the evolving mind

The nature/nurture relation just got more complicated. At least in my mind. Ornithologists have long known that songbirds raised in isolation will not successfully develop the song of their kind; they must be exposed to it. A fascinating new study has shown that given time and new generations, the song will eventually “evolve.”

What the researchers did was isolate a male bird from other males (except females, who don’t sing). Because the bird wasn’t exposed to the song of its kind, it’s singing was a relative incomprehensible garble of notes. But a second, isolated male, “tutored” by the first, did better. As did the third generation of isolated males. In a sense, the birds pulled themselves up by the bootstraps of their instincts/reflexes coupled with their experiences. Then moved beyond.

The study confirms that zebra finches raised in complete isolation do not sing the same song as they would if raised normally, i.e., among other members of their species. It breaks new ground in showing that progeny of these “odd birds,” within several generations, will introduce improvisations that bring their song into conformity with those of “wild-type” zebra finches, i.e., those raised under normal cultural conditions.

In my analogy, the bootstraps do not represent either nature or nurture. It’s not nature or nature, but nature AND nurture.

And what about innovation? Is that part of the bootstrap?

Technorati Links: cognition

There is an important difference between the data science generates and the explanations and conclusions it draws. I view these as the two arms of science: the empirical arm and the philosophical arm. One is all about numbers and measurement, the other about arguments and reasoning.

Strong science is careful and sober in its explanation of data. Jumping to over-confident and/or far-reaching conclusions from a limited amount of data, or from poor quality data, is not strong science.

The critical thinker, I believe, should be able to identify the difference between data and explanation. Consider this finding from a study on the perceptual ability of a species of birds. Can you identify which sentence is more data (empirical), which more explanation (philosophical)?

Jackdaws seem to recognize the eye’s role in visual perception, or at the very least they are extremely sensitive to the way that human eyes are oriented.

When presented with a preferred food, hand-raised jackdaws took significantly longer to retrieve the reward when a person was directing his eyes towards the food than when he was looking away.

As you probably guessed, the second is the data. It has the details, the all-important nitty-gritty of how the data was generated. The first is more explanation. And there is a difference. Sometimes the explanation doesn’t venture far from the data. It takes few liberties. Other times it does. And critical thinkers will notice this.

Technorati Links: critical thinking, data

Dear birdwatching brethren and science omnivores, there has been a breakthrough in the understanding of bird flight. As you may or may not know, it was previously assumed that when birds fly they change the angle of their wings to adjust to the task and optimize output: ascent, straight flight, descent, etc.

As it turns out, that is not quite right. Ken Dial and his associates at the University of Montana Flight Lab have discovered that birds actually keep their wings in the same position relative to the earth and the direction of the force of gravity. This keeps their efforts most efficient. Which I image is very important. What birds do change is the angle of their body relative to the earth. Dial describes it well:

“It turns out they weren’t changing hardly anything at all.” He holds out his hand flat, angled slightly above the horizon. “The wing is doing this the whole time, and the body is slinging around it like a gymnast on the rings. The wings always produce a force that is similarly orientated against gravity. The body slings around so much that it looks like the wings change position. But they don’t.

Cool. Birds as gymnasts, held aloft by the pressure they exert against air.

Technorati Links: biology, research

At this moment there are chipping sparrows feeding on the ground outside my window. And I can hear the “chucking” call of a nearby common grackle. Otherwise, no birds on the feeders. A quiet morning.

Birds are an interest of mine. When you combine birds with science, well, my cup runneth over.

Ooh. Female cardinal. A male flew in and she bolted. He’s feeding, peeling seed husks from the seed, making teet!-like calls every three seconds or so. Didn’t his mother instruct him not to sing with his mouth full?

In research on Savannah sparrows conducted by Heather Williams (rhymes with feather — sorry) of Williams College that I encountered three items I’d like to share and comment on.

Continue Reading »

Technorati Links: evolution, research

There is hope for birdwatchers yet! And not that we will soon get over our penchant for peeping at creatures with feathered wings. Mathematicians have determined that the possibility one or a number of ivory-billed woodpeckers still exists is significantly better than zero.

A new study conducted by University of Georgia researchers reveals that the ivory-billed woodpecker could have persisted if as few as five mated pairs survived the extensive habitat loss during the early 1900’s.

From the above could one conclude that in order for there to be a monster in Loch Ness, a number of mating pairs would have had to reside there over the years? I would think so. Unless Nessy has a lifespan of thousands, or is actually an underwater alien spaceship. Which seems about as likely as the other alternatives.

—

Here is a photo of a species closely related to the ivory-billed:

The above pileated woodpecker was photographed in some woods near our house.

Technorati Links: personal

Apropos nothing (nothing I am consciously aware of, anyway), my favorite restaurant is in Cuba. Not Cuba the nation, but a small town in northern New Mexico. “El Bruno.” I’ve eaten there just three times in my life. I hope to get there at least another three times during the years I walk the earth (no, I don’t plan on walking the sky post-death). The restaurant serves excellent New Mexican food and the location is superb: a dry and dusty small town on the edge of Navajo land.

Must be time for lunch.

Technorati Links: nature

The recent jetliner crash is being blamed on birds. But I think they are innocent.

One allegation:

“birds knocked out both engines.”

Crafty birds — went right for the engines. Unless, of course, they got sucked in.

Another allegation:

“The accident apparently was caused by birds that slammed into the plane.”

With my limited understanding of physics, it seems that if anything did the slamming, it was the 300 mph Airbus A320 into the birds.

And this:

“U.S. Airways Flight out of LaGuardia crashed into the Hudson River today after it was struck by birds.”

Just who did the striking? And what was that jet doing in the birds’ airspace? Must we blame them?

Technorati Links: current events, semantics

Drew a blank this morning.  Here’s one from my personal achives:

the church bell resounds -
pigeons flying off,
flying back

Technorati Links: birds, poetry

hawk on a power-pole –
and the echoes of twittering
in the trees

Technorati Links: poetry

amid red blossoms
cardinal pulling at petals -
beautiful foods

Technorati Links: poetry