes.) There was no attempt to insert full mammoth genes into mice, and they really couldn’t because they’d have to insert the control regions, too.

Lamm’s statement is flat wrong, and misleads the listener into thinking that they put mammoth hair genes into mice, making the mice “woolly.” In fact, as I pointed out before, the wooliest of all the mice had no mammoth-informed DNA in it. There is not the slightest indication that the lipid-related gene they put in the mice will increase their ability to withstand cold.

Lamm also neglects to mention the difficulty of getting entire mammoth chromosomes into the egg of an Asiatic elephant, nor the impossibility of constructing the Volkswagen-sized artificial elephant uteruses that would be needed to grow up the “mammothy” embryos to birth.

Finally, in view of the futility of this project, another Colossal officer says that their endeavors have inspired children to love science, and perhaps to save the environment. That’s the Hail Mary call of a dying project.  Note that they project the production of the first mammoth (again, just an “elephant in a fur coat”  for 2028. Only three more years! Wouldn’t it be cheaper just to put a giant fur coat onto an Asiatic elephant and then usher several of these garbed pachyderms to the tundra?

There are many changes–probably millions–necessary to convert an Asiatic elephant to a woolly mammoth, including those affecting behavior and metabolism. They will not accomplish such a conversion. Nor will they accomplish it with the dodo nor the thylacine. But Colossal talks a good game, as you see, and they’ve pulled the wool (pardon the pun) over the eyes of the public and of many credulous journalists. Shame on NBC News for not doing due diligence.

The new Jesus and Mo strip, called “King”, came with the note, “They’re still doing it.” What are they doing? Look:

It’s especially prevalent in the U.S.  And Luana told me this information, which is new to me:

The reason for this cartoon is the recent uproar about “Christ is King”. The expression was originally benign (and is everywhere in Brazil and South America – literally 90% of trucks have a sticker with it – “Jesus Cristo é o senhor”) but was appropriated as a symbol of far-right bigots.  Some people are very upset about it and are trying to reclaim the sentence back to its original sense.

Lee Jussim wrote about it here.