When he’s not dismantling racist pseudoscience, Chris Smith studies the evolutionary ecology of species interactions. Willamette University sent along a videographer on Chris’s last field trip to study Joshua trees and the moths that pollinate them in central Nevada, and the result is now posted on Vimeo. It’s mainly geared toward showcasing how Willamette undergraduate students participate in the fieldwork, but I’d say it makes the desert look mighty good, too.
This is the third in a series of guest posts in which Chris Smith will examine the evolutionary claims made in Nicholas Wade’s book A Troublesome Inheritance. You can read part I here, and part II here. Chris is an Associate Professor of Evolutionary Ecology at Willamette University. He uses population genetic approaches to understand coevolution of plants and insects, and he teaches the interdisciplinary course “Race, Racism, and Human Genetics” with Emily Drew.
This spring former New York Times science writer, Nicholas Wade, released his latest book on human evolution, A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race, and Human History. In it, Wade argues that genetic studies completed in the eleven years since the Human Genome Project was completed reveal real and important differences between human races. Unsurprisingly, the book’s release has been met with a sharply divided critical reception.Whereas the book has been widely embraced by those on the political right, and by the white identity movement, it has been panned by anthropologists, evolutionary biologists, and population geneticists. For the last two weeks at Nothing in Biology Makes Sense, I’ve been looking in depth at the literature that Wade uses to support his ideas. Last week I considered Wade’s argument that natural selection acting on the MAO-A gene – a neurotransmitter implicated in aggression and impulsivity – has led to behavioral differences between races. This week I will consider Wade’s larger claim that natural selection has produced numerous differences between races.
Throughout the book Wade continually repeats the mantra that natural selection on humans has been “recent, copious, and regional.” It would be hard to find an evolutionary biologist that would disagree with these rather vague pronouncements. Indeed, there are a multitude of studies showing that natural selection has acted on humans, and there is persuasive evidence that selection has caused evolutionary changes in human populations as we have adapted to diverse environments over the course of the last several thousand years (see, for example, Yi et al., 2010).
However, scratching the surface reveals that when he says that natural selection has been “recent, copious, and regional,” what Wade actually means is that natural selection has been “radical, complete, and racial.” By Wade’s account, natural selection has dramatically reshaped the human genome, producing major differences between races. This much more dramatic interpretation is entirely unsupported by the literature, however. In truth, Wade vastly overstates the portion of the human genome that shows evidence for natural selection, and where there has been recent natural selection acting on humans, its effect has primarily been to create genetic differences between members of the same race, and similarities between people of different races.
Here’s what we’ll be talking about while we’re waiting in line for a latte.
From Jeremy: There may be some hope that amphibians can develop immunity to the infectious fungus that’s been devastating global frog and salamander populations. And arctic shorebirds are shifting their nesting dates to accommodate warmer temperatures.
This is the second in a series of guest posts in which Chris Smith will examine the evolutionary claims made in Nicholas Wade’s book A Troublesome Inheritance. You can read part I here. Chris is an Associate Professor of Evolutionary Ecology at Willamette University. He uses population genetic approaches to understand coevolution of plants and insects, and he teaches the interdisciplinary course “Race, Racism, and Human Genetics” with Emily Drew.
Last week at Nothing In Biology Makes Sense, I began critiquing Nick Wade’s latest book, A Troublesome Inheritance. The book has produced a firestorm of criticism, largely because it argues that evolution has produced significant cultural and behavior differences between races.
Wade makes many sweeping claims, among them: that natural selection has made the English inherently fiscally prudent and more likely to defer gratification by saving for tomorrow, that events early in the history of Judaism caused the Jews to evolve features predisposing them to careers in banking, and that genetic variation in certain neurochemicals has made Africans inherently more violent.
Wade hangs these seemingly bizarre conclusions on the mantle of modern population genetics, which he claims confirms the existence of ‘three primary races,’ that have evolved real and significant cultural differences between them. By heavily referencing the scientific literature, Wade manages, as Mike Eisen put it, to “give the ideas that he presents… the authority of science… What separates Wade’s theories – in his own mind – from those of a garden variety racist is that they are undergirded by genetics.”
Here’s what we’ll be chatting about while we lie on the beach with a latte.
- Did you know water bears are also known as moss piglets? How did they get so many cute names???
- Newton vs. Nye in an epic rap battle. (Although, come on, Newton would beat just about anyone. Maybe not Darwin?)
- “The challenge is quite simple … attempt to consume no single-use plastic during July.”
This is the first in a series of guest posts in which Chris Smith will examine the evolutionary claims made in Nicholas Wade’s book A Troublesome Inheritance. Chris is an Associate Professor of Evolutionary Ecology at Willamette University. He uses population genetic approaches to understand coevolution of plants and insects, and he teaches the interdisciplinary course “Race, Racism, and Human Genetics” with Emily Drew.Last month the former New York Times writer Nicholas Wade released his latest book on human evolution, A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race, and Human History (2014, Penguin Press). In it, Wade argues that the genomic data amassed over the past ten years reveal real and meaningful biological differences between races, and that these differences explain much of the cultural and socioeconomic differences between people. If you haven’t read a newspaper or picked up a magazine in the last month, you may not have noticed that Wade’s book has—predictably—prompted intense and impassioned reaction from scientists, sociologists, and commentators from across the political spectrum. Writing for the Wall Street Journal, Charles A. Murray, author of The Bell Curve, called Wade’s book, “A delight to read … [that] could be the textbook for a semester’s college course on human evolution.” On the other hand, Arthur Allen, in his review for the New York Times, predicts that many readers will find Wade’s book to be, “a rather unconvincing attempt to promote the science of racial difference.”
In my part of North America, spring is finally underway after a long slog of a winter. The trees lining the streets of my Minneapolis neighborhood are lacy-green with budding leaves, flowerbeds all over the University of Minnesota campus are yellow and red and pink with daffodils and tulips, and violets are popping up in the edges of lawns everywhere I look.
Of course, all of this colorful display isn’t for my benefit. Showy flowers are an adaptation to attract animal pollinators. Some flowers are quite precisely matched to a single species of pollinator, but most flowers have lots of visitors. These less specialized flowers are still adapted for their attractive function, though—and this is the origin of pollination syndromes.
I’ve just registered (a whole two days ahead of the deadline!) for the 2014 Evolution meetings, which this year are hosted by NESCent at Raleigh, North Carolina. Up to now, my strongest association with Raleigh is from a childhood of watching The Andy Griffith Show, in which Raleigh is the big city from Mayberry’s point of view—particularly this episode where Andy and Barney drive up to town to apply for membership in a posh social club:
(Click here to go direct to the awkwardness.)
… actually, now that I re-watch this, Barney’s performance is a pretty good primer on how not to behave at scientific meetings, too. “Oh, you remember genotyping-by-sequencing, Andy! It’s genotyping. Done by, er, sequencing.”
Sloths are weird critters. Cute, in a certain light, but mostly weird. They’re members—with armadillos and anteaters—in a superorder of mammals called the Xenarthra, which are united by a unique form of multi-jointed vertebrae. Their diet consists mostly of leaves, which are poor quality food, and hard to digest. Fortunately, they also have one of the slowest, lowest-energy lifestyles of any mammal, using heavily modified limbs to hang upside down from branches while they browse, their most recent meal fermenting in their guts.
David Attenborough got up close with a sloth—which he calls a “mobile compost heap”—in The Life of Mammals. He also observes one of the sloth’s weirdest behaviors: to answer the call of nature, it climbs all the way down to the ground.
Why do sloths go to all that trouble—and risk—just to poop? Well, according to a recent paper in Proceedings of the Royal Society, they do it to feed poop-eating moths that help cultivate nutritious algae in their fur. No, but really.
Here at Nothing in Biology Makes Sense, we’re fascinated by all the weird, baroque ways that living things influence and coevolve with each other—so Ed Yong’s new TED talk about mind-controlling parasites is right up our alley. Just like his writing—currently on display at National Geographic‘s Phenomena, among many other venues—it’s a compendium of nifty natural history punctuated with highly educational gross-outs and the occasional black-belt level pun.