The Predictive Power of Evolution

Some years ago, I recall part of the creationist argument against evolution as a valid scientific theory was:

It makes no testable predictions.

This was said, of course, to blunt similar criticism of creationism as a theory. Observations that don't match up with the creationist story are waived away with divine intervention. Evolutionary theory, in this view, is no better because terms like "survival of the fittest" are non-predictive (how do you tell is fittest? It survives!). Your theory, they say, is no better than ours.

Except of course that's nonsense and a recent Nova episode, What Darwin Never Knew, did a masterly job of proving this. I cite but one example.

When Darwin wrote On The Origin of Species the mechanism of inherited traits was not understood at all. While the basic concepts were there and some of the ways that dominant and recessive traits were passed on had been observed, molecular genetics was a century in the future.

We now know that cells contain DNA and that this controls how living things develop. We are now able to sequence DNA reasonably rapidly, and have sequenced the DNA of multiple species. And they're finding that many of the key changes in DNA between species are not in the protein-coding genes. There are other genes that are "switches", which turn these genes on and off. The "switches" are further controlled by "body-plan" genes, which control when and how long switches are thrown. And a minor set of changes to the "body-plan" genes can be responsible for big changes in characteristics.

This is entirely consistent with evolutionary theory. If a change to, say, arm length or brain size required the coordinated changes of hundreds of genes (or indeed, creating entirely new genetic information), then the probability of such a change occurring, being successful, and being transmitted to a new generation is vanishingly small. Yet now it can be seen that these changes can be caused by a very small set of changes, which is far more likely.

Did it have to be that way? In a creationist world, we could fully imagine that every species could have had unique genes, totally unlike any other. One would not expect that, say, the genes that control the size, shape, and placement of a fin in a fish would be the same ones that control the size, shape, and placement of a chimp's arm. And yet, that is what we find.

Dear Michael Steele, Chairman, Republican National Committee

Thanks so much for your cordial letter. I'm honored to be considered your friend. I appreciate the opportunity you've given me to provide my views on various policy questions.

I must admit I was somewhat surprised at first by the rather abrupt and preemptory tone of your letter. On reflection I became convinced that you were somewhat incensed when you wrote it, and there's no need to apologize for the tone (hey, what are friends for?).

However, I find I can't in good conscience fill in the enclosed survey as it appears to have been created by an overworked staffer. The only valid answers are "yes", "no", and "No opinion" - and in a great many cases my opinion is somewhat more nuanced than a simple yes or no. Additionally, there are questions that are poorly written and which seem to discuss policies that don't match my recollection of those of the current administration or the Democrats I'm aware of. I presume those are the result of extreme time pressure that led the staffer to take shortcuts, and these have frankly spoiled what might have been a good and worthwhile survey.

Here are my responses in detail:

1. Do you agree with Barack Obama and the Democrats that taxes should be raised for the sake of "fairness", regardless of the negative impact it is likely to have on the economy? Why, no, that would be madness. I'm shocked President Obama and the Democrats have taken such a position. I am, however, extremely concerned about both the current federal deficit and the outrageous national debt. I've been concerned about this since the Nixon administration, and few administrations have done much to actually resolve this issue. I feel there will be no alternative - the government raises funds by taxes, and we need more taxes collected in order to cover the deficit before we can begin to make a dent in the debt.
2. Do you believe the federal government has gone too far in bailing out failing banks, insurance companies and the auto industry? While I certainly had a twinge when Chrysler and GM received federal funds, I believe the government took what they considered necessary steps to keep the economy afloat and sustain confidence in the currency for a short period. Based on what I currently observe, it seems unlikely that this will be repeated on any scale any time soon. It also appears that much of the bailout funds will be repaid. On the whole, it may have been a distasteful but necessary exercise.
3. Do you support amnesty for illegal immigrants? Well, not in so many words. However, I agree with George Bush and John McCain and believe our current immigration policies are too restrictive in some cases. I also believe that should the policies be loosened, it would be silliness to refuse people who had come sooner than legally allowed to achieve legal immigrant status. Perhaps that's just my heritage.
4. Should English be the official language of the United States? I guess that depends on what such a designation would mean in practice.
5. Are you in favor of granting retroactive Social Security eligibility to illegal immigrants who gain U.S. citizenship through an amnesty program? It depends - did they pay their FICA contributions (and did their employers pay their half)? If not, they certainly didn't earn eligibility; if they did, it seems kind of odd not to give them the services they paid for.
6. Are you in favor of the expanded welfare benefits and unlimited eligibility (no time, education or work requirements) that Democrats in Congress are pushing to pass? I was unaware of such an effort, so can't really answer without knowing what's being "pushed" and how much support it has. I do support limited welfare, and consider the most recent reforms better than the previous state. However, there's always room for improvement.
7. Do you believe that Barack Obama's nominees for federal courts should be immediately and unquestionably approved for their lifetime appointments by the U.S. Senate? That would be horrible abdication of the Senate's responsibility - though in all fairness, I'm sure that every president wished that the Senate would do just that.
8. Do you believe that the best way to increase the quality and effectiveness of public education in the U.S. is to rapidly expand federal funding while eliminating performance standards and accountability? No, of course not. Based on what I hear on the news, I don't believe President Obama believes this would be prudent either, at least not based on what I read about the Race To The Top fund. Does your staffer have a citation?
9. Do you support the creation of a national health insurance plan that would be administered by bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.? Probably not, but why does the location of the bureaucrats matter? Would it be better if the office that administered the health insurance plans were located in, say, Omaha or Peoria? No, that's just humor. Having health insurance that is usable anywhere in the U.S. rather than being restricted to a particular state would be a tremendous convenience, but that suggests that either the insurance would be separately registered and governed in every state, or would be regulated by a federal policy.
10. Do you believe that the quality and availability of health care will increase if the federal government dictates pricing to doctors and hospitals? The government already does this with Medicare, and it seems to have improved health care availability for those who are covered. I suspect it's not as simple a question as it appears at first glance.
11. Are you confident that new medicines and medical treatments will continue to be developed if the federal government controls prescription drug prices and sets profit margins for research and pharmaceutical companies? Pretty confident, yes, as long as there's a reasonable profit involved. Maybe not as many, maybe not as fast - but certainly they'll continue to be developed.
12. Are you in favor of creating a government-funded "Citizen Volunteer Corps" that would pay young people to do work now done by churches and charities, earning Corps Members the same pay and benefits given to military veterans? No. Indeed "paid volunteers" seems an oxymoron. Do you have names of people who have proposed such a system? Also, the terminology here seems somewhat ambiguous - typically I think of a veteran as a former member of the armed forces, and people leave the armed forces under a great many financial conditions. Is this the same pay as someone who was honorably discharged and is not serving in the reserve - which would be none? Or are you talking of someone who has retired?
13. Are you in favor of reinstituting the military draft, as Democrats in Congress have proposed? No - the all volunteer force has been quite successful overall. I do believe that under some circumstances a draft would become necessary, but I don't see those at this time. Do you have names of those Democrats who have proposed this?
14. Do you believe that the federal government should allow the unionization of Department of Homeland Security employees who serve in positions critical to the safety and security of our nation? They should be allowed to unionize to the same extent as other government position such as air traffic controllers.
15. Do you support Democrats' drive to eliminate workers' right to a private ballot when considering unionization of their place of employment? I believe that a worker should be allowed to vote for or against a union in a manner that does not invite intimidation or retribution from either side. However any such vote should be done in a cost effective manner.

I notice you also gave me the opportunity to contribute money to the Republican Party. While I have already budgeted all my available funds for this type of purpose for the year, I promise I will not contribute to the Democratic Party. Certainly my not contributing to the Democrats is worth as much to you as a contribution to the Republicans would be.

In closing, thanks for thinking of me and please consider providing a little more supervision in developing these surveys.

Your friend,

Mephistopheles O'Brien

As if you needed to be reminded

According to this, Pat Robertson believes that the Haitian earthquake was not caused by movements in the earth's crust. Nope, it was caused by a pact with the devil the Haitians made to get out from the rule of the French.

"True story."

It remains a mystery why this idiot has the following he does.

He still does not speak for me.

Addendum: My apologies for calling Pat Robertson an idiot - it's not fair.

Have We Immanentized the Eschaton?

About 20 years ago, I became convinced that several things are true:

• Carbon dioxide, water, and methane are all greenhouse gasses.
• Greenhouse gasses reflect infrared energy (heat) back to the Earth.
• An increase of greenhouse gasses will, in the absence of other factors, increase the average temperature of the earth.
• If the average temperature increases, the amount of water that evaporates will increase, further increasing the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.
• Various measurements have shown recent increases in greenhouse gasses including carbon dioxide, both near human activity and also distant from it.
• A number of human activities generate carbon dioxide (e.g. burning fossil fuels) while a number of other human activities reduce the amount of plant life capable of removing carbon dioxide (e.g. development and improper land management).

My conclusion: human activity demonstrably increases the amount of greenhouse gasses, and this will (in the absence of other factors) lead to changes in climate. I don't have enough training or knowledge to predict exactly what those changes will be or how quickly they will occur, however there are those who claim to have such training and knowledge who have published their projections. I have no basis to dispute their claims.

However, I have issues. In no particular order:

• I find it difficult to comprehend that someone really has developed a method to determine the average temperature of the earth based on local weather readings that is demonstrably accurate to a tenth of a degree Celsius, and that this method has been demonstrated to be consistent for the last hundred or hundred and fifty years.
• It amazes me that people are able to extract a trend line for this data that shows an upward trend of a degree every few decades, given that the instantaneous temperature at any point in the planet can change 5 degrees Celsius in less than an hour. A huge amount of noise has been processed to extract a very quiet signal.
• While the computer models have made a number of predictions, it's not clear to me that different models show the same predictions nor that these have been confirmed by observation.
• When the weather is colder than average or storms are less intense than predicted, people are very quick to point out that weather is not climate, and that local effects in no way are representative of the planet as a whole. When extreme weather hits or there is a local heat wave, people are quick to say that this is exactly the kind of thing we should expect as the planet heats. Now, granted, both may well be true because weather is highly variable both day to day and year to year, and perhaps we would be seeing more heat waves, droughts, and severe storms (depending on your location) on a hotter Earth. However, this ends up sounding very much like the financial analyst who blames all losses on the market but takes credit for all gains.
• The magnitude of what will really need to be done to reduce human greenhouse gas emissions to a pre-industrial level - given that the human population more than doubled in the last 50 years - is rarely fully discussed.