[recycled post; first appeared here]
An imagined dialogue:
Biologist: Young man, you don’t really like breasts . . .
Young Man: What?! I love breasts! Are you crazy?! Do you think I’m gay?!
B: Let me finish. You are not attracted to breasts for the breasts alone.
YM: Sure I am. Show me a photo of just a set of breasts, preferably full and upright and naked breasts, and I’ll be attracted to them.
B: Hold on. What I am trying to say is that your genes are causing you to be excited by signs of sexual maturity and fertility.
YM: If they are signs they definitely aren’t “Stop” signs. Maybe “Go” signs. Or “dangerous curves ahead.” But really, I just like breasts and that’s all there is to it.
B: Okay. Consider this: Is the reason why you crack open a nut simply because you enjoy cracking nuts?
YM: From breasts to nuts, I think you have issues, man.
B: The purpose to cracking open nuts is to get at the edible nut-meat. And the purpose of that is to eat and satisfy your hunger. One of the purposes of that, in turn, is to feed your liver fats and sugars that will keep you fueled during the hours between meals.
YM: I don’t eat for my liver. I eat because I am hungry. Screw my liver.
B: It may seem that way. But there are causes deeper than what our minds can readily perceive.
YM: I’ll tell you one thing – I definitely prefer breasts over nuts.
Carnival of Evolution #27 – Feed Your Head Edition
As your server for this evening’s Carnival of Evolution, allow me to introduce the offerings from a line-up of over two dozen chefs!
For your pleasure we have these specials . . . .
1. Chicken’s teeth, whale’s legs, and the tails of humans. Raithie at Teenage Atheist has cooked up some Fanged Chickens (… and atavisms). May I recommend a nice white wine to go with it?
2. Yoder at Denim and Tweed presents a gourmet dinner for two featuring birds, ants, and Doublemint gum: Double the mutualists, double the fun?
3. At Chez Greg Laden’s (Blog), peruse a steam table stocked with pigeons, peregrine falcons, and goshawks. His recommendation: Keep an eye on the prey: You’ll find the predator. An alternative offering of BBC, Darwin, and tetrapods is also available. The title is a bit of a mouthful – Natural Selection vs. Opportunity in Macroevolutionary Patterning of the Fossil Record – but so is a burrito.
4. If you like greens, you’ll find plenty over at Science & Soul. Kazimierz Lebowski ventured into one wild kitchen, 7/6/10—77F—60%H—TFI, to bring you flycatchers, kudzu and millipedes.
5. I bet you’ve never seen these ingredients used together: robotics, soccer, and evolution. Have a taste. Wilfried Elmenreich at Self-Organizing Networked Systems is the mastermind behind this appetizer: Evolving a self-organizing soccer team.
– Excuse me, sir, m’am. You can’t smoke in here. You are welcome to use the side patio for that. Yes, I realize it is an inconvenience for you. But . . . you do realize that smoking indoors would wreck the aromas and scents other guests wish to enjoy? You don’t care? Why, you might as well shred your tobacco and sprinkle it over their plates. Okay. Good evening to you as well. Bye.
Sorry for that interruption. Some patrons! –
6. Care for a glass of wine? We have wine. From where else but Down the Cellar. We’ve got a lovely vintage with hints of bacteria, phage and shared resources. Mouton Rothschild? Mais non. A tragedy averted.
7. At Maison Dr. Carin Bondar we have a special treat: oxytocin, wasps, and humans of the Serengeti. Shall I order you a Sacrifice on the Serengeti – A Guest Post by Eric M Johnson?
8. The Thoughtful Animal is hungry, so we’ve got a two-course feast featuring spotted hyenas, matrilines, and female preference. First, Silver Spoon Hyenas? Followed by Silver Spoon Hyenas: Maternal Social Status Affects Male Reproductive Success. Bravo, Jason G. Goldman.
9. Over at Neuroanthropology, grill master Greg Downey has some fine cuts of wolfs, dogs, and domestication. No, doesn’t taste like chicken. What does it taste like? The dog-human connection in evolution.
10.DeLene at Wild Muse highlights the surprising, multi-layered flavor of this basic ingredient: necks, necks and more necks. A new take on necking (in giraffes, that is) is no standard fare.
11. Imagine eastern fence lizards, White Sands, and display patches all in a classic, NeuroDojo sauce. You’ve just got to try Zen Faulkes’: Dude looks like a lady? Male lizards courting males. Not fond of lizards? Try Please explain the end of kin selection. In this stew you will find hearty bits of kin selection, E.O. Wilson and David Sloan Wilson.
– Are you sure you’d like me to bring you a third martini? It is my experience that after a second, the, ah, sophistication of one’s palate tends to diminish. I, myself, have devoured the corner of a paper napkin in such a state. And quite enjoyed it, sadly. –
12. As table-side treat by T. Ryan Gregory, can I recommend My talk on evolutionary imagery at the Centre For Inquiry? No, it contains no peanuts nor peanut products. But it does have a video, inquiry, and Toronto. You’ll find it at Genomicron.
13. For the chow mien this evening, we’ve got neither pork nor beef, but bacterial cooperation, relatedness, and Hamilton’s rule. Byte Size Biology truly goes delicious with When is it a good idea to cheat?
14. Vegan? No problem. How about some seeds, California, and pollen brought to you by Stephanie Suesan Smith at Information Central in Hybrid versus open pollinated plants.
15. You like Latin flavors? Names and nomenclature in classification by John Wilkins at Evolving Thoughts brings all the spice of Linnaeus, nomenclature, and taxonomies.
– Pardon? Did someone just make a special request for a well-done hamburger with American cheese and yellow mustard? They did. If you’ll excuse me a moment I’ve got a date with a double shot of whiskey in walk-in refrigerator. It’s going to be a long night. –
16. And now, something classic à la carte: Darwin, Wallace, and letters. Michael D. Barton’s Darwin-Wallace papers published August 20, 1858 can be found at The Dispersal of Darwin. Seems to be his specialty.
17. Going nouvelle here, Byte Size Biology skirts the cutting edge with Predator MX: Jack the Rippler. Feast on the bacteria, nutrients, and mutants if you dare.
18. Not upper-crust enough? Do your tastes run in the direction of NPR, adaptationism, and tears? You may want to sample some Twisted Tree of Life Award: NPR on the Evolution of Crying at The Tree of Life by Jonathan A. Eisen. Moderately hot.
19. Care for some fusion? We’ve got Switzerland, salmonella, pseudogenes. Jonathan A. Eisen prepared it at The Tree of Life. He calls it Lack of neutrality in bacteria and where pseudogenes go when they die. As an alternative for those without lead bellies, he also offers Twisted tree of life award #6: Scientific American Origins piece for dissing microbes with Swiss Cheese, biodiversity, and sex. Sounds delectable, doesn’t it?
– Should you save room for dessert? I don’t know. Should one build a garage for their Ferrari? Chocolate, fresh cream, pie crust that’s pure art. We’re talking major sugar and fats of the heavenly kind just a tray away. Yes, you’ll want to save room. –
20. Can mimicry, jumping spiders, and ants be sweet? I guess it partly depends on your tastes. Why not try? Head on down to The Online Laboratory of Kevin Zelnio. Tell ‘em you came for the Myrmecomorphy.
21. Almost forgot the seafood! Talk about a special waiting to be netted and served. We’ve got biodiversity, shrimp, and taxonomists by Dr. M. at Deep Sea News. I bet there’s some pepper to this dish: Bull Patrol: NEW SPECIES DISCOVERED zOMG!
22. With a name like Bjørn Østman and a location called Pleiotropy you know you’re in for something unique. Combine some Denmark, fitness, and yeast, simmer lightly and you’ve got Report from Alife XII: life’s origin, and its evolution
23. Like sushi? You might enjoy Eight Ways Elephant Seals Have Evolved at Kind of Curious. It’s not just rice and seaweed: there is elephant seals, blubber, and sleep apnea inside.
24. Into bizarre foods? Is fear no factor for you? It Takes 30 has a full plate of raw Mitochondrial proteins, phosphorylation, and mice. Chew before swallowing Evolving Regulation.
25. Now the finish. We’ve got a chocolate cake in the form of Sauropod dinosaurs, gizzard stones, and eggs. Aren’t you glad you saved some room? Yes, compliments to Cromercrox at The End Of The Pier Show. It’s called, There Were Giants On The Earth In Those Days.
– Was everything to your liking? Great. We accept MasterCard, Discover, Digg, Twitter and more. Hope to see you again.
Speaking of which, the next feast of evolution blogging will be October 1st at Carnival of Evolution. Submit your concoctions here.
The palm trees in my area are in little danger from the current line-up of tropical storms. If a windstorm does hit during the coming weeks of hurricane high-season — well, you’d think they were just about designed to weather the bad weather. Give one point to natural selection!
The Sun is not an atom. According to the Etymology Online Dictionary, atom comes from the Greek, a-tomos, or “uncut” (a = “not” + tomos = “a cutting”).
Can the star at the center of our solar system be cut into smaller units? Sure can. The Sun is not elemental.
Likewise, “science” is not a singular entity. It consists of thousands upon thousands of individuals doing their work, millions upon millions of bits of information. At least.
And speaking of science, I invite you to check out the latest blog carnival dedicated to celebrating science-for-all: Scientia Pro Publica #38.
Cutting further, a huge part of science is biological life. How that life changes and develops from generation to generation is called evolution.
And, what do you know, the next edition of the Carnival of Evolution is going to be hosted on September 1st here, at 360 Degree Skeptic. If you have a post you’d like to contribute, please do. Otherwise, stay tuned for some hot science.
—
[Image thanks to NASA]
You have probably heard the news — correction, old news — that chimpanzees exhibit signs of culture. In fact, I’ve blogged about it. [See Chimpanzee Chopsticks: Culture Feels Natural]
But wait. Is it truly “culture” when one troop of chimps uses sticks to fish termites out of holes while another uses rolled-up leaves, etc.? Is it fully the result of individual innovation and transmission of this innovation to others of the same generation and following generations via learning? In the excellent Discover Blogs post, The genetic side to chimpanzee culture, we learn -
Many previous studies have shown that apes (and probably even monkeys) can imitate and learn from each other. As a result, traditions and habits can spread in non-genetic ways. This is the essence of culture, and it means that individuals and groups end up behaving in varied ways.
And the new news -
Kevin Langergraber at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology has found that much of this variation in behaviour could have a genetic influence.
How was this determined? Good question. By this finding -
Groups of chimps with starkly differing cultures are also genetically distant and the greater the gap between their behaviours, the greater the gap between their genes. And only a small number of actions varied between groups that were genetically similar.
Wow. Could genes act on something that seemingly specific? Could the use of a stick vs. a leaf be genetically determined? Or, like the use of a fork vs. chopsticks, might it be fully explained by culture?
I think part of the problem is phrasing and thinking in such concepts as “genetically determined” and “fully explained.” Genetically . . . encouraged . . . predisposed . . . or something, might be better.
When I taught developmental psychology I instructed my students that, if considering the potential heritability of traits, it helps to keep in mind that, roughly speaking, genes control the development and functioning of cells. Whenever hypothesizing that a behavior “is genetic,” it can be instructive to consider how. What goes on at the cellular level to produce the “genetic” effect?
For instance, a classic example of genetic influence on development was provided by the Minnesota Twin Family Study. Namely, the two males, separated shortly after birth, who grew up to be Budweiser-loving firemen. If we speculate that genes played a role, it can be instructive to ponder what went on at the cellular level to produce the outcome. Surely, there is no such things as a Budweiser gene (something I lack, if there were). But, sure, genes might influence what type of beer a person prefers. More bitter, less, etc. But I wouldn’t say that the genes “determine” the selection of Budweiser. Or, on the other hand, that culture fully explains it.
As for chimps and their alleged culture, I wonder. Is it all genes? No. All culture? No. What it is, I think, is a fascinating puzzle.
1) Does this explain the fashion phenomenon of the red “power tie”?
Headline: Women Attracted to Men in Red, Research Shows
Some of the all-important details:
To quantify the red effect, the paper analyzed responses from 288 female and 25 male undergraduates to photographs of men in seven different experiments. Participants were all self-identified as heterosexual or bisexual. In one color presentation, participants looked at a man’s photo framed by a border of either red or white and answered a series of questions, such as: “How attractive do you think this person is?” . . . .
In several experiments, the shirt of the man in the photographs was digitally colored either red or another color. Participants rated the pictured man’s status and attractiveness, and reported on their willingness to date, kiss, and engage in other sexual activity with the person. They also rated the man’s general likability, kindess, and extraversion. [all emphases added]
The results:
The researchers found that the red effect was limited to status and romance: red made the man seem more powerful, attractive, and sexually desirable, but did not make the man seem more likable, kind, or sociable. The effect was consistent across cultures: undergraduates in the United States, England, Germany, and China all found men more attractive when wearing or bordered by red.
Very interesting. I like the cross-cultural component. Gives it greater credence.
Questions: Shouldn’t the title have included the word more between women and attracted? Would the results be similar for men wearing crimson? Scarlet? Magenta? What colors influence whether or not a woman is perceived as more attractive? We’ve all heard about the “little red dress.” Would light shades of blue make a woman appear more innocent and agreeable — and the marrying kind?
2) It seems male spiders of any color don’t sumo wrestle for access to females.
Headline: Why Are Male Spiders Small While Females Are Giant?
Some of the all-important details:
The researchers investigated 204 spiders from 13 different species. They suggest that females do not feel the same pressure to be smaller as, for them, a larger body size confers and advantage in generating offspring.
The results:
“In species where bridging is a very common mode of locomotion, small males, by being more efficient bridgers, will enjoy more mating opportunities and thus will be better at competition to reach receptive females. This may lead to a selective pressure for smaller size.”
Bridging, FYI, is arachnid behavior “in which spiders use the wind to carry a strand of web to their destination and then clamber upside down along the resulting bridge.” More results: “small size was associated with a greater ability to carry out the maneuver.”
Questions: So evolution simply didn’t exert a pressure for females to get larger and thus be able to “make more babies,” and males remained at the default size? Is this evidence of the alleged truism that it’s not the size that matters (of the organ-ism), but how it performs?
3) Mind ‘transcends’ matter, but does it transcend energy?
The headline: Mind over matter? The psychology of healing
Some of the all-important details:
During the five-year study 93 patients (68 men and 25 women) with diabetic foot ulcers were recruited from specialist podiatry clinics across the UK. Clinical and demographic determinants of healing; psychological distress, coping style and levels of cortisol (a stress hormone) in saliva were assessed and recorded at the start of a 24 week monitoring period. The size of each patient’s ulcer was also measured at the start, and then at 6, 12 and 24 weeks to record the extent of healing or otherwise of the ulcer.
The results:
The results of the research showed that the likelihood of the ulcer healing over a 24 week period was predicted by how individual’s coped. Surprisingly perhaps, patients who showed a ‘confrontational’ way of coping (a style characterised by a desire to take control) with the ulcer and its treatment were less likely to have a healed ulcer at the end of the 24 week period.
Questions: If the extremely outdated phrase (IMO) “mind over matter” is valid, how can psychology be a science? Could I likewise say this about my HP inkjet printer, It’s bytes over hardware? In the above case, is “mind” merely a slapdash way of describing such dynamic things as “a ‘confrontational’ way of coping”?
To wrap up and put a bow on all the above — Maybe fat male spiders ought to truly exercise ‘mind over their hefty matter’ and attempt to bridge great distances to access females. But first they might want don a red scarf. “Here I come, baby!”
