Blog Master Posting

Posted on March 23, 2016March 24, 2016 Blog Master Posting, EvoLiteracy News, Polls and Surveys Acceptance of evolution, Scientific Literacy

Are women generally more religious than men? Does it matter?

EvoLiteracy News 03 23 2016

Yes, women worldwide are, overall, more religious than men. Yesterday, the Pew Research Center released another update to its frequent reports on religion (The Gender Gap in Religion Around the World), which I shared on Facebook. It includes useful maps and descriptive statistics, however, here I summarize only the numeric trends and leave the maps aside (they are didactic). Readers can find the complete report online, as well as the figures and web-links. But first, why do we care at EvoLiteracy News about this topic? One of the reasons (not the only one) is that acceptance of evolution is negatively associated with level of religiosity, as we (and other researchers) have demonstrated in numerous studies. Therefore, the Pew Research report would imply that women, worldwide, accept evolution less than men. But this is –of course– something not addressed by the Pew Research Center in this particular study (see such differences here). Instead the report focuses on speculating about why the gender gap in religious commitment exists, and it does demonstrate that, by just joining the workforce, women become less religious (voilà) –although the gender gap remains. The report, however, disregards the historical oppressive role of religion on all peoples, particularly women. – Guillermo Paz-y-Miño-C

Please, examine the figures below in detail. I will provide general statements to guide your understanding. The first image summarizes how women worldwide are more likely to be religiously affiliated (83.4%) than men (79.9%), and this is the case across religions (Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, folk religions, other religions and Jewish). In consequence, the religiously-unaffiliated women worldwide tend to be fewer (16.6%) than men (20.1%).

With this information in mind, the histograms below become fairly easy to grasp. They summarize the percentages of religiously affiliated men and women (ages 20+) in each of the major religious groups. Note how, in the majority of cases, women are more religious than men. And note also how among the unaffiliated people, only 45% of women, in contrast to 55% of men, consider themselves non-believers, agnostics, or non-practitioners of any organized religion.

The next image shows how, among Christians, women tend to be more religious than men on specific categories, including: weekly attendance to religious services, daily prayer, considering religion to be important in their lives, believing in heaven or hell, and believing in angels. These W-M differences are not statistically evident among Muslims (except for attendance to religious services, which is heavily men oriented).

What about the atheists? Well, they tend to be mostly men across the sampled countries (i.e. Uruguay, US, Germany, Spain, UK, Australia, China and France), except for China and France where the difference M-W is minimal.

What is the situation in the United States? The religiosity gender gap in the US (the most religious nation among the most developed) is quite accentuated: 47% of men versus 64% of women pray daily; 47% of men versus 60% of women consider religion to be important in their lives; and 32% of men versus 40% of women attend religious services weekly. In these three categories, the US surpasses all other developed nations, including Canada, UK, Germany, Australia and France.

Does employment (or being part of the labor force) have any effect on the gender gap of religious practices? The answer is yes. Women OUT OF the labor force (not working) are generally more religions than men. In fact, women out of the labor force double, or almost double, men in praying daily, attending religious services weekly, and considering religion to be important in their lives.

The “pray daily” category is particularly informative. For example, in predominantly Christian nations, having more women in the labor force is associated with a reduction in the religiosity gender gap. In other words, women who work not only pray less than women who do not work, but also their difference in praying in comparison to men is less when women have a paying job.

The association described above, however, is not evident among predominantly NON-Christian nations; in them, having more women working is not associated with the size of the gender gap in daily prayer. Can the reader tell (or hypothesize) why? Hint, look at the dot distribution in the figure below, and also the percent point range above and below 0% (the y axis on the left); then, examine the dot distribution on the x axis (bottom).

CONCLUSION: Why does the religiosity gender gap exist? The Pew Research Center report speculates that “biology, psychology, genetics, family environment, social status, workforce participation and a lack of ‘existential security’ (felt by many women because they generally are more afflicted than men by poverty, illness, old age and violence)” might help explain the difference in women’s versus men’s religiosity worldwide. In addition, the report lists a few crucial observations:

(1) Women who participate in the labor force show lower levels of religious commitment than women who do not work outside the home for pay. (2) When these two groups of women are compared with men (most of whom are in the labor force), the gender gaps [continue to] differ. (3) The gap between women who are in the labor force and men tends to be smaller than the gap between women who are not in the labor force and men. (4) This pattern holds even after accounting for education level, age and marital status. (5) Across predominantly Christian countries, the overall gender gaps in daily prayer and importance of religion are smaller in countries where more women are in the labor force.

“…But I want to make sure that the readers keep in mind that we ought to celebrate secularism worldwide, and pursue the vanishing of religion all together. We are not aiming at shrinking the religiosity gap between men and women who believe (alone or together) in a non-existing deity. That is not the point, not even the starting-point in this dialog. The secular perspective is about bringing reason and science to the debate over “belief,” and to free societies from the sequels of belief: disruption, distortion, delay or stop (3Ds + S) in the acceptance of any evidence, and particularly of scientific evidence.”

In essence, the Pew Research Center report is highlighting that “being part of the labor force,” in other words, “just having a job,” makes women less religious, and, therefore, the gender gap in religiosity shrinks (although it does continue to persist). But the Pew Research Center chooses to be politically correct and says nothing about the oppressive role of religion itself on women (more than on men) that contributes to the overall gender inequality in most societies (beyond religion). It does not address either the type of individual and socio-economic independence gained by women when joining the labor force in Christian nations (mostly in the West) versus elsewhere. But I want to make sure that the readers keep in mind that we ought to celebrate secularism worldwide, and pursue the vanishing of religion all together. We are not aiming at shrinking the religiosity gap between men and women who believe (alone or together) in a non-existing deity. That is not the point, not even the starting-point in this dialog. The secular perspective is about bringing reason and science to the debate over “belief,” and to free societies from the sequels of belief: disruption, distortion, delay or stop (3Ds + S) in the acceptance of any evidence, and particularly of scientific evidence. — EvoLiteracy News.

Darwin’s Skepticism about God

Evolution Wars Debunk II

Why the Notion that “The Theory of Evolution is Not an Explanation for the Origin of Life” is Wrong

Evolution Stands Faith Up – On Francis Collins’ and Karl Giberson’s “The Language of Science and Faith”

Posted on March 16, 2016March 19, 2016 Articles Evolution Literacy, Blog Master Posting, EvoLiteracy News, Excerpts from scientific articles, Research Articles, Scientific Literacy

Another Blow Against Intelligent Design ID – Design Creationism

EvoLiteracy News 03 16 2016

The late Intelligent Design, or Design Creationism, continues to decompose. Indeed, pseudo-science has never been able to withstand the power of science. And the story below is quite compelling, not because scientists interested in studying the molecular sophistication of the bacterial flagellum had in mind to further debunk ID. In fact, the researchers (Beeby et al.) did not even mention Design Creationism in their work. But because their study, just published in PNAS, gives US, the people, the opportunity to extrapolate, once more, that there is not a hint of evidence in support to “irreducible complexity” in the anatomy or function of the bacterial flagellum. A reassurance that Design Creationism will forever be wrong. – Guillermo Paz-y-Miño-C

3D model bacterial propeller By Morgan Beeby Imperial College London

Three-dimensional models of bacterial propellers (rotors) in Vibrio (left) and Campylobacter (right). Images by Morgan Beeby Imperial College London (2016). Keep in mind that the rotors are made of proteins (read about it in Stepwise formation of the bacterial flagellar system, PNAS 2007).

Remember the bacterial flagellum? The pet-example of the late Intelligent Design movement? The alleged “case-study” of irreducible complexity? Well, there are more bad news for Design Creationism. A paper on the bacterial flagellum, recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), explores even further the motor (in reality, the flagellum’s rotor) diversity in two species of bacteria (Campylobacter and Vibrio, plus the study makes comparisons to a third species, Salmonella). Unfortunately, the article is not friendly written, and it can be difficult to understand; the science, however, is exquisite.

Before I summarize the study, watch this 22-sec video about the general structure of the bacterial flagellum. It is simple and will help you understand everything else below:

Here, I try to explain the paper by paraphrasing it: Beeby et al. (a total of six coauthors) have found evidence that “bacteria have tuned their swimming abilities [to their surrounding environments] by evolving structural adaptations to their flagellar motors [which are made of proteins], and that [have resulted] in altered torque generation.” [Note that torque is the twisting force that causes rotation of the flagellum]. In essence, “different bacteria show different swimming [styles], [plus different flagellar-motor anatomies], strikingly illustrated by [their] abilities to bore through viscous fluids (for example, the gastrointestinal mucus) in which other bacteria are [unable to swim].”

Bacterial motors with different torque By Morgan Beeby Imperial College London

There is plenty of evidence of gradually evolved differential complexity among flagellar-motors. Bacterial motors with different torque (Salmonella, Vibrio and Campylobacter). Images by Morgan Beeby Imperial College London (see article in PNAS 2016).

Although the authors say nothing about Intelligent Design in their study, for obvious reasons, i.e. who bothers to allude to a non-scientific proposal (ID) in a serious scientific paper (PNAS). We, the readers, however, can extrapolate from the Beeby et al.’s elegant study that there is NOT a hint of evidence in support to “irreducible complexity” in the form or function of the bacterial flagellum, as proposed by Design Creationists. But rather, there is plenty of evidence of gradually evolved differential complexity among flagellar-motors. This complexity is rooted in ancestry, from absence of the rotor in ancient forms of bacteria, to presence and diversity of rotors in more recent forms of bacteria. That is, “gradual change with modification” (or classical Darwinian evolution), exactly the opposite to the irreducibly-complex flagellum designed by a “Designer of Nature,” the imaginary force of causality invoked by Intelligent Designers. In conclusion, the science story about the bacterial flagellum is, by far, more exciting than the pseudo-science, creationist tale of ID. – Evolution Literacy

Intelligent Design and Design Creationism Make it to PLoS ONE

Posted on March 3, 2016March 5, 2016 Articles Evolution Literacy, Blog Master Posting, EvoLiteracy News, Excerpts from scientific articles, Research Articles, Scientific Literacy

Intelligent Design and Design Creationism Make it to PLoS ONE

EvoLiteracy News 03 03 2016

Breaking – PLoS ONE Retracts Paper by Liu M-J et al.

Click on image to be redirected to PLoS ONE decision.

Nature Calls it “Social Selection”

Click on image to be redirected to article in Nature.

The INDEPENDENT “Scientific Paper Sparks Controversy”

The Independent on PLoS ONE human hand Creator Intelligent Design

Click on image to be redirected to the Independent article.

The paper by Liu M-J et al. (Biomechanical Characteristics of Hand Coordination in Grasping Activities of Daily Living) must be retracted from PLoS ONE, and its editor, Renzhi Han (Ohio State University Medical Center), dismissed from the journal for carelessness in processing the manuscript, to say the least. Here is why: the authors (apparent sympathizers of Intelligent Design) invoke the “Creator” in the Abstract, Introduction, Discussion, and also in the Comments section of the online version of their article, in which they respond to criticisms by the readers and editors at PLoS. And this is not an error of translation, nor a struggle in the authors’ attempt to explain, in English, the contrast between the evolutionary origin of the mechanic dexterity of the human hand and its alternative, unsupported hypothesis, “DESIGN CREATIONISM” responsible for it. No, the authors, with the blessings of the journal’s editor, insist that a Creator, or Designer, made the hand almost perfect. This is bad science and terrible editing by PLoS ONE. Below, I summarize the case and provide links to the journal and PDF. But keep in mind that PLoS ONE might retract the article, terminate the editor, and the information from the journal website might be removed. In any event, the paper by Liu M-J et al. must go from PLoS ONE to ZERO. – Guillermo Paz-y-Miño-C

The paper by Liu M-J et al. was received by PLoS ONE on October 28, 2015; accepted on December 14, 2015; and published on January 5, 2016. I missed it, but became aware of it by allusions to it in the social media (Retraction Watch alerted it on March 2, 2016).

Citation: Liu M-J, Xiong C-H, Xiong L, Huang X-L (2016) Biomechanical Characteristics of Hand Coordination in Grasping Activities of Daily Living. PLoS ONE 11(1): e0146193. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0146193.

What is the paper about?

In the authors’ own words “…This study explores a method to identify the proper explanation for the hand architecture of muscular-articular connections from the analysis of behavioral result…”

Liu M-J et al. examine the biomechanics of the human hand; its dexterity and relationships between anatomy and function. The authors aim at conveying the message that any robotic attempt to mimic the ability of the human hand should pay close attention to its anatomy (and physiology), which, according to Liu M-J et al., would lead to best outcomes in robotic-engineering design. So far, so good. But what follows below is unacceptable, and for that reason the paper must be retracted and its editor, Renzhi Han (Ohio State University Medical Center), dismissed from PLoS ONE.

Tasks Performed by Human Hands Liu M-J et al PLoS ONE 2016

A hand wearing an instrumented glove demonstrates diverse types of dexterity (click on image to enlarge). Source Liu M-J et al. PLoS ONE 2016.

This is what the authors state in the ABSTRACT:

“Hand coordination can allow humans to have dexterous control with many degrees of freedom to perform various tasks in daily living. An important contributing factor to this important ability is the complex biomechanical architecture of the human hand… It is not understood which biomechanical characteristics are responsible for hand coordination and what specific effect each biomechanical characteristic has. To explore this link, we first inspected the characteristics of hand coordination during daily tasks… from thirty right-handed subjects during a multitude of grasping tasks. Then, the functional link between biomechanical architecture and hand coordination was drawn by establishing the clear corresponding causality between the tendinous connective characteristics of the human hand and the coordinated characteristics during daily grasping activities. The explicit functional link indicates that the biomechanical characteristic of tendinous connective architecture between muscles and articulations is the proper design by the Creator to perform a multitude of daily tasks in a comfortable way. The clear link between the structure and the function of the human hand also suggests that the design of a multifunctional robotic hand should be able to better imitate such basic architecture.”

Thus, Liu M-J et al. invoked “design intervention” to account for complexity.

This is what the authors state in the INTRODUCTION:

“The human hand is an amazing instrument that can perform a multitude of functions, such as the power grasp and precision grasp of a vast array of objects. The excellent behaviors of the human hand are enabled by a highly complex structure, with 19 articulations, 31 muscles and more than 25 degrees of freedom (DOF). While the abundant functions are favorable, this complex structure also raises a challenging problem of how the human body controls such a large number of mechanical DOFs with ease and an absence of effort…”

To help readers understand, we can simply call DOF “dexterity,” or the readiness and grace in physical activity, the skill and ease in using the hands.

Liu M-J et al. continue: “…Studies indicate that digits do not move alone in isolation of adjacent digits during functional activity, even when a specific movement requires an individual digit. On the contrary, the movements of multiple digits are correlated, and movement information of the human hand is redundant, so that only a small number of components account for most variances. The human hand adopts coordinated movements to reduce the number of independent DOFs and simplify the complexity of the control problem. Thus, hand coordination affords humans the ability to flexibly and comfortably control the complex structure to perform numerous tasks. Hand coordination should indicate the mystery of the Creator’s invention…”

Once again, Liu M-J et al. invoked a “Creator’s intervention” to account for complexity.

This is what the authors state in the DISCUSSION:

In closing the article, Liu M-J et al. reaffirm: “…the architecture is the biomechanical basis of the dexterous movement that provides the human hand with the amazing ability to perform a multitude of daily tasks in a comfortable way. In conclusion, our study can improve the understanding of the human hand and confirm that the mechanical architecture is the proper design by the Creator for dexterous performance of numerous functions following the evolutionary remodeling of the ancestral hand for millions of years. Moreover, functional explanations for the mechanical architecture of the muscular-articular connection of the human hand can also aid in developing multifunctional robotic hands by designing them with similar basic architecture.”

Now, this is what Liu M-J et al. and the Academic Editor, Renzhi Han, do not understand about alleged “design” in nature or “design creationism:”

The doctrine of Intelligent Design (ID), or Design Creationism, born in the 1980s, proposes that a Designer is responsible, ultimately, for the assemblage of complexity in biological systems; according to ID, evolution cannot explain holistically the origin of the natural world, nor the emergence of intricate molecular pathways essential to life, nor the immense phylogenetic differentiation of life, and instead ID proposes an intelligent agent as the ultimate cause of nature. In conceptually mistaken, type-I-error-based arguments to discredit evolution, ID has attributed randomness to molecular change, deleterious nature to single-gene mutations, insufficient geological time or population size for molecular improvements to occur, and invoked “design intervention” to account for complexity in molecular structures and biological processes. In 2005, ID was exposed in court (Dover, Pennsylvania, Kitzmiller et al. versus Dover School District et al. 2005) for violating the rules of science by “invoking and permitting supernatural causation” in matters of evolution, and for “failing to gain acceptance in the scientific community” (excerpt from Paz-y-Miño-C and Espinosa 2013, 2014).

And this is what Liu M-J et al. and the Academic Editor at PLoS have done: invoke and permit supernatural causation in matters of evolution.

Notification from PLOS Staff

Yesterday, March 2, 2016, the very journal PLoS ONE posted the following notification on its website (Comments section of article):

“… A number of readers have concerns about sentences in the article that make references to a ‘Creator’. The PLOS ONE editors apologize that this language was not addressed internally or by the Academic Editor during the evaluation of the manuscript. We are looking into the concerns raised about the article with priority and will take steps to correct the published record.”

But the reaction from PLOS just happened, after two months of the paper being on air. Look at this exchange between one of the readers of PLoS ONE and the first author of the paper, Mr. Liu M-J.

On February 15, 2016, Jason Friedman posted on the Comments section of PLoS ONE the following:

“In the abstract (and similarly later in the paper) it is claimed: The explicit functional link indicates that the biomechanical characteristic of tendinous connective architecture between muscles and articulations is the proper design ‘by the Creator’ to perform a multitude of daily tasks in a comfortable way. I am interested to hear from the authors why one should come to this conclusion? I could not find any support for this claim in the article, and it seems out of place in this article…”

Mr. Liu M-J responded also on February 15, 2016:

“Thanks for your comments. As we know, human hand is an amazing instrument that can perform a multitude of functions, such as the power grasp and precision grasp of a vast array of objects, with ease and an absence of effort. Although expended great attempts by scientists and engineers, there is no artificial hand matching the amazing capacity of human hand. The origins of human hand remain unclear. It is too miraculous to let us think that human hand is the masterwork of Creator and indicates the mystery of nature. The further discussion about the Creator is indeed out of place in our article…”

In addition, today, March 3, 2016, Mr. Liu M-J, posted this note at PLoS Comments:

“We are sorry for drawing the debates about creationism. Our study has no relationship with creationism. English is not our native language. Our understanding of the word Creator was not actually as a native English speaker expected. Now we realized that we had misunderstood the word Creator. What we would like to express is that the biomechanical characteristic of tendious connective architecture between muscles and articulations is a proper design by the NATURE (result of evolution) to perform a multitude of daily grasping tasks. We will change the Creator to nature in the revised manuscript. We apologize for any troubles may have caused by this misunderstanding.”

A bit late, the analogy NATURE = Creator is not new among spiritualists (or even religions), the problem is that it was used in a scientific paper by professionals in a scientific field. And the Academic Editor at PLoS allowed it a complete ride up to publication. And that is the issue we are discussing. And the authors, and editor, must know that a “Creator” (unequivocally invoked three times in the paper and once in the Comments) has no place in Science.

What should PLOS and PLoS ONE do?

It is evident that neither the authors, nor the Academic Editor, understand how evolution via natural selection works. Worse, none is aware of the fallacies intrinsic to Intelligent Design, or Design Creationism. Here a common-knowledge principle applies “not knowing the law does not exempt anyone from having the law being applied to everyone.” What law? At least one and two bylaws: natural selection (which explains the origin and evolution of the human hand), plus the bylaws of publication of articles in scientific journals (i.e. substantiation by evidence, not by the whim of the authors or editors, and sound editorial process). [For accuracy, be aware that natural selection is not a “law,” I am using it here as an unavoidable mechanism that helps us explain much of the evolutionary processes; selection imposes restrictions on randomness and helps us dismiss, quite easily, the fallacy of “design creationism”]. What should be done now that we, the people, caught this “error” at PLoS, after two months since publication?

The allusions to the Creator or Designer by Liu M-J et al. are out of place, but they do invoke and permit supernatural causation in matters of evolution. Unfortunately, there is no evidence of a problem in translation, from the authors’ native language into English. In fact, the authors insist in the Abstract, Introduction, Discussion, and in the Comments section of their article that they do give credit, in a scientific publication, to the long-time debunked hypothesis of Intelligent Design, Design Creationism. The paper must be retracted from PLoS ONE, the Academic Editor, Renzhi Han (Ohio State University Medical Center), must be dismissed from PLOS, and the journal must assure the scientific community that the Public Library of Science (PLoS) will never, ever embrace design creationism in its publications. The paper by Liu M-J et al. must go from PLoS ONE to ZERO. — Evolution Literacy

On March 4, 2016, PLoS ONE officially retracted the paper:

Click on image to be redirected to PLoS ONE retraction announcement.

A Comprehensive Survey of Retracted Articles from the Scholarly Literature

Darwin’s Skepticism about God

Evolution Wars Debunk II

Why the Notion that “The Theory of Evolution is Not an Explanation for the Origin of Life” is Wrong

Evolution Stands Faith Up – On Francis Collins’ and Karl Giberson’s “The Language of Science and Faith”

Posted on February 22, 2016February 23, 2016 Blog Master Posting, EvoLiteracy News, Excerpts from scientific articles, Research Articles, Scientific Literacy, Video

The Friendship Paradox vs. the Happiness Paradox

EvoLiteracy News 02 22 2016

If you are on Twitter (or Facebook), you have probably asked yourself two questions: Am I less popular than my social-media friends? Am I less happy than them? These phenomena (i.e. cyber popularity or cyber happiness) are both real and perceptual.

A paper, by Bollen et al. (total four coauthors), which is available as manuscript (The Happiness Paradox: Your Friends Are Happier Than You), caught my attention. The authors provide evidence of complex associations between the “friendship paradox” and the “happiness paradox.” Enjoy. – Guillermo Paz-y-Miño-C

What is the Friendship Paradox? The perception that YOU are less popular than your friends (on average).

What is the Happiness Paradox? The perception that YOU are less happy than your friends (on average).

What is the issue (so what)? The friendship paradox has been documented in the scientific literature (see Suggested Readings below), but the happiness paradox has remained untested, without quantitative demonstration that it actually happens. Or that, if it does, it occurs in association –somehow– with the friendship paradox. The paper by Bollen et al. makes such connection.

To make it easier for our readers, I will summarize the Bollen et al. study in a digestible manner, although the authors themselves do a fine job explaining the theory, the data and the implications of the research to a specialized audience (see PDF of manuscript). But, for the non-scientists, my summary below might help.

The observations in nature (the social environment):

Online social networking is associated with elevated levels of loneliness, anxiety, displeasure, and dissatisfaction. For example, many times you are on Twitter (or Facebook, or alike social media), you experience an overall sensation that your average contacts (i.e. friends, people you follow, or your followers) have more friends or followers than you do, or are happier than you are.

When measured in number of friends-connections, most people tend to have fewer friends than their own friends do on average. Why? Watch the short video posted below (1 minute 36 seconds of your time) for a friendly introduction to the Friendship Paradox.

Now, let us examine numerically how the Friendship Paradox emerges from a simple example. Imagine a social network of four people, as depicted in the image below: Ana has 1 friend (Bill). Bill has 3 friends (Ana, Carla and Dan). Carla and Dan have 2 friends each (Bill, and each other).

There are 8 friends in the network (1 + 3 + 2 + 2). Thus, on average, each person has 2 friends (8/4 = 2).

However, how many friends does each person’s friends have (i.e. how many friends of friends)? Ana is connected to +3 friends of friends, via Bill (who has 3 friends), a subtotal of 3 friends of friends. Bill is connect to 1 + 2 + 2 friends of friends (Ana has 1, Carla has 2, and Dan has 2), a sub total of 5 friends of friends. Carla is connected to 3 + 2 friends of friends (Bill has 3 and Dan has 2), a sub total of 5 friends of friends. And Dan is connected to 3 + 2 friends of friends (Bill has 3 and Carla has 2), a sub total of 5 friends of friends. Therefore, the grand total of friends of friends in the network is 18.

What is the average number of friends of friends? We obtain this number by dividing the total number of friends of friends in the network (=18) by the total number of friends in the network (=8), which gives us a value of 2.25. The Friendship Paradox becomes evident for Ana, Carla and Dan since their average number of friends in the network (=2.0) is lower than the average number of friends of friends in the network (=2.25). The phenomenon is particularly acute for Ana since she has a single friend (Bill) and, therefore, her friendship relations are clearly below both the average number of friends in the network (2.0) and the average number of friends of friends in the network (2.25).

This overall sampling bias effect (= the Friendship Paradox) results –in part– from Bill’s presence in the network. Bill has the most friends and is more often counted in the friends of friends tabulation, thus rising the average value (to 2.25).

The hypothesis

At least in part, Bollen et al. tested the hypothesis that the friendship and happiness paradoxes are predictable byproducts (effects) of universal social network connectivity patterns. And that associations between friendship and happiness also derived from such connectivity (note that the Friendship Paradox has been demonstrated numerous times, but Bollen et al. demonstrated it again with their sample to be able to link it to the Happiness Paradox, the central aspect of their paper).

The phenomena “friendship paradox” or “happiness paradox” result from the inherent structural bias in social networks that favor popular individuals (like Bill, above), who are, by definition, more likely to belong to someone’s social circle. For example, when individuals like you and I equate popularity of our cyber-friends with their cyber-prestige, and compare our own popularity to theirs, we tend to increase our levels of dissatisfaction with ourselves (i.e. we tend to enhance, in our minds, the effects of the friendship-paradox- or the happiness-paradox).

The predictions

Bollen et al. predicted that the effects of the friendship paradox will extend beyond popularity. If popular individuals tend to be happier, then their elevated happiness will become more prevalent as well. Thus, friendship-levels and happiness-levels (as per both paradoxes) should correlate, and this relationship should be measurable.

The authors also predicted that unhappiness will contribute more directly to the negative psycho-social effects of social networking, since it will affect how individuals assess their own subjective wellbeing (i.e. general happiness/unhappiness or life satisfaction/dissatisfaction relative to that of others).

The friendship paradox or the happiness paradox will generate predictable distributions of data, as shown in Fig. 1, below:

Figure 1 Friendship vs Happiness Paradoxes - EvoLiteracy 2016

Figure 1. Predictable distributions of data expected if the Friendship or Happiness paradoxes are supported by the data (redrawn and adapted from Bollen et al.).

The study

Bollen et al. examined 40,000 Twitter users connected by reciprocal friendship (i.e. people that follow each other).

Two distinctive groups were characterized, the Unhappy group and the Happy group, by applying a subjective assessment of their wellbeing (derived from the Twitter-users’ interactions with their cyber-neighbors), which ranged in a scale from -1.0 (unhappy) to +1.0 (happy).

As shown in Fig. 2, below, both the Unhappy and Happy groups experienced evident friendship-paradox effects (i.e. members of both groups did have, or thought that their friends had, more friends, on average, than themselves). Interestingly, the intensity of the friendship paradox was weaker in the Unhappy group (left) than in the Happy group (right).

Figure 2 Friendship vs Happiness Paradoxes - EvoLiteracy 2016

Figure 2. Friendship-paradox effects on the Unhappy (left) and Happy (right) groups. Note how the intensity of the friendship paradox was weaker in the Unhappy group than in the Happy group. The “clouds” of data correspond to point distributions of each of the 40,000 Twitter users in the study (modified from Bollen et al.).

In addition, as Fig. 3, below, suggests, both the Happy (top) and Unhappy (bottom) groups experienced clear happy-paradox effects. However, the intensity of the happiness paradox was stronger in the Unhappy group (see the very steep slope in the data point distribution, plus the amount of data points over the main line) than in the Happy group (see the not-so-steep slope in the data point distribution, plus the amount of data points over the main line). In essence, the majority of the sampled Twitter users were less happy (or more unhappy) than their friends on average. These findings support the idea that the Happiness Paradox is real.

Figure 3 Friendship vs Happiness Paradoxes - EvoLiteracy 2016

Figure 3. Scatter point distributions of an individual’s (exemplified by YOU) sense of happiness as function of his/her (exemplified by YOUR) friends’ average sense of happiness (modified from Bollen et al.).

Individual Happiness and average friends’ Happiness were more strongly related within the Unhappy group than within the Happy group (Fig. 3). Bollen et al. refer to the clustering of unhappy users with themselves, and happy users also with themselves, as being homophilic or assortative in their social networking (both are common terms in behavioral sciences).

Figure 4, below, corroborates the finding that Unhappy Twitter users had fewer friends, on average, than the Happy Twitter users had, on average.

Figure 4 Friendship vs Happiness Paradoxes - EvoLiteracy 2016

Figure 4. Unhappy Twitter users had fewer friends, on average, than the Happy Twitter users had, on average (modified from Bollen et al.).

Figure 5, below, corroborates the finding that the Happiness Paradox affected more the Unhappy Twitter users, on average, than the Happy Twitter users, on average.

Figure 5 Friendship vs Happiness Paradoxes - EvoLiteracy 2016

Figure 5. The Happiness Paradox affected more the Unhappy Twitter users, on average, than the Happy Twitter users, on average (modified from Bollen et al.).

Paradoxically, however, as shown in Fig. 6, below, there was a weak correlation between individual happiness and individual popularity for the Unhappy group (Pearson’s R = -0.047; range -0.08 to -0.013). For the Happy group, the correlation was more pronounced (Pearson’s R = 0.126; range 0.081 to 0.171).

Figure 6 Friendship vs Happiness Paradoxes - EvoLiteracy 2016

Figure 6. There was a weak correlation between individual happiness and individual popularity for the Unhappy group. For the Happy group, the correlation was more pronounced (modified from Bollen et al.).

The overall results suggest that unhappy Twitter users were more strongly affected by the lower happiness of their friends, possibly explaining why this group exhibited a stronger Happiness Paradox (Figs. 3 and 5) in the absence of a strong correlation between Happiness and Popularity (Fig. 6).

Warnings

Bollen et al. warn us that:

Observations of decreased happiness among social media users may result directly from a widespread inflated perception of the happiness of one’s friends.

Given the large role that social media (e.g. Twitter, Facebook) plays in the social lives of billions of individuals, the authors suggest that these environments may induce long-term changes in the public’s social behavior and may, over time, alter the very nature of social relations themselves. — EvoLiteracy.

Why are your friends more popular than you?

Why your friends have more friends than you do?

Friends you can count on.

Your friends are more interesting than you.

Generalized friendship paradox in complex networks: The case of scientific collaboration.

Posted on February 17, 2016January 14, 2017 Articles Evolution Literacy, Blog Master Posting, Book Reviews, Communicating Evolutionary Principles to Students, Editorials The Standard Times, EvoLiteracy News, Excerpts from scientific articles, Polls and Surveys Acceptance of evolution, Recommended Books, Research Articles, Scientific Literacy

World Visitors to EvoLiteracy

EvoLiteracy News 02 17 2016

World Visitors to EVOLUTION LITERACY – Readers from 103 countries visited EvoLiteracy during 2015. Three in every four readers were from the United States. About one in every five visitors were from Brazil, Canada, UK, Germany, India, Ecuador, France, Australia and Spain. And one in every ten cyberworms came from 93 other countries. EvoLiteracy is growing thanks to our world friends and followers. – Guillermo Paz-y-Miño-C.

UPDATE – a supplementary post to this one is available at EvoLiteray January 1, 2017.

There are 190+ countries in the world (member states of the United Nations). EvoLiteracy reaches half of them (52%). The image below includes flags of nations, which total 230+. We still need to reach as many nations as possible. Please share EvoLiteracy with others.

Flags of 230+ nations in the world. Click on image to enlarge. Source Danilka’s Blog.

Today: International Darwin Day 02 12 2016

EvoLiteracy News 02 12 2016

“Darwin Day… signifies the celebration of the achievements of reason, science, and the advancement of human knowledge. The igniting moments in human history when light was brought into our own origins, when understanding that ordinary apes, like Homo, were capable of the extraordinary, of discovering the truth and debunking obscurantism; yet we still struggle to make science the sole guiding star in our survival decisions, the reliable source of concern and joy, the toolkit to plan our departure from Earth –before our Sun in agonizing heat engulfs its nearest orbiting planets– and seek home somewhere else in the cosmos” — Guillermo Paz-y-Miño-C

A few images and Evolution-Literacy links to celebrate International Darwin Day. — An update on our New England Science Public Series Evolution Volumes 1 and 2, including open access to the studies on acceptance of evolution in the United States. — Links to our Incompatibility Hypothesis papers (evolution versus supernatural causation). — A recount of a visit to the Down House (Darwin’s home). — And an article, from 2013, about the “history of Darwin Day” at the US Congress. Enjoy. – GPC

Here are some photos of Darwin’s statue at the British Museum of Natural History in London, taken back in 2010.

Above: an overall view of Darwin’s statue (marble) at the British Museum of Natural History in London.

Above: a close up of Darwin’s rostrum.

Above: and another close up of this beautiful carving on marble.

Above: the main hall at the British Museum of Natural History in London. Darwin’s statue is in the back, just at the end of the first level of the stairs.

Above: the outdoors of the British Museum of Natural History in London.

NOVA Publishers (New York) used one of these images for the cover of our book Evolution Stands Faith Up: Reflections on Evolution’s Wars (2013). “Paz-y-Miño-C doesn’t ask the reader to ‘believe’ in evolution. He provides overwhelming evidence, clearly written, that shows how scientific inquiry leads to important and practical results, while superstition and faith lead nowhere. Although we may not be able to reason someone out of what they were never reasoned into, the author presents a roadmap for those whose minds are open to discover the wonders and beauty of science.” – Herb Silverman, PhD, author of Candidate Without a Prayer: An Autobiography of a Jewish Atheist in the Bible Belt. Find Evolution Stands Faith Up at NOVA: Soft Cover, Barnes & Noble, Amazon.com, Amazon UK.

Update on NESP Series Evolution

The open access New England Science Public Series Evolution continues to be highly downloaded. Here are some updates:

1,670+ downloads of Volume 1, Number 1: Paz-y-Miño-C G & Espinosa A. 2013. Attitudes toward Evolution at New England Colleges and Universities, United States. New England Science Public: Series Evolution 1(1): 1-32 (ISSN: 2326-0971). The authors compile the most significant results of their conceptual and quantitative studies on the patterns of acceptance of evolution at New England colleges and universities, conducted between 2009 and 2012. They examine the views of New England Faculty and Educators of Prospective Teachers (higher-education faculty themselves, specialized in training future teachers) from 35 colleges and universities, as well as a representative sample of College Students from a Public, Private and two Religious institutions who were polled in three areas: the controversy over evolution versus creationism versus Intelligent Design; their understanding of how science and the evolutionary process work; and their personal convictions concerning the evolution and/or creation of humans in the context of their religiosity… Read MORE open access.

430+ downloads of Volume 2, Number 1: Paz-y-Miño-C G & Espinosa A. 2014. Acceptance of Evolution by America’s Educators of Prospective Teachers. New England Science Public: Series Evolution 2(1): 1-92 (ISSN: 2326-0971). In NESP Series Evolution Vol 2 No 1, Paz-y-Miño-C and Espinosa use the conceptual framework of the Incompatibility Hypothesis (i.e. science/evolution and belief in supernatural causation are incompatible) to document the patterns of acceptance of evolution of 495 Educators of Prospective Teachers affiliated with 281 colleges and universities widely distributed in 4 regions, 9 divisions, and 50 states in the United States. These higher-education professionals (65% PhD-, 22% doctorate-holders) were polled in five areas: (i) their views about evolution, creationism and Intelligent Design, (ii) their understanding of how science and the evolutionary process work, (iii) their position about the hypothetical ‘harmony or compatibility’ between science/evolution and supernatural causation, (iv) their awareness of the age of the Earth, its moon, our solar system and the universe, and the application of the concept of evolution to the cosmos, and (v) their personal convictions concerning the evolution and/or creation of humans in the context of the educators’ religiosity… Read MORE open access.

The Incompatibility Hypothesis: evolution vs. supernatural causation

Incompatibility Hypothesis Paz-y-Mino-C Espinosa

“Like the oil vs. water experiment, evolution and supernatural causation don’t mix. Evolution raises to the surface.”

Supernatural causation (i.e. the belief in a Supreme Being, creator and sustainer of the universe, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient) is a cultural pollutant, incompatible with empirical reality. “Belief” disrupts, distorts, delays and/or stops (3Ds+S) the correct comprehension and acceptance of evidence. We have postulated that the controversy over evolution-and-science versus creationism is inherent to the incompatibility between scientific rationalism/empiricism and the belief in supernatural causation. This hypothesis (= incompatibility) helps us understand and explain the everlasting and fluctuating antagonism –in cycles, from moderate to intense opposition during human history– in the relationship between science/evolution and religion… Read MORE and access free PDFs of scientific articles, including Evolution Controversy: A Phenomenon Prompted by the Incompatibility between Science and Religious Beliefs published in the International Journal of Science in Society (abstract below) [PDF].

Evolution Controversy – Science in Society: Paz-y-Miño-C G & Espinosa A. 2015. Evolution Controversy: A Phenomenon Prompted by the Incompatibility between Science and Religious Beliefs. Int. J. Sci. Soc. 7(2). ISSN 1836-6236. The incompatibility between science and the belief in supernatural causation helps us understand why people do not accept evolution. Belief disrupts, distorts, delays, or stops (3Ds + S) the acceptance of scientific evidence. Here we examine the evolution controversy under three predictions of the incompatibility hypothesis. First, chronological-conflict-and-accommodation, which explains the historical re-emergence of antagonism between evolution and religion when advances in science continue to threaten the belief in supernatural causation; in such situations, creationists’ rejection of and subsequent partial acceptance of the new scientific discoveries are expected. Second, change in evolution’s acceptance is a function of educational attainment, which explains the positive association between acceptance of evolution and level of education. And third, change in evolution’s acceptance is a function of religiosity, which explains the negative association between acceptance of evolution and level of religious beliefs… We emphasize that harmonious coexistence between science and religion is illusory. If co-persisting in society, their relationship will fluctuate from moderate to intense antagonism. Read MORE open access [PDF].

At the Down House: Darwin’s Home

“I visited the Down House, Darwin’s Home, in July 2010. Here are a few pictures I wanted to share in celebration of the International Darwin Day, February 12. Prior to visiting the Down House, which is located just a few miles South East of London, I went to Canterbury, Kent, to attend the International Society of Protistologists (ISoP) annual meeting, at the University of Kent. Coincidentally, back in 1991, as an undergraduate student, I obtained a Diploma in Endangered Species Management from the University of Kent, which offered such certification in partnership with the Jersey Wildlife Preservation Trust (nowadays Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust)”… Read MORE.

Some History about Darwin Day at the US Congress

Click on image to watch video. Paul Broun (R) “All that stuff I was taught about evolution… all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell”

“…Bill H.Res.41, itself, embodies the never-ending battle against irrationalism, the latter vividly present in the views of those who see evil in truth and menace in the realities discovered by science. Take, for example, last year’s remarks by congressman Paul Broun (R), from Georgia, a physician and member of the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology (the very Committee to which the “Darwin Day bill” was referred), who declared: “God’s word is true. I’ve come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell.”

And Mr. Broun went on, as documented in video watched worldwide: “It’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior.” “You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I’ve found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth.” “I don’t believe that the earth’s but about 9,000 years old.” “I believe it was created in six day as we know them.” “That’s what the Bible says.” Read MORE.

Darwin’s Skepticism about God

Evolution Wars Debunk II

Why the Notion that “The Theory of Evolution is Not an Explanation for the Origin of Life” is Wrong

Evolution Stands Faith Up – On Francis Collins’ and Karl Giberson’s “The Language of Science and Faith”

Posted on February 8, 2016November 24, 2018 Articles Evolution Literacy, Blog Master Posting, EvoLiteracy News, Scientific Literacy

Darwin’s Skepticism about God

EvoLiteracy News 02 08 2016 – Darwin’s Week

The yearly celebration of International Darwin Day (February 12) is approaching. Here are some of Darwin’s writings, which reveal how skeptical he became –with age and wisdom– about the existence of God. Despite this historical evidence, the pro-religion-in-science crowds, or para-creationists (i.e. theistic evolution, creation science, evolutionary creation), continue to mislead the public by spreading the meme that Darwin was, deep in his soul, a religious naturalist. And that is false. In 1879, Darwin wrote: “…an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind.” But read below what else Darwin wrote about The Old and New Testaments, Christianity and God in his Autobiography and later documents. – Guillermo Paz-y-Miño-C

On November 24, 1880 (two years before his dead), Darwin wrote in a “Private” letter:

Dear Sir

I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as Divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the son of God. Yours faithfully Ch. Darwin

Darwin responded to Francis McDermott, who had requested in a note to Darwin: “…if I am to have pleasure in reading your books I must feel that at the end I shall not have lost my faith in the New Testament. My reason in writing to you therefore is to ask you to give me a Yes or No to the question Do you believe in the New Testament…” (Read McDermott’s complete letter here).

In Darwin’s Autobiography (excerpts below), first compilation published in 1958 (see complete text here), his skepticism about Christianity and God’s existence was obvious:

On the Old and New Testaments

“… But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct…”

I had gradually come… to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow at sign… and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian.

“disbelief crept over me at very slow rate, but was at last complete”

By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported, — that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become, — that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us, — that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneous with the events, — that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eyewitnesses; — by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least noveltry or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation.

The fact that many false religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wild-fire had some weight on me. Beautiful as is the morality of the New Testament, it can hardly be denied that its perfection depends in part on the interpretation which we now put on metaphors and allegories.

But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; — I feel sure of this for I can well remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeji or elsewhere which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels.

But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct.

I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all of my friends, will be everlasting punished.

On Paley’s Argument for Design

“…There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings, and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows…”

“the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell”

Although I did not think much about the existence of a personal God until a considerably later period of my life, I will here give the vague conclusions to which I have been driven. The old argument from design in Nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings, and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows. Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws. But I have discussed this subject at the end of my book on the ‘Variations of Domesticated Animals and Plants,’ and the argument there given has never, as far as I can see, been answered.

On Suffering and Happiness in Nature

“…According to my judgment happiness decidedly prevails, though this would be very difficult to prove. If the truth of this conclusion be granted, it harmonizes well with the effects which we might expect from natural selection…”

The problem of “suffering in nature”

But passing over the endless beautiful adaptations which we everywhere meet with, it may be asked how can the generally beneficent arrangement of the world be accounted for? Some writers indeed are so much impressed with the amount of suffering in the world, that they doubt, if we look to all sentient beings, whether there is more of misery or of happiness; whether the world as a whole is a good or bad one. According to my judgment happiness decidedly prevails, though this would be very difficult to prove. If the truth of this conclusion be granted, it harmonizes well with the effects which we might expect from natural selection. If all the individuals of any species were habitually to suffer to an extreme degree, they would neglect to propagate their kind; but we have no reason to believe that this has ever, or at least often occurred. Some other considerations, moreover, lead to the belief that all sentient beings have been formed so as to enjoy, as a general rule, happiness.

On the Mental Organs, Perception of Pain, Hunger, Thirst, Fear and Pleasure

“…suffering is quite compatible with the belief in Natural Selection, which is not perfect in its action, but tends only to render each species as successful as possible in the battle for life with other species, in wonderfully complex and changing circumstances…”

Every one who believes, as I do, that all the corporeal and mental organs (excepting those which are neither advantageous nor disadvantageous to the possessor) of all beings have been developed through natural selection, or the survival of the fittest, together with use or habit, will admit that these organs have been formed so that their possessors may compete successfully with other beings, and thus increase in number. Now an animal may be led to pursue that course of action which is most beneficial to the species by suffering, such as pain, hunger, thirst, and fear; or by pleasure, as in eating and drinking, and in the propagation of the species… or by both means combined, as in the search for food.

But pain or suffering of any kind, if long continued, causes depression and lessens the power of action, yet is well adapted to make a creature guard itself against any great or sudden evil.

“We see [natural selection] in the pleasure from exertion, even occasionally from great exertion of the body or mind …especially in the pleasure derived from sociability, and from loving our families”

Pleasurable sensations, on the other hand, may be long continued without any depressing effect; on the contrary, they stimulate the whole system to increased action. Hence it has come to pass that most or all sentient beings have been developed in such a manner, through natural selection, that pleasurable sensations serve as their habitual guides. We see this in the pleasure from exertion, even occasionally from great exertion of the body or mind, (in the pleasure of our daily meals, and especially in the pleasure derived from sociability, and from loving our families). The sum of such pleasures as these, which are habitual or frequently recurrent, give, as I can hardly doubt, to most sentient beings an excess of happiness over misery, although many occasionally suffer much. Such suffering is quite compatible with the belief in Natural Selection, which is not perfect in its action, but tends only to render each species as successful as possible in the battle for life with other species, in wonderfully complex and changing circumstances.

On the Argument Against the Existence of an Intelligent “First Cause”

“…A being so powerful and so full of knowledge as a God who could create the universe, is to our finite minds omnipotent and omniscient, and it revolts our understanding to suppose that his benevolence is not unbounded, for what advantage can there be in the suffering of millions of the lower animals throughout almost endless time?”

“the number of men in the world is as nothing compared with that of all other sentient beings, and they often suffer greatly without any moral improvement”

That there is much suffering in the world no one disputes. Some have attempted to explain this with reference to man by imagining that it serves for his moral improvement. But the number of men in the world is as nothing compared with that of all other sentient beings, and they often suffer greatly without any moral improvement. A being so powerful and so full of knowledge as a God who could create the universe, is to our finite minds omnipotent and omniscient, and it revolts our understanding to suppose that his benevolence is not unbounded, for what advantage can there be in the suffering of millions of the lower animals throughout almost endless time? This very old argument from the existence of suffering against the existence of an intelligent First Cause seems to me a strong one; whereas, as just remarked, the presence of much suffering agrees well with the view that all organic beings have been developed through variation and natural selection.

At the present day the most usual argument for the existence of an intelligent God is drawn from the deep inward conviction and feelings which are experienced by most persons. But it cannot be doubted that Hindoos, Mahomadans and others might argue in the same manner and with equal force in favour of the existence of one God, or of many Gods, or as with the Buddhists of no God. There are also many barbarian tribes who cannot be said with any truth to believe in what we call God: they believe indeed in spirits or ghosts, and it can be explained, as Tyler [cf. Edward Burnett Tylor] and Herbert Spencer have shown, how such a belief would be likely to arise.

On the Existence of Feelings as Argument for the Existence of God

“…I do not think that the religious sentiment was ever very strongly developed in me…”

“… It may be truly said that I am like a man who has become colour-blind, and the universal belief by men of the existence of redness makes my present loss of perception of not the least value as evidence. This argument would be a valid one if all men of all races had the same inward conviction of the existence of one God; but we know that this is very far from being the case…”

Formerly I was led by feelings such as those just referred to (although I do not think that the religious sentiment was ever very strongly developed in me), to the firm conviction of the existence of God, and of the immortality of the soul. In my Journal I wrote that whilst standing in the midst of the grandeur of a Brazilian forest, “it is not possible to give an adequate idea of the higher feelings of wonder, admiration, and devotion, which fill and elevate the mind.” I well remember my conviction that there is more in man than the mere breath of his body. But now the grandest scenes would not cause any such convictions and feelings to rise in my mind. It may be truly said that I am like a man who has become colour-blind, and the universal belief by men of the existence of redness makes my present loss of perception of not the least value as evidence. This argument would be a valid one if all men of all races had the same inward conviction of the existence of one God; but we know that this is very far from being the case.

Conductor Andris Nelsons Boston Symphony Orchestra

“The state of mind which grand scenes formerly excited in me, and which was intimately connected with a belief in God, did not essentially differ from that which is often called the sense of sublimity… [But] it can hardly be advanced as an argument for the existence of God, any more than the powerful though vague and similar feelings excited by music.”

Therefore I cannot see that such inward convictions and feelings are of any weight as evidence of what really exists. The state of mind which grand scenes formerly excited in me, and which was intimately connected with a belief in God, did not essentially differ from that which is often called the sense of sublimity; and however difficult it may be to explain the genesis of this sense, it can hardly be advanced as an argument for the existence of God, any more than the powerful though vague and similar feelings excited by music.

On Immortality as an Instinctive Belief

With respect to immortality, nothing shows me (so clearly) how strong and almost instinctive a belief it is, as the consideration of the view now held by most physicists, namely, that the sun with all the planets will in time grow too cold for life, unless indeed some great body dashes into the sun, and thus gives it fresh life.

Immortality? Darwin: “the sun with all the planets will in time grow too cold for life”

Believing as I do that man in the distant future will be a far more perfect creature than he now is, it is an intolerable thought that he and all other sentient beings are doomed to complete annihilation after such long-continued slow progress. To those who fully admit the immortality of the human soul, the destruction of our world will not appear so dreadful.

On the Mystery of the Beginning of All and Self-characterization as Agnostic

“…This conclusion [the “First Cause”] was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the ‘Origin of Species;’ and it is since that time that it has very gradually, with many fluctuations, become weaker…”

“I deserve[d] to be called a Theist. This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time… when I wrote the ‘Origin of Species;’ and it is since that time that it has very gradually, with many fluctuations, become weaker.”

Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason, and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist. This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the ‘Origin of Species;’ and it is since that time that it has very gradually, with many fluctuations, become weaker. But then arises the doubt;– can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions? May not these be the result of the connection between cause and effect which strikes us as a necessary one, but probably depends merely on inherited experience? Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children producing so strong and perhaps an inherited effect on their brains not fully developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for the monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake.

“…[We must not] overlook the probability of the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children producing so strong and perhaps an inherited effect on their brains not fully developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for the monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake…”

I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic.

Corollary

In 1879, Darwin wrote a letter to James Fordyce:

What my own (religious) views may be is a question of no consequence to any one but myself. But, as you asked, I may state that my judgment often fluctuates… In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind. — Evolution Literacy

Note: There are numerous extractions of “Darwin’s beliefs” from his Autobiography, some more exhaustive than others (see, for example, letters in What Did Darwin Believe?). Above, I summarized the text, broke it into shorter paragraphs, and introduced modern images and subtitles to facilitate the reading of the original narrative. I advise the reader to consult the original Autobiography for completeness.– Guillermo Paz-y-Miño-C

Posted on February 4, 2016February 5, 2016 Blog Master Posting, EvoLiteracy News, Scientific Literacy

The Elegant Feral Chickens of Hawaii – Moa

EvoLiteracy News 02 04 2016

I am gradually returning to posting on EvoLiteracy after some intense traveling (Hawaii) and finishing manuscripts that could not wait. Not unusual at the end of each year. Plus, I have a book in the making (coauthored with Avelina Espinosa), actually it is in production and shall be out soon.

Speaking of Hawaii. While in Oahu, Nature published a note on the feral chickens of Kauai, one of the smaller islands in the Hawaiian archipelago, located West of Oahu. I have been to Kauai once (2014); it is another amazing island, full of nature and less populated than Oahu (where Honolulu is located), or Maui, or the Big Island, which have substantial human development, large towns and cities.

Satellite view of the Hawaiian Archipelago (East islands). Image from Geology.com, click to enlarge.

The note on the feral chickens is short (you can read it here), but I found the beautiful illustration by Emily Willoughby (below) quite informative, a graphic summary of the story. Keep in mind that “feralization” is NOT domestication in reverse. Evolution does not work backwards, or in return to a previous stage; at least not in the way that some people may think. For example, if humans are left in the wild for many generations, say thousands of years, they will not “turn into” Neanderthals or early Cro-Magnons. That will simply not happen… Anyway, that is material for another posting.

As much as domestication, feralization is a complex evolutionary phenomena. Domestication is heavily driven by artificial selection (humans select); feralization is driven by natural selection (nature selects). To this we must add the fact that domestic and feral chickens are freely and constantly hybridizing in Hawaii. Therefore, the reader can imagine a continuum of phenotypes (and genotypes) in Hawaiian Gallus.

Feral Chickens Hawaii Illustration by Emily Willoughby

Illustration by Emily Willoughby, click on image to enlarge.

The feral chickens of Hawaii (Moa in Hawaiian) are indeed descendants of junglefowl ancestors (Gallus gallus) brought to the islands by Polynesian settlers (at least 1,000 years ago), but because some of the early birds lived in close proximity to humans, they developed domestic features, now hybridized with wild-type-like features “freely ranging” within the birds. For example, the comb size is under heavy sexual-selection pressure among the feral chickens, but it is under more relaxed selection among the domesticated birds. Overall, feral chickens have larger and more intensely colored combs than domestic chickens.

The domesticated birds do not incubate their eggs (a byproduct of humans constantly removing the eggs) as much as the feral chickens, and the feral hens seem to lay eggs less frequently (possibly seasonally) than their domesticated sisters. The feral birds grow faster than the domestic ones, which makes them, as adults, smaller than the domesticated chickens. The feral birds have grey legs, the domestic have yellow legs; however, both yellow- and grey-legs are common among the feral chickens of Kauai (does that tell you something?).

Finally, the plumage color is illustrative of the hybrid ancestry of today’s free-ranging roosters and hens of Kauai (i.e. a mix of junglefowl red-black plumage with the white feathers typical of the domestic chickens).

If interested in scientific info about the mixed ancestry and admixture in Kauai’s feral chickens, take a look at Gering et al. (2015), or the hybrid origin of the domestic chicken by Eriksson et al. (2008), or the genetic basis of traits that differentiate modern domestic species from their wild counterparts by Flink et al. (2013), or comparative analysis of the chicken genome by Hillier et al. (2004). Next time you visit Hawaii remember to honor these elegant birds. They are everywhere. — GPC

Twin Cascades Wailua Falls Kauai Photo G-Paz-y-Mino-C 2014

Aerial View of the Twin Cascades, Wailua Falls, Kauai. Photo GPC 2014

White-rumped shama Kauai Photo G-Paz-y-Mino-C 2014

Another introduced species in the Hawaiian Islands, the white-rumped shama (Copsychus malabaricus), photo taken in Kauai Island, GPC 2014

EvoLiteracy Update from Hawaii

Mauna Kea Telescopes to Sink in the Pacific

Posted on January 14, 2016January 19, 2016 Blog Master Posting, EvoLiteracy News, Science Historic Locations, Scientific Literacy

EvoLiteracy Update from Hawaii

Best wishes for 2016. A bit late, but I am still traveling and will resume the Evolution Literacy postings shortly. This last part of the journey comes from Hawaii.

Below, I share a few images from the island of Oahu. I have been coming to Hawaii yearly since 2012. Prior to that, I traveled to the Galapagos –yearly and non-stop– from 2005 to 2011. Comparatively, these archipelagos are amazing (i.e. volcanic origin, hot spots, endemism, adaptive radiation). Spectacular exemplars of evolution on islands.

For now, enjoy the images. I will discuss themes related to evolution on islands in the postings to come. You can find some of these images, and many more, on Twitter @gpazymino and Facebook. Aloha. – GPC

Above: A suspended-in-air shark at the Bernice P Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

Above: Plumerias in bloom Koko Bot Garden Oahu, Hawaii.

Above: They look like moving, rolling as a group. Golden Barrel Cactus at the Koko Crater Botanical Garden, Oahu, Hawaii.

Above: Golden Barrel Cactus at the Koko Crater Botanical Garden, Oahu, Hawaii.

Above: The beautiful Lady Columbia, Honolulu Memorial, Hawaii.

Above: The Bernice P. Bishop Museum (main building), Honolulu, Hawaii.

Above: Sperm whale cast at the Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Above: Real skeleton inside sperm whale cast at the Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Above: Great didactic model (A) of Achatinella spp. snail evolution in Hawaii: “giant” introduction (for kids).

Above: Model B of Achatinella spp. snail evolution in Hawaii: real snails (very small, about 2 cm, less than an inch).

Above: Model C of Achatinella spp. snail evolution in Hawaii: real snails.

Above: Model D of Achatinella spp. snail evolution in Hawaii: real snails.

Above: Model E of Achatinella spp. snail evolution in Hawaii: real snails.

Above: Outcome F of Achatinella spp. snail evolution in Hawaii: real snail diversity (40+ species).

Above: Wooden slit drums of Vanuatu represent Hawaiian ancestors and ancestors’ voices. Bernice P Museum, Honolulu.

Above: The beautiful Plumerias at the Koko Crater Bot Garden, Oahu, Hawaii.

Above: The majestic Iolani Palace, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Above: Iolani Palace, the Red Room, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Above: Iolani Palace, close up of the Red Room, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Above: “Sausage Tree” (looks like a giant tamarindo, although distantly related to the latter). In the genus Kigelia sp. (from Africa). Each fruit can weigh up to 15 pounds. I found this one at the University of Hawaii Manoa.

Above: The forest at the Koko Botanical Garden, Oahu Island, Hawaii.

Above: Pachypodium (native to Madagascar) at the Koko Botanical Garden, Oahu Island, Hawaii.

Above: The impressive cacti at the Koko Botanical Garden, Oahu Island, Hawaii.

Above: My ukuleles, the first one is a Mele from Maui (the box is built on mango wood); second, a miniature Kanile’a from the Big Island (koa wood); third is s DeVine from Oahu (mostly koa wood); and the last one is a tenor Kanile’a (koa) also from the Big Island.

Above: Evening in Honolulu – I don’t like sunsets much, but occasionally it is fun to play with an amateur camera and a lighthouse.

Above: Oahu sunset, Hawaii.

Above: USS Arizona Memorial, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.

Mauna Kea Telescopes to Sink in the Pacific

Posted on October 13, 2015October 15, 2015 Articles Evolution Literacy, Blog Master Posting, Editorials The Standard Times, Excerpts from scientific articles, Research Articles, Scientific Literacy, Video

2015 Nobel Prize in Chemistry Goes to Curiosity-Based Research

New England Science Public – An Initiative for the Public Understanding of Science – on Twitter @gpazymino – @EvoLiteracy – Facebook – ResearchGate – Academia.edu

Nobel Prize in Chemistry Goes to Curiosity-Based Research

[click on subtitle to be redirected to The Standard Times]

“…Mutations are essential to evolutionary change; they provide the genetic variability that lineages of organisms need to persist over the eons. At the same time, evolution has equipped our cells with repairing mechanisms to fix, edit DNA errors that can be detrimental…”

If completely stretched into a single, long molecular chain, the DNA of a human cell would measure about two meters. During our lifetimes, our bodies would replicate enough DNA that, theoretically, it could be extended from Earth to the Sun, and back, 250 times. Ample opportunities to accumulate 37 trillion mutations while re-copying the genetic material.

DNA-repair, image by Tom Ellenberger, Washington University in St. Louis.

Yet, evolution has equipped our cells with repairing mechanisms to fix, edit such DNA errors. And this year’s Nobel Prize in Chemistry has been awarded to Tomas Lindahl (Sweden), Aziz Sancar (Turkey) and Paul Modrich (US) precisely for discovering and characterizing –independently— these processes.

What I admire most in these investigators is their obsessive pursue of knowledge during a vigorous exploration of the intimacy of our inner molecules. As Modrich puts it “curiosity-based research is so important; you never know where it is going to lead.” And it did lead them from almost extraneous observations of the harmful effects of UV-light on the DNA of bacteria to –four decades later— its applications to our current understanding of cancer, neuro-degenerative disorders and ageing. Another lesson for today’s academic administrators infatuated with worshiping the science-for-profit model.

All began in the 1920s when American geneticist Hermann Muller (Nobel Laureate in Physiology or Medicine, 1946) found that X-rays could harm bacterial cells. By the 1940s, it was known to scientists that UV-light also had mutagenic effects on most cells. Interestingly, despite radiation-induced damage in bacteria, laboratory colonies continued to persist, which led researchers to infer that these organisms had repair-mechanisms to reinstate the internal chemistry. In 1944, DNA was recognized as the material of heredity and UV-light as a deteriorating agent of its structure.

“…What I admire most in these investigators is their obsessive pursue of knowledge during a vigorous exploration of the intimacy of our inner molecules… [Their] story only grows in beauty…”

The first breakthrough in DNA-repair mechanisms was unexpected: Albert Kelner (US) discovered that, in response to UV-induced cellular damage, bacterial enzymes could reverse the process by using –surprisingly— light, and capturing its energy-particles (photons), which excite electrons in the enzymes’ functional parts, thus jump-starting their repairing engines. The process was termed photo-reactivation and the enzymes photolyases. The story only grows in beauty.

Keep in mind that DNA is built of four “bases,” called adenine A, guanine G, cytosine C and thymine T. Under ordinary circumstances, A always pairs with T, and G with C, hence forming the steps of the DNA’s double helix, which is usually depicted as a staircase. In 1974–1976, Tomas Lindahl studied a frequent mutation in which G, rather than pairing with C (as G-C), had, as partner, the base U (uracil), a constituent of other molecules in the cell. Why? C and U are very similar, but when C loses some of its parts, due to predictable chemical contingencies, it can resemble U more closely. Thus DNA would temporarily accept the pairing G-U, but the cell would fix it by enzymatically chopping off U and restoring the correct coupling G-C. And Lindahl mapped, so elegantly, this entire process, which was labeled single-base excision repair. Later, it became part of the cell’s toolbox for DNA repair mechanisms, of which numerous have been described.

Illustration: Johan Jarnestad – The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences (click to enlarge).

In a separate study, Aziz Sancar experimentally manipulated with UV-light-induced mutations and characterized how the cell could fix errors via an alternative pathway, termed multiple-base excision repair, which included cutting off several bases, not only one, as described by Lindahl. Sancar knew that UV-light could make T behave strangely and pair with its homologue (T-T), rather than with A, as it normally does (T-A).

Let us imagine two parallel rows of DNA sequence in which the top one is G,C,T,T,C,G. Its complementary, bottom, pairing (following the rule A-T and G-C) would be C,G,A,A,G,C. However, UV-light damage can induce the Ts on the top row to pair with each other, as T-T, rather than with their corresponding As in the bottom, as T-A and T-A. Thus creating a bump loop on the top row (T-T), leaving the As in the bottom unpaired.

In 1983, Sancar plotted the entire mechanism of repair of the T-T mutation, which included multiple enzymes responsible for accurately cutting and restoring 12 bases in the top row of DNA, five prior and five post T-T. An amazing work.

Illustration: Johan Jarnestad – The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences (click to enlarge).

By 1989, Paul Modrich had unveiled a third mechanism, which involved the fixing of DNA sequence mismatches, which randomly emerge during cell divisions. A process called DNA mismatch repair. It included even larger stretches (beyond 12 bases) of folded DNA, which specific enzymes would cut and restore to the correct sequence (watch VIDEO).

Illustration: Johan Jarnestad – The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences (click to enlarge).

What is the value of curiosity-driven research? Because cancer, neuro-degeneration and ageing start with DNA damage, almost all we understand about them –including drug treatment— relies on the basic science of DNA repair mechanisms. — © 2015 by Evolution Literacy all rights reserved.

DNA Repair during evolution… Image from public domain Google Images

Historical paper by Tomas Lindahl published in Nature 1993: Instability and decay of the primary structure of DNA.

Press Release from the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences: the 2015 Nobel Prize in Chemistry

Scientific Background on the 2015 Nobel Prize in Chemistry: Mechanistic Studies of DNA Repair, compiled by the Class for Chemistry of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.

Popular Science Background: DNA Repair – Providing Chemical Stability for Life.

History of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1901 – 2015.

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

Evolution Stands Faith Up: Reflections on Evolution’s Wars By NOVA Publishers, New York Soft Cover. Find it at Barnes & Noble, Amazon.com, Amazon UK.

“This is an inspiring, readable collection of essays of reflective value to everyone. Paz-y-Miño-C points to the vain attempt by many to try and accommodate scientific rationalism with supernatural beliefs. They are simply incompatible. The author has a marvelously eloquent style of writing, full of inspiring metaphors and lateral observations that reinforce connections to the foundations of scientific inquiry and to biological evolution in particular. These thoughtful essays… are inspiring… [and] help clear the fog in our communities and arm our neighbors [with arguments] against theistic anti-science, medical quackery and other irrational nonsense.” – Greg M. Stott, PhD, Geoscientist with the Ontario Geological Survey, Canada.

“Paz-y-Miño-C doesn’t ask the reader to ‘believe’ in evolution. He provides overwhelming evidence, clearly written, that shows how scientific inquiry leads to important and practical results, while superstition and faith lead nowhere. Although we may not be able to reason someone out of what they were never reasoned into, the author presents a roadmap for those whose minds are open to discover the wonders and beauty of science.” – Herb Silverman, PhD, author of Candidate Without a Prayer: An Autobiography of a Jewish Atheist in the Bible Belt.

“Too many of our colleagues work so hard to appear open minded that their brains seem to have fallen out. When they teach our students that they can pick and choose when to be logical, critical thinkers, they are modeling the type of reasoning that leads to the politics of convenience and its bridesmaids: racism, sexism, and the whole host of xenophobias. Paz-y-Miño-C is a prolific essayist, he does not pull any punches, but when he cuts to the core of an argument, he does it with the flare of a true artist.” – Stan Braude, PhD, Professor of Practice in Biology, Washington University in St. Louis, USA.

EvoLiteracy News 03 23 2016

Related Stories

EvoLiteracy News 03 16 2016

Related Story

EvoLiteracy News 03 03 2016

Breaking – PLoS ONE Retracts Paper by Liu M-J et al.

Nature Calls it “Social Selection”

The INDEPENDENT “Scientific Paper Sparks Controversy”

What is the paper about?

This is what the authors state in the ABSTRACT:

This is what the authors state in the INTRODUCTION:

This is what the authors state in the DISCUSSION:

Notification from PLOS Staff

What should PLOS and PLoS ONE do?

On March 4, 2016, PLoS ONE officially retracted the paper:

Suggested Reading

Related Stories

EvoLiteracy News 02 22 2016

If you are on Twitter (or Facebook), you have probably asked yourself two questions: Am I less popular than my social-media friends? Am I less happy than them? These phenomena (i.e. cyber popularity or cyber happiness) are both real and perceptual.

The observations in nature (the social environment):

The hypothesis

The predictions

The study

Warnings

Suggested Readings:

Friends you can count on.

Your friends are more interesting than you.

EvoLiteracy News 02 17 2016

Top 25 Most Read Posts of 2015

EvoLiteracy News 02 12 2016

Update on NESP Series Evolution

The Incompatibility Hypothesis: evolution vs. supernatural causation

At the Down House: Darwin’s Home

Some History about Darwin Day at the US Congress

Related Stories

EvoLiteracy News 02 08 2016 – Darwin’s Week

On the Old and New Testaments

On Paley’s Argument for Design

“…There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings, and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows…”

On Suffering and Happiness in Nature

“…According to my judgment happiness decidedly prevails, though this would be very difficult to prove. If the truth of this conclusion be granted, it harmonizes well with the effects which we might expect from natural selection…”

On the Mental Organs, Perception of Pain, Hunger, Thirst, Fear and Pleasure

“…suffering is quite compatible with the belief in Natural Selection, which is not perfect in its action, but tends only to render each species as successful as possible in the battle for life with other species, in wonderfully complex and changing circumstances…”

On the Argument Against the Existence of an Intelligent “First Cause”

On the Existence of Feelings as Argument for the Existence of God

“…I do not think that the religious sentiment was ever very strongly developed in me…”

On Immortality as an Instinctive Belief

On the Mystery of the Beginning of All and Self-characterization as Agnostic

“…This conclusion [the “First Cause”] was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the ‘Origin of Species;’ and it is since that time that it has very gradually, with many fluctuations, become weaker…”

Corollary

EvoLiteracy News 02 04 2016

Suggested Readings

Related Posts:

“…Mutations are essential to evolutionary change; they provide the genetic variability that lineages of organisms need to persist over the eons. At the same time, evolution has equipped our cells with repairing mechanisms to fix, edit DNA errors that can be detrimental…”

“…What I admire most in these investigators is their obsessive pursue of knowledge during a vigorous exploration of the intimacy of our inner molecules… [Their] story only grows in beauty…”

Suggested Readings:

Historical paper by Tomas Lindahl published in Nature 1993: Instability and decay of the primary structure of DNA.

Press Release from the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences: the 2015 Nobel Prize in Chemistry

Scientific Background on the 2015 Nobel Prize in Chemistry: Mechanistic Studies of DNA Repair, compiled by the Class for Chemistry of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.

Popular Science Background: DNA Repair – Providing Chemical Stability for Life.

History of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1901 – 2015.

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