Sapolsky (egads part 2)

"Egads!" A more qualified voice 

has been found to elaborate on

the tiny bit of 

sociobiology and evo-psych 

mentioned last time unit.

Aside from being an all-around awesome scientist/writer, 

Robert Sapolsky (paired with Stanford University) 

has brought his 

"Human Behavioral Biology" course to Youtube.

As if there were not already 

enough things to admire 

about his  communication M.O..

he is explicitly careful, 

from the start of things, 

to provide a cautionary  warning 

about "categorical thinking": 

that is, the danger of being stuck 

in so-called 'buckets' (or "-isms")

of interpretation.

Why might this be useful, and how does it tie in?

Don't be alarmed by the length, 

the part we're interested in (albeit myopically) 

starts at just past the one-hour mark.

However, the whole video (series) is unequivocally worth watching: 

it's extremely helpful to note 

that this course was designed so that 

individuals don't necessarily need to come from 

a canonical science background, 

which amounts to a friendly 

(rather than blistering) 

rate of introduction to the material.

A couple quick notes:

Sapolsky's commentary on

contemporary refinements of "group selection" theories

 seems roughly parallel  to the 

"Lamarckian evolution"/epigenetic inheritance controversy.

Why bother to try the analogy? 

Well, it helps to illustrate a trend in biology to 

develop a theory which may be false 

as a dominant mode or mechanism, 

but one that may accurately predict an outcome 

of some other theory when 

a special set of circumstances are applied. 

In a very loose analogy to physics,

the dynamic is akin to the 

seemingly dichotomous relationship 

between classical "Newtonian" models 

and Special Relativity.

The first model, when applied over the whole range,

fails to accurately explain certain phenomena, but 

can be fully accounted for 

by the predictions of the second theory.

The most abstracted way 

to summarize the importance 

of such a review is the following:

"assumptions about evolutionary hypotheses 

cannot be made from within an absolutist standpoint, 

(such as the notion that every trait is adaptive) 

but must be accountable to 

empirical scrutiny at all levels, 

such as genetics or population mathematics."

Another great point that was highlighted described Gould's "spandrels", 

which ties in perfectly to the anthropocentric fallacies of the Cabbages post. 

Once again, it seems there is a nearly irresistible tendency 

to believe that evolution somehow strives for/achieves "perfection" 

as opposed to "just good enough".

Tremendously complicated arguments,

but absolutely critical to an understanding of evolution.

Hopefully, this post was a fair treatment that sparked your curiosity.

If it didn't, SPARK.

Readers who are still interested:

Let's meet here at some point in time, but only when entropy has increased.

Footnote to Cabbages!

A few posts ago, 
i threw out the term 
"junk DNA" 


which linked to a wikipedia page titled "noncoding dna", 
with the full intention of returning 
to flush out the controversy and nuances of the term
when qualified to do so the time provided itself.

[Farnsworth] Good news everyone! [/Farnsworth]

As it turns out,

the [adjective for unspeakably vile] ID propaganda whores 

over at the Discovery Institute

have provoked an excellent opportunity for science education.

(as opposed, of course, to their usual mis-education)

Boy, if i had a nickel ...

How'd we find out about this?

It just so happens that fellow truth crusader scientist Larry Moran over at Sandwalk

has done a fantastic job of dissecting the junk (science, that is) 

while at the same time providing a wonderful exposition

 on the whole non-coding 

paradox 

(as in, mystifying but resolvable problem).

And by dissect, i of course mean: 

torn apart bit by bit 

with the white hot intensity of a thousand suns 

and the precision of optical tweezers 

paired with photothermal nanoblades. 

The discussion is well underway (multiple parts already posted), 

so this link will take you to the most recent aggregation of the posts. 

[Pause for breath]

Embedded in the earliest post, 

Larry included this gem of a link from

evolutionary biologist  T. Ryan Gregory 

over at Genomicron...

...whom we can thank for transmitting this excellent quote into the blogosphere:

"If we take the simplistic assumption that the number of genes contained is proportional to the genome size, we would have to conclude that 3 million or so genes are contained in our genome. The falseness of such an assumption becomes clear when we realize that the genome of the lowly lungfish and salamanders can be 36 times greater than our own."

*Attributed to Susumu Ohno 

Needless to say, i was ecstatic 

to find this in my interweb wanderings, 

and hopefully now i've given the topic 

a more rigorous appraisal.

Tune in next time for tuna!

Egads! new stuff....

Taking advantage of the full capabilities of Google Reader, it has become painfully clear that this blog can offer very little original content in the way of scientific discoveries, ideological controversy, or dazzling images that frequently decorate the portion of the blogosphere represented to the right of this post (sort of).

However, that's no reason to stop trying.

But certainly, in terms of format,

there may be some modifications.

Today, let's tackle a few bits of

controversy 

(pronounced with British syllabic emphasis, Attenborough style) 

from the "softer" science of anthropology/sociology. 

[yes, separate but overlapping fields]

Why those two fields? Well, a few of the topics deal with culture, so naturally, it falls into certain realms. What gives me the right to intrude into such academic territory? Not a damn thing, save curiosity and access to Google, but why limit discussions to ivory towers?

With that being said, 

i'll try to be mindful of 

the usual cliched bunk science 

that floats around far too often

Like "evolutionary psychology" theories that seem to
carry their merit in persuasiveness as opposed to empiricism:

Cue the following: "Evolutionary theory says”
Tsk, tsk Tim.
That should read "evolutionary theorists..."

Or, put in a slightly more serious tone

the work of  Jon Wilkins' webcomic character

Guillame (the adaptationist goat)

who has more explicitly pointed out problems with this approach.

A stupendous analysis of the fundamental controversy can be found both here and here

The second link, while admittedly more dense, is the most thorough elaboration I've yet come across.

Then, of course, 

we also have to be careful 

to avoid the faintest whiff of 

any scientific racism

(a hot and happening phenomena in the Victorian era).

The typical arguments (ran) run along the following lines

"We [observer group] note

a set of conspicuously absent features in

you [less "us-like” successful group]

and can only conclude that this absence

left you crippled in some critical way/and or elevates us to superiority”

Or, less abstractly and suitably scathingly:

"Well sir, we didn't notice the local tribe* performing any Shakespeare or Judeo-Christian rites, so naturally, we assumed they were only fit for plantation labor."

(It's a perversely well-rooted argument,

in that it crops up frequently

and resists attempts at eradication.)

Speaking of asterisks, this brings us to the next point.

While I'm vaguely familiarized with 

the idea of certain vocabulary 

in anthropology/etc being specifically defined

(think of words like tribe, group, etc),

satisfying the necessary pedanticism is counterproductive.

The goal is to start asking questions, not censor language prior to asking.

There is, of course, one important exception to 

this otherwise blatant disregard for academic nuances:

the idea of "race".

The views of the author, strictly for discussion purposes, are as follows:

"biological variation acknowledged, discontinuous cultural categories discarded".

With this absurdly long introduction out of the way,

the next posts can cut right into the thick of the ideas,

namely:

cultural relativism and diversity, ethics and paradoxes of globalization, 

and science-based rationalizations 

shoring up an ethnocentric condemnation 

of  certain Japanese gastronomical practices.

Join me next time,

in my endeavor to be a not-racist explorer

in these infinitely tricky questions.

Or...don't. 

It's your choice.