Prof. Steve Steve (invisible edition) at Evolution 2006

| 18 Comments

Hi, everyone! This is Prof. Steve Steve blogging the Evolution 2006 meeting here on Long Island at SUNY-Stonybrook, home of Douglas Futuyma, Massimo Pigluicci, and other muckety-mucks of evolutionary biology like me. I am a special guest for the spiffy day-long symposium on the Kitzmiller v. Dover case that showed that the ID movement had no clothes, which of course I helped to win. Many of the experts and lawyers, as well as a plaintiff and reporter, are going to be speaking at the symposium.

My buddy Nick Matzke is also here, unfortunately that idiot forgot to bring a camera so this will be a picture-free blog by Prof. Steve Steve. If anyone else has a camera, don’t bother trying to find me at the meeting, because I am currently practicing my invisibility superpower and hanging out with the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Don’t believe me? Invisible Pink Unicorns and Invisible Prof. Steve Steves are not testable hypotheses, you say? Well, do you hold a B. Amboo Chair in Creatoinformatics at the University of Ediacara? Are you a J.D.-M.D.-quintuple Ph.D., seven-time Nobel nominee, often called the Izaak Walton of information theory and the Ulysses S. Grant of drinking contests? I didn’t think so. It takes special training, like mine, to understand IPU and IPU-like phenomena.

Well, onto the meeting. I got here on Saturday at about the same time as Nick, who didn’t look so good after having taken an overnight flight from the West coast. It appeared to me that he was dozing off in several sessions yesterday, but I was paying attention. And, contrary to popular creationist belief, the sessions are the main thing here at the Evolution meetings. So far I have not seen any evidence that an Evil Evolutionist Conspiracy (EEC) is in the works here to crush God, patriotism, mom and apple pie. Believe me, if there was some kind of Evolutionist Conspiracy, I would be involved in it, although I would make sure that it wasn’t evil and that apple pie and the rest were not targeted. No reason the creationists should be allowed to coopt the apple pie fans of this country.

Anyway, I actually found it interesting that in fact, no one seems to be talking about creationism and religion here at all, except when they talk to me. Instead, everyone is talking about biology, speaking in loving terms about intron-exon ratios in invertebrate worm taxa, or passionately discussing the mating habits of various Drosophila lineages, or mapping the geographic history of bivalves, or what have you. There is an awful lot of graphing and statistics and everyone, including students who look like they just graduated from high school, are putting on terribly professional-looking powerpoint presentations that actually have lots of graphics and little text and generally serve rather than hamper communication. They must be giving the kids powerpoint training these days.

The only thing that there appears to be a conspiracy against here at Evolution 2006 is ties and dresses. I got all dressed up in my famous bow tie and graduation cap to attend the meeting, and here everyone is in shorts and T-shirts! Even the professors, who I thought would have higher standards! (But I guess most of them only have one PhD, so I’ll let it slide.) It’s quite warm and muggy this time of year in Stony Brook, which I guess is why everyone is dressed down, but I actually haven’t seen the sun since I’ve been here, since it is also cloudy and often thunderstorming, causing everyone to run back and forth between the various buildings on campus. Being invisible and immaterial, I walk through the rain in a quite serene fashion, of course.

Anyhow, onto the talks. At any one point there are a dozen concurrent sessions running on phylogeography, adaptation, evo-devo, phylogenetic reconstruction, species diversity gradients, education, behavioral ecology, etc. I spent much of my first afternoon in the plant-insect interactions session. The first talk I saw was “Sex Signals, Mimicry And Deception By Orchids” by Anne Gaskett. Anne is from Australia and gave a talk on five Australian orchid species in the genus Cryptostylis. These orchids mimic female wasps, thereby enticing male wasps to come attempt to mate with them, at which point the clever orchid sticks its pollina on the wasp’s back. When the wasp gets tricked by another orchid, the pollina are deposited and fertilization has occurred. Apparently the mimicry is a combination of visual, tactile, and scent signals that those male wasps find irresistable. All five orchids evidently mimic the same female wasp, but they don’t do it in exactly the same way, perhaps to avoid the wasps “catching on” in an evolutionary sense. Now, if I were studying this system, I would just use my super senses to sniff the differences between these orchids, write it up, and have another one of my Ph.Ds. But Anne, a hominid (not her fault, of course), instead ran those orchids through a battery of machines like a gas chromatograph-mass spectrometer to identify and measure the chemicals in the scents, and a UV-visual light spectrometer to measure the reflectance of the orchid flowers at a range of different wavelengths. Then she did a bunch of statistics, and combined all that with experiments to see how the physical measurements matched up with wasp behavior. Then, to see if the wasps were sensing the chemicals that GC-MS indicated were present, she actually chopped off some wasp antennae and hooked them up to electrodes to measure the response. Not so good for the wasps, but definitely good research! Anne concluded that one of the five species had enough differences that might actually be trying to trick a different pollinator, and so the search is on for what that might be.

And that was just one 15-minute presentation from one student! The other sessions I went to on Saturday were on phylogenetic reconstruction with inverted DNA sequences near bacterial replicon origins, evolution education in tropical greenhouses in New York City, several papers on Begonia pollination in Central America, and a paper following up on Darwin’s work on heterostyly in Primula flowers.

All in all, it was a botany-heavy day. That night, after attending the huge poster session, I met up with Rob Pennock and Patricia Princehouse, both veterans of various battles with the creationists. Patricia, Nick, and I, along with Eugenie Scott, spent the night at the house of longtime NCSE Board Member Jack Friedman, who lives a ways away on Long Island. What I find interesting is Jack Friedman’s definition of a “little snack.” Last night, this included herring, chopped liver, and crackers, then moving up to barley and mushroom soup, and then stepping up to lamb chops and potatoes, and finally settling concluding with ice cream.

Well, that’s all for now. Perhaps tonight or tomorrow morning I will get a chance to blog Day 2, which includes a day-long symposium on the ecology and evolution of the latitudinal species diversity gradient, and a showing of Flock of Dodos, the documentary on evolution, creationism, the media, and communicating science to the public. That may get people talking about creationism! And of course Monday is the all-day ID symposium, where I and the other expert witnesses from Kitzmiller will all get to meet together for once.

Should be a blast! Until then, Prof. Steve Steve (invisible edition)

18 Comments

Contact me for making a picture!

Er, an almost Dickensian commentary. At one stage you got my mouth watering. Several questions: 1) Were they Australian lamb chops? 2) Why should anyone be expecting religion at a science conference? 3) Is it possible to be a biologist without acknowledging an unrolling or unfolding of life in some measure - i.e., is it possible to be a non-evolutionary biologist? How would such a biologist tell the story of life? 4) The idea that life was unfolded over time was not original to Darwin. It completely pre-dates him and his close associates. The debate over evolution centers on the mechanism, not the fact. Will the mechanism be discussed at the conference in a free and frank manner? I.e., Will evolutionary biology be discussed, or merely full-on Neo-Darwinism? Will these people be practicing free speech? 5) Cuvier and R. Owen were both evolutionary biologists/palaeontologists whose technical works make Darwin’s, Wallace’s and Huxley’s technical work minor by comparison. Biologists and palaeontologists have been and are now successfull in their work whether they take Neo-Darwinism as a hypothetical mechanism, ot not. (Linnaeus and Mendel, for example, named no specific mechanism of evolution, as far as I know.) Will the conference be allowing any meaning for the word, EVOLUTION, other than Neo-Darwinism? 6) Pioneering evolutionary biologists including luminaries such as R. Owen were in fact mildly annoyed by people insisting on a Young Earth Creationist view. Owen handled such matters satisfactorily and was given a high oficial position in science and education. He screwed it up with the human-ape brain nonsense with Huxley. That doesn’t negate his overwhelming good record, and it doesn’t let Huxley off the hook for his abandoning of professional orthodoxy in other areas. If an evolutionary biologist/palaeontologist such as Owen could handle the Young Earth Creationists in a manner satisfactory to Government and public opinion, why can’t the modern evolutionists do it? Your reporting is picturesque. Send some more.

Hey Heywood, you’re blithering again.

He must have smoked pot.

Please tell Prof. Steve Steve that some amazingly large and beautiful expanses of bamboo exist (or used to exist) on campus, and at the university’s Long Island sound garden, Sunwood, former site of John Marburger’s toasted to the ground presidential mansion. God, I hate that place.

Apparently, according the comment above, if there is no news of creationism alternatives being presented then YOU ARE participating in the EEC. Enjoy!

I always thought the “steve steve” panda idea was lame. Some people seemed to get off on it, so I stopped objecting. I even made some suggestion of improve the early implementation.

But I really think that this is lame.

Die Steve-Steve, die.

Reed, you should take acknowledgment for your own work.

I always thought the “steve steve” panda idea was lame. Some people seemed to get off on it, so I stopped objecting. I even made some suggestion of improve the early implementation.

I’m with Gary.

I think some serious cheesecake or beefcake would be more effective and attention-grabbing. Of course, we’d need our models to be scientifically literate. I remember a couple of sexy people in grad school. They exist. Let’s not let their talents go to waste.

This talk of food and mystery reminds me, I was in a cafe the other day and ordered Australian lamb chops. Well worth their money I thought but being still on the peckish side I thought by way of a change I’d order more chops. New Zealand ones this time. They took away the plate and bones and came back with their NZ chops surprisingly quickly. When I went to tuck into these chops, I discovered they had served up the bones from the Australian chops. That’s what they classed as NZ chops. I didn’t try for US chops. I recognized the bones as being from my Australian chops because they looked a bit funny. I checked them out and identified them as marsupial - possibly ‘roo. Someone do better than that.

Hey, Reed, keep up the good work. I have a lot of respect for G. H., but IMO the Panda’s Thumb needs a mascot. Those who tend to be seriously serious should contemplate the venue. Whimsy should be encouraged as an antidote to the s. s.

Hey Heywood, you’re still blithering.

I do enjoy the Steve Steve bit.

If we’re tight-ass serious all the time, we’ll just turn into a bunch of Maoists.

Yes, to what Dr. Lenny says, although a Girls Of Anthropology site could also be a big attention getter. Just have to be careful where the staples go.

Philip says:

“Will evolutionary biology be discussed, or merely full-on Neo-Darwinism? Will these people be practicing free speech?”

Steve reports: “At any one point there are a dozen concurrent sessions running on phylogeography, adaptation, evo-devo, phylogenetic reconstruction, species diversity gradients, education, behavioral ecology, etc.”

Three points are thus immediately clear even before visiting Philip’s hilarious web page: 1. He has never visited a science conference, or if he has he wasn’t there. 2. He can’t read well. 3. He doesn’t know what he is discussing.

Being relatively new to PT I haven’t seen much of Philip’s trolling, but I can already note he is a patterned troll. If he doesn’t get an immediate reaction, one comment will be entirely oblique. So I’m curious what he will do now - come back or go away and stop wasting space?

BTW, didn’t we explain to him earlier that von Linné was a botanist predating Darwin? Oh, I forgot, he can’t read well.

Re “Will evolutionary biology be discussed, or merely full-on Neo-Darwinism?”

How are those different things?

Henry

Prof. Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Steve Steve -

We haven’t seen much of the Invisible Pink Unicorn lately - how and what is she doing these days?

I and the Daughter always eagerly scan PT for news from and of Professor Steve Steve, we certainly do not want to be bereft of the utterly cute pictures and wise pronouncements of the most excellent Professor.

[I] really think that this is lame. Die Steve-Steve, die.

I remember that a wise friend of mine did usually say, “That which is everybody’s business is nobody’s business.”

Izaak Walton

Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

I don’t plug into the Internet every day and this is probably wasted but I think I did actually see what could be an honest question. It didn’t make the reader actually wish to laugh or cry. Remarkable. If it’s a genuine question coming from someone who has been to a school that teaches science, it’s a testimony to the retrogression of science education. Full-On Neo-Darwinism as many people rightly or wrongly read it implies that your great-grandfather was an ape-like creature, his great-grandfather was a segmented worm, and goodness knows what predecessors preceeded him. Possibly a US chop. All this happened by time, chance, and the operation of nature, despite the laws of nature showing that organisms with apes in their ancestry invariably give birth to apes. Leave alone worms and chops. All the learned “scientists” now try to say they don’t believe this, whilst believing it. Or is it that they don’t believe it, whilst saying they believe it? Now I’m confused. Who isn’t? Well, people such as Linneas. Mendel, Cuvier, Owen, and a lot of other top biologists weren’t. They didn’t speculate about things that science didn’t then comprehend, in ways that contradicted the laws of science. So they and a whole lot of other top scientists are no longer scientists - if you subscribe to the people whose great-great- grandfather was a US chop. In short - Darwinism was a stop-gap measure that has now been put in perspective by advancing technology. That’s why these commentators are afraid of discussing evolution - the unrolling or sequential revelation of life. There’s about as much fact bandied around on this site as there is meat on my NZ chops. Sorry, NZ, your lamb is superb!

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Prof. Steve Steve published on June 25, 2006 5:41 PM.

Ron Numbers interview and article was the previous entry in this blog.

Research ID Wiki Opens is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter