the evolving mind

Some people believe that adjusting your diet is the only health care you need. I doubt this. As I mentioned in a post a year and some months ago (You Aren’t What You Eat) I have a relative who once believed, and still believes to a degree, that all physical and mental health problems are caused by diet. This person went so far to state that even homosexuality is the result of diet. (Maybe not enough red meat?) Sure, it would be fantastic if we could take a trip to the health food store whenever we were feeling poorly. But evidence for the effectiveness of this approach is meager at best. And that’s for run-of-mill, preventative measures. Once you have an illness, the effectiveness drops further. And I’m probably being generous here.

The belief that “it’s all about diet,” seems to stem from a faulty premise. That premise is that the human body is somehow perfect and only goes bad when we do bad things to it. Um, birth defects anyone? Diseases that run in families? Twin studies that show when one twin has a disease, the other twin is much more likely to succumb to it as well, regardless of differences in diet? And the list could go on.

The truth is, our bodies aren’t born perfect, nor do they develop and age perfectly, even when the person is diligent about changing his/her oil every 3000 miles and never fills up with cheapo fuel.

If the body is a temple, most of those temples have various cracks in the foundations from the get-go. (Sorry about switching metaphors in mid-stream.)

That said, there are number of studies revealing that there are indeed chemicals in some foods that can help treat or prevent health problems. Yesterday I encountered this one: Blueberry Juice Improves Memory in Older Adults. This finding was not the result of a diet shaman pulling an insight out of the blue. Rather, scientists conducted an experiment with actual blueberries. Well, the juice.

In the study, one group of volunteers in their 70s with early memory decline drank the equivalent of 2-2 l/2 cups of a commercially available blueberry juice every day for two months. A control group drank a beverage without blueberry juice. The blueberry juice group showed significant improvement on learning and memory tests, the scientists say.

While this finding is encouraging, I wouldn’t bet the health of my memory on it. Not yet. For one, the write-up doesn’t mention the number of “volunteers.” Nor does it provide the outcome numbers. How much better does the experimental group do than the control group?

Nevertheless, alternative-medicine types will likely use this finding to start prescribing a liberal inclusion of blueberries in the diet. The funny thing is, if the finding holds up upon further research, you can bet that the active chemical(s) in blueberries will be isolated and offered in pill form. In the future doctors might prescribe it. As part of conventional medicine.

In that example we can see how alternative medicine, in the form of specific diet supplementations, is immature medicine. Puppy medicine, you might say. And who doesn’t love puppies?

Technorati Links: alternative medicine, diet, skepticism

Saturday and Sunday: There they are, orbiting the work week. Or maybe rather than being satellite-like days, the weekend couplet of waking hours feels like home. During the week we commute to the moon of a work schedule.

Ahhh. To be home. Home. The familiar.

But spend too much at home and that moon looks kinda interesting.

[photo thanks to NASA]

I hope books never go the way of the Dodo. And by “books” I mean the paper-and-ink variety.

Okay, maybe I’m being like the sentimentalist from a century ago. “I’ve had such memorable, pleasant experiences with the horse-and-buggy mode of transportation that I sincerely hope it isn’t completely replaced by that foreign automobile thing.”

In terms of cultural evolution, is the book all that different from the horse-and-buggy? I don’t know if it is.

Admittedly, I’ve yet to hold a Kindle in my hands. It doesn’t have an internal combustion engine, but still. The experience of reading . . . a book . . . with it will be quite different, I imagine.

Speaking of pulp-flesh and ink-blood books, Dawkins’ recent rather hefty one, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, has a rather pleasant poetic vein running through it. Dawkins can craft a hell-of-a sentence. His prose is both erudite and supple. Consider these snippets from the book (gathered via a very quick flip-through):

“What delayed humanity’s tumbling to that luminously simple idea . . . ” (p. 21)

“For the mind encased in Platonic blinkers, a rabbit is a rabbit is a rabbit.” p. 23

“Presumably genes for floppy ears and piebald coats are pleotropically linked to genes for tameness, in foxes as well as in dogs.” p. 76

“The human body abounds with what, in one sense, we could call imperfections but, in another sense, should be seen as inescapable compromises resulting from our long ancestral history of descent from other kinds of animals.” p.365

I don’t know if Dawkins’ latest book is destined to will become a classic, but it does merit wide readership. The many pages of full-color illustrations are reason enough to consider adding the book to your library.

Library . . . is that another Dodo?

Technorati Links: books, evolution

“The consensus is much as Wood concluded, ‘it is at present unclear with which of the two extant species of Pan the modern H. sapiens should be compared.’” Wrangham, R. & Pilbeam, D (35)

A number of people have argued that the bonobo is better suited for designation as the early human prototype. If that is the case, why is it that chimpanzees are documented tool-users, but not bonobos? That alone nearly bumps the bonobo from contention. Of course, the either/or reasoning is mistaken. Either the chimpanzee is our behavioral precursor, or the bonobo.

Frans de Waal writes,

“We have the fortune of having not one but two inner apes, which together allow us to construct an image of ourselves that is considerably more complex than what we have heard coming out of biology for the past twenty-five years.”(36)

In the least, the early ancestry of our kind is still in unclear. Will Ardi (Ardipithecus ramidus) and other yet uncovered ancient primate remains come to our rescue? For now, the issue remains a puzzle with few pieces from which to construct a bigger picture. As this passage from essay “African Apes As Time Machines” illustrated:

“‘About 5 million years ago forest-ranging, knuckle-walking apes–much like the living chimpanzees–evolved…into the earliest humans…(A. L. Zihlman, 1978)’. This view has successfully challenged alternatives such as the prebrachiatrionist model (descent from a generalized terrestrial quadrupedal ape), the gibbon model (descent from a terrestrial gibbon), and the Miocene fossil model (descent from a thick-enameled magadont). Increasingly strong support has come from our growing confidence in the molecular evidence that human and chimpanzee lineages diverged after the split with gorillas; the recognition that Pan is little changed phenotypically from the African ape ancestor; and the discovery that the earliest known australopithecine fossils (probably within 1-2 million years of their likely split from the chimpanzee lineage) have more chimpanzee-like features than do later species. For such reasons, “the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees was probably chimpanzee-like, a knuckle-walker with small thin-enameled cheek teeth.” (37)

Again, Frans de Waal approaches the question of the human ancestral prototype, as seen through current cousin species, with an informed reasonableness -

“Instead of inquiring which species, the bonobo or the chimpanzee, most resembles us humans, we can more fruitfully ask which elements of our social life are shared with one or the other and which elements are uniquely ours.”
(38)

From within that quote we can extract this essential point: we are bags of genes (so to speak). We have inherited not one monolithic genetic package from the past, but individual genes and gene-strings, no doubt. From many diverse sources. We are not the fruit of a single tree of life, but of a bush. Sure, our lineage can seem neat and clean when we follow a line of paternity (usually) backwards. But really. Each of us has two parents, four grandparents, 16 great-grandparents, etc. A clean line of descent is surely a handy illusion.

We share genes with many cousin species. In the end, a piecemeal approach to speculations of the origin of human nature might be wiser. Thanks to the cut and splice nature of chromosomal reproduction, we arrive at this insight: Each individual, each species, that ever lifted itself off the table of creation could be named “Frankenstein.”

—–

(35) Wrangham, R. & Pilbeam, D., “African Apes As Time Machines,” in Galdikas, B. M. F., Briggs, N. E., Sheeran, L.K., Shapiro, G. L. & Goodall, J. (Eds.), All Apes Great and Small, Volume I: African Apes, Kluwer Academic / Plenum, New York, 2001, p. 6
(36) de Waal, F. Our Inner Ape: A Leading Primatologist Explains Why We Are Who We Are, New York, Riverhead Books, 2005, p. 237
(37) Wrangham, R. & Pilbeam, D., 2001, p. 5
(38) de Waal, F. Peacemaking Among Primates, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1989
p.227

Technorati Links: evolution, psychology

As I argued in the post, Fun Science Fact: An Upside to Down Syndrome, sometimes (often?) a genetic abnormality brings some good with the bad. Research recently published in the American Journal of Psychiatry has found that gene variants associated with schizophrenia — bad — provide a diminished cancer risk — good.

People who inherit a specific form of a gene that puts them on a road to schizophrenia may be protected against some forms of cancer, according to a new study by scientists at The Feinstein Institute for Medical Research. [source]

Interesting. It should be noted that the research itself seemed solid. Kudos for that. For example:

The authors were able to replicate their findings in a second sample of 107 patients and 112 healthy volunteers. “The results add to the growing evidence suggesting an intriguing relationship between cancer-related genes and schizophrenia susceptibility,” the scientists wrote. [bold added]

The numbers aren’t great, but the replication part is a big plus.

As I pointed out in A Link Between Creativity and Insanity there may also be another benefit, a social “sunny-side” that partly balances the individual darkness that those suffering from schizophrenia face, to the disorder.

To me the above is yet more evidence that the theory of evolution nicely explains what we are discovering about the tangled web of life. Why is there schizophrenia? Why haven’t the gene variants for full-blow cases been trimmed from existence by natural selection? It may be that those variants, in particular combinations or in association with other factors, aren’t all bad. And they may even bring some good.

Try to explain the above with a Creationist perspective and it is difficult not to conclude that not only did/does the Creator have a mean streak (Down Syndrome and schizophrenia — why include those in creation?), but he does sloppy work as well. Mixing the good and bad together like that . . . .

Of course, Creationists could argue the schizophrenia finding away in one of two ways: 1) the science is wrong, schizophrenia is actually caused by sin and satan, and/or 2) Gawd creates in mysterious ways, and we just don’t understand the intelligence of a design for humans that includes a significant proportion of the population being afflicted by a very troubling mental illness.

Science is fascinating and powerful. But don’t look to it for simple answers. Try religion instead.

Technorati Links: creationism, evolution, schizophrenia

SkeptVet will be hosting the next Skeptics’ Circle. If you blog and have posts to submit, please do. Head on over to The SkeptVet Blog.

As for the “meaning” of the above photo? Your interpretation is as good as mine. Of course, those interpretations exist not in the photo, but in our minds. Art truly is subjective.

Technorati Links: art, nature photography

A series of experiments conducted by researchers at Erasmus University in the Netherlands may shed some light on the difficulty of bringing science into the public square. The research was actually in the domain of “consumer science,” but I believe it may tell a bigger story.

The article, Want to convince? Use abstract rather than concrete language, shared a few interesting findings. First, and in general, when word-of-mouth recommendations for products is expressed in more abstract terms than concrete (specific), consumers find them more persuasive. Concrete attributes and experiences, it seems, are easier to perceive as limited characteristics, not representative of the whole, so to speak.

As I have argued time and again, good science relies upon precision and specificity — both in the practice of the science AND the communication of it. Diligent scientists and science writers “dot their ‘I‘s and cross their ‘T‘s;” they share the nitty-gritty about how they conducted their study and they disclose the results without exaggeration or obfuscation. They are exact.

Is it possible that this is why “selling science” to the general public is difficult? Could be. I also wonder whether abstract/general talk and writing is looser, in a sense, providing more wiggle room for people to inject meaning into. Something like an astrological profile. When those get too specific, too concrete, they lose their appeal. (With less broad verbal strokes, the limits are easier to see.)

So what does this all mean? Should we change the way we talk about science? Should we water it down and speak in generalities? Maybe. Maybe in some situations. But as a past educator and a person who feels strongly about education, my hunch is that we might be able to educate young minds to understand science better and find its precision more persuasive then the sloppier language of sales pitches.

One can hope.

Technorati Links: language, psychology, science

Thanks to NASA we can enjoy this artsy Martian photo. (A photo of Mars vs. by a Martian.) Can we call it “art” if no hand sculpted it?

The above beauty was generated by the winds on Mars pushing the nearly liquid-like sand around. Look for it in a gallery near you. Or maybe not.

Technorati Links: art, cosmos

Watch enough television and you will die. Eventually. It may take a few decades, but one day . . . you’ll be alive one minute, dead the next. In the room with you, as suspect #1, is the television. Guilty! Is it murder?

While the TV lacks motive, new evidence has come to light: Sedentary TV Time May Cut Life Short.

Australian researchers tracked the lifestyle habits of 8,800 adults and found that each hour spent in front of the television daily was associated with: • an 11 percent increased risk of death from all causes, • a 9 percent increased risk of cancer death; and • an 18 percent increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD)-related death.

Throw a book at that television! Then turn off the damn thing and open the book. It could save your life.

But maybe not. There is that “sedentary” in the title. And that may be the actual instrument of death.

While the study focused specifically on television watching, the findings suggest that any prolonged sedentary behavior, such as sitting at a desk or in front of a computer, may pose a risk to one’s health.

Nuts. Here I am at my desk. And here I will be for hours on end. Should I be wearing a Kevlar vest?

Okay, so maybe the television isn’t guilty of murder. From this statistical finding can we at least charge it with manslaughter?

Technorati Links: skepticism, television

Nature is such a free-for-all. Consider this backyard photo of the trunk to a small tree. Or maybe front-and-center in this photo is the growth of lichen, and the tree is just a stage.

Lichens are composite organisms consisting of a symbiotic association of a fungus (the mycobiont) with a photosynthetic partner (the photobiont or phycobiont), usually either a green alga (commonly Trebouxia) or cyanobacterium (commonly Nostoc). The morphology, physiology and biochemistry of lichens are very different from those of the isolated fungus and alga in culture. [Wikipedia]

Technorati Links: biology, nature photography