Sunday, December 11, 2016

In Trump's America, can evolutionary thinking help us?

Ten of my students bravely took advantage of my offer to post their recent thoughts to The Mermaid's Tale. I pasted those ten writings below. Be sure to read all the way through to last one, number 10. Here's what they responded to:


Extra Credit Assignment 
Anthropology 201: Human Origins and Evolution

What does evolution* have to do with our current cultural and/or political climate pre- and post-Trump’s election?
Or
What insight can evolutionary thinking bring to bear on our current cultural and/or political climate pre- and post-Trump’s election?
Or
Can evolutionary thinking help us?

*the definition(s) of evolution that we use in this course, not the poetic use

In at least 300 words, answer one of those questions up there (or something related that I didn’t spell out explicitly but that compels you to write). Whatever you write, be sure to apply your understanding of evolution to some sort of analysis of what has transpired during the presidential campaigns and/or since the election of Trump to be President of the United States of America, or be sure to apply your understanding of evolution to draft some aspect of the way forward. Guidelines: Although I’m asking you to write only a page at minimum (300 words minimum), begin with an introduction, make sure each sentence logically follows the one before, and then provide something in the way of a conclusion. Check your spelling and grammar. Write coherently. Demonstrate that you understand evolution, or don’t demonstrate that you don’t understand it properly. Finally, this is a chance to rant if you wish, but if you do you must rant coherently and excellently.



Responses


1
The Perception of Evolution in our Society

The recent presidential race has taken the entire world by surprise to say the least. For the longest time, the entire world was hoping that the Trump campaign would be a joke, that the bubbling hatred and xenophobia would fade away, that the hate crimes would decrease. People are shocked at the response, left astounded, wondering (as SNL poked fun at) ‘is America really racist?’. Some attribute Trump’s win to his unconventional approach and tactics. Some argue he’s a babbling baboon who doesn’t have any so-called ‘tactics’. And there are some who will go to their graves swearing that Trump will be a success with his “kick-ass attitude”. What shocked me the most, however, was not what Trump was saying, but rather the reaction to his words. 

People have been using Trump’s words and beliefs to justify hate crimes. There is no doubt that white superiority beliefs have been, and will probably continue to be, on the rise since Trump first ran for presidency. The false claims behind these hateful thought processes have been justified by evolution. Simply put, the belief of natural selection has led some to believe that the white race is more evolved than other races, therefore the best race. This thought process stems from the 19th century, when European nations ventured to other parts of the world and deemed the locals primitive savages. As Angela Davis explains in an interview with Anna Deavere Smith, race was invented to justify racism. (Race isn't real although it's implications in racism are, but ethnicity is real, which is what accounts for the diversity in humans). 

Evolution, when thought of in this manner, damages relationships to people. Because it is thought of as simply survival of the fittest, people may view themselves as the ‘fittest’, and others as inferior due their origin. However, evolution is more than just natural selection and helpless women clinging to only the kick-ass men. Evolution is a lot more complex, and gives us insight to our rich past which is only a minute fraction of the Earth’s beautiful history; it is not a justification for bigotry and racism. 

Evolution, when properly understood, helps us simply because it allows us to question and seek answers instead of feeding on ignorance. It gives us an appreciation of how far we’ve come, how much we’ve changed, how much we can change. 

- Anonymous
--------------------

 1 This interview was performed verbatim by the talented performer Anna Deavere Smith in her play Fires in the Mirror, 1992

 2 A reference to a book Donald Trump wrote, the name of which I do not know

**
2

After Donald Trump had won the 2016 election, it is clear that something influenced his winning. Not only did he make himself an enemy of many Americans, but he also portrayed himself in a negative manner. But maybe his rude comments are part of political evolution. Society is always undergoing change. These changes can be a result of evolution. Technology is getting more advanced; medicine is advancing so it would only make sense that politics are changing too.

Evolution occurs when there is a mutation in an individual of a species. If this variation helps the individual whether that be sexual, in the environment or competing against other individuals, then the trait has a better chance of being passed on. The mutation could or could not be passed onto the offspring. But if the mutation ends up being beneficial over time it will be found in the majority of the species’ genes. Donald Trump being elected for president is equivalent to a mutation in politics. Trump could be good for the country. He could fix the financial state of the country, help the unemployed get jobs, help people in poverty and so much more. If he does well in his first term, then he could be reelected, and if he continues to do beneficial things for the country than someone with similar views of Trump could be elected after. Trump could be the "mutation" that changes United States politics.

Donald Trump could also be a mutation that does harm, has no effect on competition (in this case other countries), or just does not get passed along. Like in evolution some mutations go away. Trump and his absurd ideas may go away and not continue through future generations. In this case, the species stays the same. Trump being impeached or not reelected would keep American politics the same.
No one will know if Trump (the mutation) will evolve American politics. Some mutations are good, other mutations are bad and others have no effect. Only time will tell how Trump will evolve American politics.

- Andraya Ferraro

**
3

Can evolutionary–thinking help us? 

            The term and belief in “evolution” has served as the basis for many arguments over the last hundreds of years. When combined with differences in opinion along the topics of religious, scientific, and political ways of thought, it seems everybody is going toe to toe to prove that they have all the one true answer. Everybody on earth is entitled to his or her opinion, but this doesn’t mean that everybody should voice it. The problem nowadays is that too many people are going off ranting and rioting with their one minded way of thinking, and not putting in the effort to do their homework first.  If one is attempting to win an argument with someone else, the very least that they could do is completely understand everything there is to know about the subject. If more people did the proper research before voicing their opinions, then there would be much more productive and educational debates that would not become a detriment to public viewers. 
            Growing up in the world of private catholic education has definitely given me some bias when it comes to science versus religion. This is in no way stating that my belief in God overpowers the facts brought forward by scientific discovery. Rather that I chose to believe in what the Bible says, as well as what science has to say about the creation of earth, man, and the world as we see it. Part of being a confirmed catholic is to accept truths that science states, and interpret in our own way. For instance, true Catholicism does not teach that at a certain time on earth, a single man and woman roamed the earth alone. The Bible is not a piece of literature that is meant to be interpreted literally, instead it is supposed to be interpreted as a collection of stories that have a much deeper and symbolic message; but trying to understand everything written in the Bible is a strenuous and extensive research in of itself. Unfortunately, there is always room for error in everything that man does. There are those that take everything in the Bible word for word and refute most of what science has come to either prove or disprove in regards to their religion. Fortunately enough for myself I was able to witness a truly fascinating and eye opening debate amongst Creationist Ken Ham, and pop culture icon and renowned scientist Bill Nye. In the debate, each opponent had a certain time to plead their case to the audience in an attempt to prove that they have the correct answers. The questions asked dealt with the existence of God, the plausibility of Noah’s Ark, the age of the earth, and many more.  While each opponent has a high level of education and “proper” background, it was very fascinating to see that whenever one of them was called out on something, they acted like children trying to be the correct one. 
            How does this relate to political matters today? Well with all the country tearing itself up over the past presidential election, I fear that not too many people would be concerned right now with comeuppance of man arising from other species. Right now groups are confusing the difference between protesting and rioting. Perhaps the theory of evolution is not what we need to focus on right now, but more of the thinking behind it. In the world of science, you have to be able to have an open mind. You cannot simply label something as the truth and then totally disregard everything else people say. Currently, people are naming President Elect Trump as an egotistical, racist and overall bad man. But for all of those that preach to be people who love one another but feel an extreme hatred towards Trump, why is it right for them to hate and wrong for him? People have already died in violent protests between Trump supporters and non-supporters. This waste of human life can all be avoided if people are willing to set aside their differences and focus on what they have in common; the desire for peace. Do I personally believe in everything that Donald Trump supports? Not necessarily. Do I believe in some of what he has to say? Yes. Is he the most evil man ever to be created and run a country? No. Finally, do I believe that Donald Trump will be a good President? Yes. Already, that last comment can start to send negative emotions towards my character, but here me out. As part of a religion that believes in accepting everyone for what they believe in, I try to find the positives about this political situation, and continue to have an open mind and accept the reality that Trump is president, and that is the end of it. He is a very successful businessman, and potentially going to run the country in a very different way. Change can be scary, but it is necessary for progress in the modern world, so it is time for everyone to enter the New Year with a new president, and fresh mindset. So can evolutionary thinking help us? Only if we are willing to accept the unknown but take new risks for the development and betterment of society as a whole. 

- Anonymous

**
4

Can Evolutionary-Thinking Help Us Post Election?

President Elect, Donald Trump. This result shocked many in the nation, leaving many critics to call the nation “The Divided States of America”. This change is something that many Americans felt the country needed, whether they support president elect Donald Trump or not. Many have adopted the saying, “it’s going to get worse before it gets better”. This saying can be related to evolutionary thinking, and how change over time can occur, and how something can start off as a simple form, but then develop into something more complex.

These election results needed to happen, because we as a nation needed to see how divided we were. As a Muslim American, I am not at all happy with the election results, and can only be thankful that I live in South Kingstown, Rhode Island, where many of my neighbors and fellow citizens feel the same way, or else I might have a harder time living in America. I feel like now that we know so many people in our nation have a certain feeling towards certain things, these things can be addressed, and it can help to educate all of our citizens. Evolutionary thinking can help us understand this, because it started off as something very simple, a man who was running for president, with certain rhetoric that was very anti many things, but now it has changed into something much more complex, that will cause us to hopefully, change for the better as a nation after these 4 years are up. Had Hillary Clinton won, our nation would have been 100% better off yes, but at least now we know how many of our fellow citizens actually feel this way. If I happen to meet someone who voted and currently supports Trump, I will be more friendly and engaging, and probably debunk some of the ideas they might have about Muslims, which hopefully cause them to think that Muslim isn’t as bad as the media portrays them to be, and maybe even tell their friends! While I understand that it’s not fair for us minorities to be judged on a single person's action who may be from that particular minority, that is the way it goes in this country. If every time a Trump supporter met an African American, a Muslim, a Latino, a gay person, etc, their views on that person and minority in general might change for the better. While this is not fair that for an individual who is a minority, because they are representing their entire minority based on their own actions, it is how society has formed ideas about minorities. As minorities, we can strive to do this because we now know, that so many people support this man and his rhetoric, so if we can debunk and educate them, just in the slightest way, an idea in the simplest form changing to something more complex, we may be able to change their view about certain things, and by the end of the 4 years, we can become the UNITED States of America again.

This is a very optimistic view to look at things, but unfortunately, there is no going back and changing the results to what we wish they could be. As a nation, we are in this together, and hopefully we can see some changes for the better, and unity. It has already unified many people around the nation, many people find themselves sticking up with minorities and people directly affected by Trump’s rhetoric, so if we can just expand that unity to those who might be in support of that rhetoric, we could be a united nation again.

- Yasmin Hussein

**

5

Global Warming has been a persistent problem with our planet since the dawn of the Ice Age. Global Warming is the process of Earth’s surface temperature rising, causing warmer climates and destruction of regions of the world such as Antarctica. The process of Earth’s rising temperature is natural, but since the presence of human life and the Industrial Age, the process has been sped up. Greenhouse gases are the main cause of Global Warming and us humans are the ones responsible for this catastrophe.

Humans emit more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than the rate plants and the ocean can absorb it. Because of the emittance of these gases, destruction has occurred all over the world, from the North Pole to the Great Barrier Reef. There is no way to reverse Global Warming but there are ways to slow down and halt the mess we have made. Sadly however, with our new President-elect Donald Trump, there isn’t much future for repair to happen.

The Great Barrier Reef is known as one of the Seven Wonders of the World and its lifespan has existed from 25 million BC until today. There has been much controversy over declaring the Reef dead, but in all reality it’s just dying it’s not actually dead… yet. With all of the plastics and trash being thrown into the ocean, on top of all those oil spills and the rise in temperature of the Earth, will take extensive resources to fight for the life of the reef- but it is not impossible. However, with Trump’s execution of the Environmental Protection Agency, it may be.

From the beginning of Trump’s presidential campaign until now, he has been an advocate of dismantling the EPA, stating “they do a disgrace…” because attempting to save the environment is a disgrace right? Anywho, although it is unlikely for him to abolish the EPA completely, a lack of funds he wouldn’t provide for them could cause their end just as easily. President Barack Obama has been an advocate for many issues, from gay rights to black rights to saving the earth, he may as well just be known as a social issue God. He has been very efficient on helping pass laws to better the Earth and is attempting to pass a vehicle greenhouse gas rule before his term in office ends. Personally I think this just goes to show the priorities of our two presidents… One is trying to save the economy while one is trying to save the economy AND the earth. Earlier this year Obama and the Supreme Court administered the Clean Power Plan to help reduce carbon pollution from power plants. Trump refusing to fund the EPA just reverses everything Obama has strived for since he got into office and it is also a big step back in evolution.

The earth has existed for 4.5 billion years, and us humans have maybe existed on this planet for a mere 200,000 years. Somehow from the Industrial Age (about the 1800s) to now, we have been able to raise the earth's temperature, destroy the Great Barrier Reef and let the polar bears go nearly extinct. In the sense of human evolution, we will not have enough time to evolve to fit earth’s changing climate at the rate we have begun to change it. Plants and animals thrived for thousands of years before the first trace of a human was ever discovered, and without the emittance of greenhouse gases it still took them years to adapt to their given circumstances. Humans are not enabled to live in gaseous or aquatic climates. At the rate China keeps emitting gases into the air, their main cities will be declared unbreathable. With the rising sea levels, land mass will shrink and mass overpopulation can occur due to lack of land.

Not to say all of this destruction could occur because of Trump, and all my scenarios are just theories, but we as humble peasants to the earth have to pay our respects and that means taking care of her and attempt to save her in every way we can. The earth isn’t just home to humans, but plants and animals and fish and all future offspring- unless we reject protecting it.


-Chase Reynolds

References
"Donald Trump on Environment." Donald Trump on Environment. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2016.

**

6

To understand the results of the recent election, we must start at the very beginning of the story. About 200 kya the anatomically modern humans appeared due to mutations, genetic drift, and natural selection. From these humans, and through hundreds of thousands of years of genetic changes, you, me, and coincidently Donald Trump came into the picture. While all of this is happening, the society we live in today developed as well. For the purpose of this story we will focus on the political system we have today. Fast forward about two hundred years of history; wars, presidents, taxes, and laws, and here we are. It is now 2016 and the United States of America has elected Donald Trump to represent and lead our country of about 300 million people diverse in their cultures, education, and political views.

Eight years ago the American people elected our first African American president Barack Obama. After 8 years of serving and protecting our country, our progression has seemingly stopped. In the aftermath of the primary election, he stated at Rutgers University’s 250th commencement, “Progress doesn’t travel in a straight line.”... “It remains uneven and at times, for every two steps forward, it feels like we take one step back.” This election is our step back.

America chose a man who wants to send people back to countries where there are wars and violence based on their religion. Someone who shows little understanding of science and diplomacy. Someone who talks over women to assert his dominance and childishly argue when things don’t go his way. This is the man this country chose to lead our country, so now we must deal with it.

In the aftermath, we must make an effort to begin our two steps forward. To do this, we should think evolutionarily. As we have seen in our study of human evolution things can only go forward. Time is in constant motion and thankfully, we are in constant change. In our time here on earth there will be glitches or mutations-- some good and some bad both that can change the course of history. To many people this election is a bad mutation but we can find solace in the fact that we as a society can continue to select for change and a return to acceptance and respect of all peoples, places, and things. Through this, good change will come. We may have to fight for it but if we work hard and are dedicated, change will come.

- Kate Fish

**

7

Can evolutionary thinking help us?

Evolutionary thinking is being aware that we live in an ever changing world, understanding what came before us, and how we are interconnected with all other living things on this planet. When studying evolution, you unravel the history of yourself.

Learning about evolution is an eye opening, and at the same time, humbling experience. You learn your similarities with other mammals, and your unlikely historical connection with fish. An aspect of respect is gained when you learn that you have a connection to the fish in the sea and the primates of the jungle. You are a collaborative consequence of little parts of past species tweaked and tinkered with until Homo sapiens “popped up”. Though you are made up of little parts from other species just changed a bit, we are truly a unique species. We’re actually total aliens compared to the rest of the species on this planet. None of them have conquered and dispersed over the entire earth as intensively as we have. We have created an entire virtual reality of how to live and what we do. Humans are the weirdest things the earth has ever seen. We build shiny buildings and go to big boxes filled with stuff to get our food. We get so wrapped up in these lives we’ve created that we forget what is actually important: our close relationships with those we love, what we put in our bodies, being healthful and happy, having a sense of purpose, sustaining this planet. Thankfully, thinking evolutionarily can help us.

One thing is very clear in evolution: everything is a process. Change takes time. This kind of thinking can help humans out.

Many of have this sort of anxiety that plagues us, myself included, “I’m not doing enough” “I’m not doing it fast enough” whatever “it” may be. “It” could be getting your dream job, finding your soul mate, your sense of purpose, doing your homework, or making friends. I feel it all the time, part of it being we’re too hard on ourselves. The push to be better is fantastic but the negative doubt, not so much. In evolution, change happens over generations and generations, sometimes a species splits off, and tries something adapted from another. Evolution is experimental, it’s seeing what works. That is a good way of thinking about your life, you have to experiment, try things out, take risks. Creatures that do not adapt, die. Trusting that everything will happen in time is reassuring, it will make us more patient and peaceful. Now this isn’t to say to just sit around on your behind all day expect to magically start earning a million dollars a year. It takes work, risk taking, trying new things, adapting the old, putting effort in, and patience. Be diligent, work for it, but be forgiving, it’s a process not perfection.

You are a mish mosh of adaptations from fishes fins to reptile's jaws. Knowing you weren’t birthed from gods is humbling. You are just another species that sprouted out of this earth. You have occupied a sliver of time on this floating rock, and we’re not doing a very good job sustaining it (but that is for another rant). The point is that learning about how you’re just the result of evolution, just like everything living thing on this earth, is humbling. It’s the feeling when you look out into the ocean or up into the stars and realize how small you actually are. You are a grain of sand in the desert, but a grain of sand that is like no other. No living thing will ever be exactly like you, your exact DNA and genome has never existed and will never exist again. This kind of thinking inspires the kind of thinking people have when they find out they’re gonna die soon, that why not?

Why not go sky diving? Why not risk opening a business? You only live once anyways, why not try? It’s better to have tried and failed than never have experienced it at all. Why be average when you can be the one to make a difference? More people thinking like this is better for the common good in that they’re living fully, they’re trying, they’re growing. This makes happy people, and happy people want more happy people. It all starts a reaction, like a ripple effect. Truly happy people have no hate in their heart, they aren’t racist, they say “heck yea gays can marry each other, who am I to say they can’t? Who am I to prevent others’ happiness? Why would I want to do that?!” This leads to a group of progressive people, people who believe in equality, they believe people have the right to be happy. They believe that before we should worry about being millionaires, we should first make sure everyone has clean water to drink, food to eat for every meal, and a safe place to rest their heads at night. These are very basic needs that we should have but so so many people lack.

Recently, here in the United States we had an election to vote on who would become our president this January after Obama’s second term. Obama was the first Black man to be elected in the United States.

This was a step in the right direction, with there being a push to a more equal viewing of people of color. Many people deny there is a race problem in the United States, though we have gained great leaps in rights of people of color in the United States, many people still perceive people of color as less than them. They think they’re less educated, lazy, dangerous criminals, etc. Claims that have virtually no evidence. In fact there is more evidence of just the opposite of these claims. Even so this racist bias is a common perception among many people in the United States. However, we thought we were moving away from this archaic thinking with no basis when we elected a black man as president in 2008. However, this recent election proved just the opposite.

A man named Donald Trump, a TV star, millionaire, failed business owner, ran a campaign that horrified the nation. Throughout his campaign he repeatedly declared racist, sexist comments/opinions, stated things as horrid as “grab her[women in general] by the pussy”. He was accused of sexual assault by over ten women. One of his main policies was to build a wall between the United the States and Mexico. He called all Muslims terrorists. And said that climate change was a hoax created by the Chinese to slow down American production. And he won. On November 9, 2016 the morning after the election, I awoke to find out this ignorant, arrogant, crazy, narcissistical, evil man had been elected by the American people to be our leader. I was heart broken. I sobbed. I was distraught the entire day. Not only was I disgusted by this man, but I had lost hope in the American people. How could so many people stand by him? Support him when his beliefs were the most unprogressive thing since before the Civil Rights movement? Millions of people believed in his words, millions shared the racist beliefs that he shouted on the TV screens. This was an exposure of the hatred in the hearts of the Americans. I sat in reflection, and after some time, and a plethora of optimistic words from my peers, I regained my faith, not in Americans, but in humanity.

Evolution opens eyes to understand life more fully. There are in-betweens, not just one or the other. It demonstrates that every living thing is a strike of luck that it exists. There are so many things that could go wrong, from conception to birth to growing into an adult, yet there they are, breathing and living life like it’s no big deal. But it is a big deal, in fact it should be considered a miracle. A single mutation could have left you without an arm. If the tiny bundle of cells that would become you attached to your mother's fallopian tubes instead of her uterus you and likely her wouldn’t be alive. Life is a miracle, no matter what color your skin or where you’re from in the world. All life should be respected because it exists, same goes for how you should be respected. This kind thinking seems utopian but it really isn’t. If people thought this way, gave respect to others, and didn’t blame others for their problems, we would live in a much better world. I’m not saying understanding evolution is the answer, but it might just be the key that opens minds.

- Alexa Bracken

**

8

Evolutionary thinking has caused us as humans to move forward throughout time and space. To keep doing better every day and to make the most out of our existence, we must continue to learn and grow as individuals and human beings. Every single life is precious. It is amazing to be alive on planet Earth because the likelihood that your particular DNA makeup got paired together to create you is astounding and you should celebrate your existence each day.
            Yet the world is a vast place, filled with so many people that can make you feel inferior. There are so many people out there, and many are suffering and worse off than you. How can your life matter compared to theirs? Well it does. Everyone’s lives matter. How can you make the most of your time on Earth? Make somebody else’s day better. Instead of trying to tear someone else down, build them up. If someone is already down, reach out your hand and help them up. We’re here for such a short period of time; we need to do the most we can while we can. Make an impact on someone else’s life. No matter how small that might be; little actions go a long way. Just a simple smile and a friendly face can make someone’s day.
            After the election of Donald Trump as president, most of America is crying out for help. Not only did America elect Trump into office, America elected misogyny. Racism. Sexism. Homophobia. Hate. America elected hate. After everything we have fought for as a country: freedom, basic rights, legalizing gay marriage in every state, etc. Now it feels like we are going back in time, going against our evolutionary thinking. We are not growing with this backward thinking. What happened to America, land of the free, home of the brave?
            We deserve to have our freedom back, and our freedom includes a sense of safety living in our own country. Many citizens do not feel safe with Trump as our president. If our own president can say and do such terrible things, then citizens will feel like it is okay for them to say and do these things as well. What can we do? We can stick together. Push forward together as one. The election has left our nation divided, our titles, skin, and appearance speaking for us, rather than our hearts and our minds. Forget skin color, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and race; because we are all one race: the human race. Yes, we have our differences, but we are all the same on the inside. Didn’t elementary school teach is that it’s what’s on the inside that matters? So let’s revert back and remember that we are all just human beings trying to make the most out of our existence and live our lives.
            So let’s live our lives together. In peace and harmony. Think about the future and how we can better our country and ourselves for our children and our children’s children. Because when it is all said and done, we will all end up back in the Earth's soil, together. So let's be united above ground first.

- Sunny Davis

**

9

The Election of Trump and Evolution

How can the election of Donald Trump be explained using evolutionary thinking? I had so many emotions and so many thoughts about this election and about this assignment that it took a while for them to settle enough to write something cohesive that tied in evolution.  I gained some inspiration from Trump himself and from an interview with Jon Stewart.

In a passage from one of Trump’s books (which Trump probably had more than a little help writing), he essentially puts himself up on a pedestal as the pinnacle of evolution. Apparently obnoxious men like himself (especially himself) are the crowning glory of humanity. Error number one, evolution doesn’t seem to have a goal in mind. He also says that women always go for strong men who can provide for them and that they always have and always will. In addition he asserted that primitive men didn’t care about what others thought of them. This passage is just another example of his narcissism, sexism, and general cluelessness. Do some women go for men who can provide for them, often unconsciously? Yes. Do they always? No. Sometimes women chose a kind man over a strong provider, sometimes they get both, and sometimes they remain single because a woman can stand on her on two feet. Love is more elusive than evolution. Women are just as encephalized as men and are capable of making choices, not just being blindly led by primitive instincts. He implies that there has been no change over time, which is the opposite of what evolution is.

So how did we get here? How did we elect such an ignorant buffoon? According to Jon Stewart we are not a fundamentally different country than we were before the election. He also said that the United States is unique in that we are a multi-ethnic democracy. Stewart claims we are battling thousands of years of tribal history and behavior and that what we are doing is not easy. Essentially the United States of America is a huge social experiment.

I would argue that while our physical evolution may have very little to do with our current political situation our social and cultural evolution does.We have certainly come a long way from living in small tribal groups and sheltering in caves.  Humanity through the ages has not only created government but we have invented numerous forms of government. Democracy is relatively young. We are still struggling with key issues like how to truly give everyone a voice. Ours is such a populous country that it is easy to feel unheard. Many people don’t vote because they erroneously don’t think their vote will have an impact. In this election many people were disgusted by both major candidates and so in protest they either didn’t vote or voted for a third party candidate. Numerous Americans are feeling insecure for a multitude of reasons. They wanted to try something different.

Our nation has evolved since its birth in the 1700s. How do we protect and remain true to the monumental and sacred document that is our constitution while being realistic about modern issues? We are much more connected globally than we were then. Many nations are very interested in American politics. This is probably in part because we are a wealthy powerful nation but perhaps it is also because of the grand social experiment that we are conducting. The person sitting in the oval office has a lot of influence on our reputation in the world. I hope that we can stay fundamentally loyal to the core values of liberty and justice for all that our nation was founded upon through a Trump administration and prove to our neighbors that a diverse people can live united.

I pray that this is just a growing pain and that we will learn from this choice. I am encouraged that Trump did not win the popular vote despite the fact that he did succeed with the Electoral College because this means that there are still many Americans who oppose bigotry and divisiveness. There are many who have moved past this idea that we must compete for survival. Not even everyone who voted for Trump is hateful and ignorant just because they voted for someone who is.
I hope that we as a dynamic evolving people realize that it does not have to be us vs. them and that this beautiful melting pot democracy we have created can work and thrive and grow. We can stand strong together.

- Katherine Serra


**

10

Serenity Over Exceptionalism

On election night I fell asleep watching a digital map of America slowly change from pale red states to the color of blood. When I woke up, the sky was neutral gray and I headed to class. This year is my second go around at higher education. My first attempt involved me being young and naive and doing what I thought was required to become a successful member of society. Not only was I wrong, I failed miserably. Partly because making mistakes is an integral part of growth. Partly because I was in the midst of an opioid addiction that nearly killed me. However, I did not die.

Now, I am back with direction and purpose—to become a published writer. Also, I have ten years clean. The first published book I write will hopefully offer a form of inspiration to any addicts out there in the trenches. That is my own evolution in the poetic sense of the word. My slow change over time. I know how to fight—both literally and figuratively—against something that controls me. I know how to identify a problem from within and overcome it for the better. The solution, however, doesn’t necessarily arise right away. Moments of clarity are seldom amidst the chaos of it all. Just for today, I know that I will not go back to my old ways and every day I become a better version of myself. Every tomorrow is a gray sky being broken open by sunlight that shines down on the world because that is all it knows how to do. 

Everyone is always dismantling utopian ideas as idealist garbage or unrealistic. I do know this, had I settled for a lesser evil in terms of my addiction, I would be dead. It would not work. I know that I went from a life of chaos, to finding the closest thing to serenity that could possibly exist in my life—peace within myself.

My country is one that settles for evil in both the lesser and simpler definition. Settling for lesser evil is on par with replacing one addiction with another. Here is a pill to get off a pill. This lesser evil ideology is a byproduct of fascism—regardless of the binary opposition we are forced to accept and choose within the two-party political system here in the United States where the popular vote is meaningless.

Democracy is homonym. Some say it is dying. Some say it is dead. Some say it never even existed. When we pull back and look at our country as a whole—we are seemingly one fascistic unit. When we detach ourselves from political affiliation we have to ability to see both Hillary and Trump as victims. Regardless of how skewed and negative their ideologies or motives both might be. They are products of the system. And we allow that to happen because we too are products of this system. Two parties feeding off one another perpetually in the name of the holy American Empire under corporate control. The divisiveness between our parties—or any parties—is war within itself. We are hesitant to admit we have a problem that cannot be solved by two-party politics. We are addicted to capitalism, misogyny, racism, drugs, fossil fuels, fear, hate, violence, war—to name a few. More over, we are addicted to binary opposition and all of the aforementioned stem from the nonchalant acceptance of always having an enemy. Binary oppositions appear in everywhere. Democrat/Republican, female/male, black/white, gay/straight, war/peace. That dash is a divide driving our insanity. Labeling who we are and are not, pitting us against each other in terms of race, gender, sexual preference, religion, political affiliation, and countless other divisions. We are a nation constantly at war even during peacetime.

On this spring-like December day, while I watch an ice cream truck circling the block, I think how can this change. For these things to change, we must rely on our individualities as a collective. In her 1941 essay, “Thoughts On Peace In An Air Raid,” Virginia Woolf proposed a new idea of peace. She wrote, “We must think peace into existence.” The thought itself is beautiful in its simplicity. We must think peace into existence. Say that out loud, slowly. We must make peace a part of our genes. A trait that is passed down to our next generations through inheritance. Thinking peace into existence means it is something that does not exist at this current moment in time. So no, it is not Hillary Clinton. So no, it certainly is not Donald Trump. Reform is not revolution. Reform is not evolution either. Reform is like writing “small change over time” on a chalkboard a thousand times only to erase it at the end of every day. Reform is the old way that does not work. It is an attribute to neofascism. We cannot start to nail wood onto a house that is in the process of burning to the ground and expect to get somewhere. Fire will do what it knows how to do—burn. We know what does not work in America. From the subtle transitions of power in Presidencies, the Supreme Court, the House, wherever—we are bound to microfascistic ways. Continuations of what the other did wrong. One problem leading to another. An endless cycle called addiction.

Constitutionally incapable is a term used in Alcoholics Anonymous. It refers to individuals that cannot recover from addiction. They are essentially morally and physically “bankrupt” to the point where treatment is worthless. As depressing as it is to say, they lack the self-awareness to actually change. I do think we are at that threshold as a country. My country, your country, our country—more over, our planet. However, I do not see us as a constitutionally incapable individual. We are a nation—a collective of individuality and singularity. A brain connected through the internet that can rewire itself to think peacefully. All genders, races, ages, sexual preferences, religions. If we are truly the greatest country in world—as so many of us claim—then why not set an example for the rest of it. Not in a sense that we are any more civilized than another, but simply in the sense that we recognize a problem and do something about it. A more elegant way of putting it would be to embrace serenity over exceptionalism.

One that acknowledges and disbands the systematic oppression of races within our country, one that helps pull women up to where they always should have been, one that helps build a world rather than an empire, one that feeds and clothes the impoverished instead of stockpiling weapons, one that must be brutally aware of how finite our time on this planet is and how are resources are not infinite, one that does not see any of the aforementioned as means of monetary gain. I understand that the world is imperfect which means the voting process will also be imperfect. Some go as far as to say voting a lesser evil is practical—however which way we spin it. I view that statement as one who refuses to admit they have a problem even if they are well aware. The telltale sign of addiction.

What will it take for peace to truly exist in this world? To break the violent cycle we have created for ourselves? In terms of evolutionary thinking, we are so unique. It took so much for me to get to where I am to type this very sentence, and equally, for you to read it. The odds for each of our singular existences are 1 in 10 followed by 2,685,000 zeros. Yet we dismiss that. Evolution helps us to understand where we came from. And also, gives us some insight to see where we are going.  

Evolution—in the biological sense—explains that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor. That means every man, woman, and child on this planet is related. And not in the poetic sense of the word. Through small change over time we have developed into bipedal (walking upright) products of encephalization (having big brains). Our brain size has given us the opportunity to evolve socially into the civilizations we see today. Underneath our own layers of individuality, we all have the same gray brains, white bones, and red blood. Inwardly, we are all the same. Though the world is obviously not equal. Somehow we have become a world that accepts binary opposition as normal. That proposes one side will always be more exceptional than the other. A violent act within itself. The course we are on is one bound towards inevitable destruction. In the kind words of John Lennon, “Violence begets violence.” 

Our greater social skills have landed us in the position we are in today. Perhaps they can be viewed as a double-edged sword. What I propose is this, first, admitting we have a problem. Getting to that point will prove trying enough. Our country is very settled in its ways. Making that first plunge into recovery is never easy. From there—our slow change over time—our evolution will materialize. One day at a time, one person at a time. The ability to realize the old ways are not working will inevitably come to fruition through the continued degradation of whatever it is we call our country. And as our country slowly starts to turn, we can use our greater social skills for greatness to teach our offspring the right way to live. 

Are we not inherently good from birth? Are we not inherently altruistic? We are taught binary opposition from the social structures that bind and divide us. Once we make peace with ourselves, we can move on to making peace with the world. Again, in the eloquent words of Woolf, “We must think peace into existence.” I am not saying that it is that easy, but at the same time, I am. A choice between a life of chaos or serenity. One final act of binary opposition. I do not have exact solutions or some scientific plan to dissolve the state, disarm the world, and battle climate change. Though all are achievable from the deconstruction of binary opposition.

When I got clean, I did not think about how I would slowly piece my life together in the coming years. It just happened. I knew that my life had become unmanageable and I reached a point where I had enough clarity to walkaway. It took me a long time to realize that I was not only harming myself, but everyone around me. Several failed attempts and a complete loss of hope included. I was caught in the lesser evil ideology waiting to die. Practicality does not exist in that place. Nor does it exist here. No matter what we tell ourselves to sleep at night.

We are bound to microfascist ways. Meaning, at this current point in time, we desire the very things that control and oppress us. Neoliberlism turning to neofascism. We divide our country with these binary oppositions which are acts of war. Opposing sides will always think they are the more civilized and dominant than the other side. In turn, causing us to see everything as two sides, perpetuating competition instead of cooperation. Instead of agreeing to disagree and continuing this endless cycle, we must think through our differences. We must think peace into existence. We must embrace serenity over exceptionalism. From there, thought can compensate the loss of weaponry to build the world and beyond, defining our evolution past our bipedal footsteps on this planet. Otherwise, we will always be at war, not only with ourselves, but with the world in which we live—micro to macro.

Within this Trump presidency I do not see all gray skies. I do see rock bottom, and from there, a moment of clarity. A burnt down house, and from the smoldering foundation, a new blueprint. Peace going from an undefinable word to being filled with definitions. I am looking up at the sky right now, and it is in fact gray, though the sun is still shining through the clouds even if we cannot see it because that is all it knows how to do. And in terms of nature, we will evolve because that is all we know how to do.


- Sean Hayes

Friday, December 9, 2016

The Evolution of Buttfaces Explained

While I was very very pregnant about two years ago, I posted something on this blog and then took it down the same day.

It was a labor of love and admiration for BAHfest. I didn't believe it was worthy of submission to the judges, but I thought it was worth sharing here.

But then, even given all the silliness I've posted here over seven years of mermaid-hood, seeing my b.a.h. in print was too much for me to bear and bare. Hence the embarrassment and why I took it down.

Butt now, I have good reason to post it again and for good!

It's all thanks to this news about a recent primatological study:

"Chimpanzees recognize rear ends like people recognize faces"

Here's the rub:
Because rear ends serve a big purpose in the chimp world. Female chimps’ buttocks grow redder and swollen when they are ovulating, signaling to males that it’s business time. And it’s important to know whose bottom it is, in part to prevent inbreeding. The buttocks have, in scientific parlance, a “high socio-sexual signaling function.” 
But when we began walking upright, our bottoms became fleshier and no longer broadcast our ovulation status, possibly to discourage casual hookups in favor of pairing up and sticking together for the children’s sake. On the other hand, humans — “especially females,” the researchers write — developed ruddier and thicker lips, as well as fattier faces.
So not only are chimpanzees better at recognizing butts and worse at recognizing faces than we are, which is interesting in its own right. But this suggests that our faces function like our ancestors' butts! 

Bummer? Yes and no.  On the one hand, this makes my "bad ad hoc hypothesis," re-posted below, worthy of sharing without any more embarrassment. Butt on the other hand, it means it's no longer bad enough to make BAHfest. So, instead of working on this one some more, I need to come up with an entirely new one from scratch if I'm going to have a shot at ever participating.

Butt before I go back to the drawing board (with my hot glue gun, see below), here's that old post. Like that recent news story, it's about butts driving the evolution of primate faces. In this case we're focusing on rainbow-colored monkey butts, but the theories may be liberally applied to this idea that human faces are functionally ancestral hominin butts. OK! Enjoy?

*** 
 “No other member in the whole class of mammals is coloured in so extraordinary a manner as the adult male mandrill.”  ~  Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1874


Darwin was famously astonished by the extraordinary coloration of the mandrill monkey, Mandrillus sphinx. Because males are more striking than females, evolutionary explanations have focused on the adult male. And, as the thinking goes, it's the adult male face that's been the primary focus of selection, with duller female faces and the colorful rumps of both sexes being secondary, in evolutionary terms. 

One explanation for the colorful male mandrill face is sexual selection. Males with healthy, robust physiologies capable of building and maintaining that rainbow visage are the sexiest. And because coloration isn't as pronounced in females, that's an indication that it's less crucial for their reproductive success. But their ability to choose male mates based on good looks is, and the particular genetic mechanism which beautifies the male carries some of that beauty along in females. So that sufficiently, albeit vaguely, explains the mandrill face.

But for many of us an even more urgent question is, Why did the mandrill rump evolve to resemble the face? 



And there are a few possible answers.

There's the more-is-better explanation: those with colorful faces are seen, socially and sexually, as all right, but those with colorful faces and butts are all that. They're the real peacocks of the troop. 

There's also a potential social benefit to being visible and, better yet, identifiable, both coming and going in the dark dense forests where mandrills live. 

Then there's a strength-in-numbers sort of idea, where other groups or predators, even, will see twice as many of you. 

Alternatively, the development of rump color could be genetically linked to face color, so it could simply be an accidental byproduct of selection on the face. 

But what if we flip our view around and assume that the monkeys' rainbow hinies are the primary focus of selection? After all, we find colorful bums and privates across the primates, and in both males and females, and in species without much to match on the face. (Yet.)  This alternative perspective could free us to arrive at the real explanation for mandrill coloration. 

And this means we should ask, Why did the mandrill face evolve to resemble the rump?



Dear Reader, I'm sure you can think up all sorts of advantages to having a face that looks like a butt. 

For instance, by appearing to groom your ass, rather than eat food, you might not attract competitors to your precious food source.

And there's always the Handicap Principle:  He’s got a face like a butt, but he’s still got it going on. And if males are choosy (it's possible!) it could go the other way too.  

It's possible that having basically two rear-ends causes confusion, on the part of the male, during copulation, that can accidentally lead to some innovative, pleasurable positions that strengthen social bonds.

Relatedly, having a face like a bum could be a nice way for females to test male intelligence and choose procreative partners accordingly: If he can't distinguish which end is the business end, then no way am I making this transaction. 

There's great possibility that this coloration is a sort of menage-a-trompe-de-l'oeil. Females are more attractive if they're not one but two! And to any onlookers, this threesome is quite impressive. 

It could be as simple as mandrills getting along better with mandrills with faces that look like butts because that's just, pure and simple, the very best part of a mandrill, to a mandrill. This applies beyond the sexual and into the general social realm.

One, some, or all of the above hypotheses, and many others that I'm sure you've already thought of, could easily explain mandrill face coloration. But I now offer what I think is the best rump-first-then-face explanation of them all. 


When it comes to infants, selection pressures are on hyper-drive, so our adaptive hypotheses about babies are essentially iron-clad. Nature’s got to get infancy right for evolution to continue and nature’s got a genius way to get it right in mandrills and it’s why mandrills are colored the way they are.  

Mandrill face coloration is an adaptation to infant perception.

As mandrill neonates slowly emerge from their mothers’ bodies during parturition, they are gobsmacked by the electric coloration of her rump.

Photo of mandrill birth was unavailable.
Sure, female mandrill rump coloration is not as striking as males', but imagine if it's the first real color you ever saw... ever. So, from a neonate's perspective, this welcome to the world is probably as striking as the healthiest mandrill males' tookus is to other mandrill adults, and to us.
Look closely and you'll see the same color pattern of the male rump is there, just muted.
(captured from Arkive film)


Think about how much we as primates love colors. If you saw that booty upon your earthly arrival, you'd be enchanted. You'd want to keep looking at it, wouldn't you? 

And if it weren’t for the mother’s colorful face proximal to her teats, mandrill infants would be dangerously inclined to literally hang around at the gorgeous yet abysmal end of their only source of food and social development. Food and social boding are, of course, requirements for primate life. 

The colorful bum, alone, is just too distracting. So, mothers with colorful faces to match their butts have more success nursing their infants, and thus have more surviving offspring, that go on to have surviving offspring, than others. They can even get away with those plain whitish nipples because their faces are so enticing.

(source for pic on left)

So that explains mandrill female faces but what about the male rumps and faces? Especially since they’re even more colorful?

This crucial and intense early experience, which selects for colorful mother’s faces, affects mandrill phenotypic preference throughout their lives. 

All social and sexual realms are better with color because of the experiences of these individuals born  to colorful bums and raised by moms with colorful faces.  Colorful males are adaptive in this situation because youngsters fall in love with how they look too, ingratiating themselves with what could be a killing machine, softening his heart and preventing him from ending lineages of mothers with colorful faces who birth babies through their colorful places. 


And this could explain, in turn, why male faces look so much like male genitalia but also why male faces look so much like female genitalia, especially at their peak attractiveness.  (See photo of fertile female's rump, above.) Males with these features are attractive to other males, which promotes group cohesion and reduces tension and competition. Likewise males with these features are attractive to females because it makes them more like their mothers and sisters, that is, not just beautiful but less threatening. 

So that first splash of color that neonatal mandrills experienced is such a technicolor Oz, that they grow up preferring not just color but the most electric adults out there… Runaway selection at its finest! 

To test whether the rump or the face is the driving phenotype…
Dye the butt fur of all the mandrills to match the rest of their olive-colored bodies. All future mandrill babies will be born to a mother's dull rump. And then if selection is relaxed on the face coloration, as predicted by the rump-first approach, mutations should take over and remove the color from the face. Then next, stop dying the butt fur of the mandrills and selection should bring back the colorful face again. Unfortunately this will only answer the question as to which end, the face or the bum, is driving the appearance of the other. 

To test the Perinatal Imprinting hypothesis….
Dye the butt fur of pregnant drills (the rainbow-free cousins of mandrills) to match female mandrills' and see if (a) drill neonates spend too much time hanging around mom’s distractingly colorful butt and, thus, not enough time nursing and bonding with mother’s eyes and face, (b) mother drill's faces evolve coloration in future generations and, also, coloration evolves in drill males too. Easy.


Drill. Mandrillus leucophaeus (source)

But remember, one of the most compelling aspects of the Perinatal Imprinting hypothesis is that it cannot be proven wrong, even if other explanations are better supported. 

Concluding Remarks
Not only is adaptive coloration of the mandrill face secondary to the primary adaptive value of the coloration of the butt, but the adaptive coloration of the males is actually secondary to the primary adaptive value of the coloration in the females!  

Colorful female rumps, and the infants who love them, are responsible for the extraordinary coloration of mandrills, not competitions for sexiest male. Everyone, especially Darwin, was thinking about this all wrong!

 ***

P.S.

I recently donated to Arkive because I heavily rely on it for teaching, writing, and learning. I hope that if you use it like I do, that you'll do the same so that it continues to thrive as a resource. 

My infantile hypothesis  follows in the tradition of the wonderfully infantile ones to be born at Bahfest exemplified by this one from organizer Zach Weinersmith and also last year's winning hypothesis from Tomer Ullman. (2016 note: Dates are off because this note was written in 2014)

Wednesday, November 23, 2016

Organ-izing against biological chaos: an advantage of multicellularity

The complex nature of most biological functions is curious.  Why would a cell ever pal up with other cells rather than slog through life alone?  Why did we big, clumsy, slow-reproducing organisms evolve in the first place?  Being stuck with other cells means (1) being larger but having lower mobility when it comes to choosing how to go about your business, (2) having to get along with the other cells, which could be a drag on your own survival, and (3) being restricted in what you do, having less flexibility.  That these issues can in fact be detriments can be seen in the likelihood that bacteria will dance on all our multicellular graves.

We usually think that bacteria are out there on their own.  But they, like other single-celled species, can aggregate and act as a single organism under some circumstances (bacterial biofilms and slime molds, sponges and others are examples).  Interestingly, the cells that make up the aggregate body are not necessarily those that shed to form another organism, such as sperm or eggs in mammals: even in a sponge, there can be separate 'body' and 'germ' cells.  The body cells reproduce within the body but, like worker bees, are evolutionarily subordinate to the queens--the few reproductively active cells. Presumably, aggregation can at least have a collective advantage even if individual cells go their own way most of the time, and there is no evidence that I know of, other than chance, that determines which of the sponge's founding cell lines will end up as reproducing cells.


Dictyostelium: Wikiwand


Cells in 'true' multicellular organisms, like humans, don't have any option of going it alone.  We begin life as one cell, and develop into a differentiated organism with many types of specialized cells (organs in animals, roots and leaves in plants).  Most of these don't reproduce, but the cells that do reproduce are genetically very closely related, so other cells aren't total evolutionary dead-ends.  Even a super-organism like a bee or ant colony has only a subset of organisms that directly reproduce, creating representative descendants of the whole group.

Not only do we have specialized organs, but they are typically comprised of a great number of cells of different types. Bacterial species can specialize in many different ways, but the cells in multicellular organisms generally specialize only in one: they are intestinal lining producers, or muscle cells, or cells of the neocortex.  That's a kind of cooperation within an organ analogous to the cooperation among organs that make the organism.

But there is a danger.  Each cell division introduces mutations that will be carried by the cell and its daughter cells for the future life of the organism. The organ in which the mutation occurs is stuck for life with the mutant cells.  The mutations are usually silent, or individually minor in their effects on the cell's behavior, but with millions or billions of cells in an organ, that has to work for a long time, at least some mutations may well have an effect, and some of those will be harmful.

A combination of such somatic mutations (SoMu) occurring over time may lead to a single cell lineage within the organ that no longer behaves properly, and in particular if it divides without the typical restraint for cell's tissue context in that organ, the changes can overwhelm the organ and that can threaten not only the whole organ but the whole individual.  Cancer is the classic example in animals.

Given this, then why would organisms with mandatory multicellularity ever have evolved?  Why not get together only when needed, as do the bacteria and slime molds of the world?

Safety in Numbers:  Protection from mutational danger.
The cells in an organism do share a common genome, the one in the founding cell of the organism (fertilized egg, or seed).  So an organism of varying specialized cells is a gang of likes, a differentiated, cooperating society of cellular kinship, which by aggregating can perhaps advance the cause of their group, their particular genotype, in a kind of Size Matters way: they can do things like exploit resources, just as bees and ants do, that an individual cell couldn't.  Specialization, and size do make a difference.  But the cost is that of the rogue members in the cellular society, whose SoMu number and sub-lineages increase with body size and age.  When one organ fails, the whole organism fails.

One aspect of the protection of multicellularity is that SoMus will have various effects, from none to organ failure and death.  Even if one cell lineage doesn't work efficiently, the organ itself is made of many other properly acting cells and even if an SoMu kills the cell, this may have no effect on the organ or the individual, with their countless normally behaving cells.  A herd can withstand the bad behavior of a few of its members.

The risks that being a multicellular organism entail are offset by the average behavior of the aggregates of cells, and it usually takes time before any rogue sub-lineage would be life-threatening to the organ or its organism, as for example cancer is.  Meanwhile, the organism can go about its business and take advantage of being a big, cooperative collective of organ functions, doing many things--travel, browse, hunt, mate and reproduce--in ways a single-celled organism can't do.

Mutations in parents, those arising in their genome and transmitted to their offspring, will either be selected against during development or will force the offspring to compete with its fellow organisms in the usual Darwinian way (see our series on the many other forms adaptation can take).

Since single-celled species, or those that spend most of their time as independents, are clearly doing very well and have done so for nearly the entire history of life (fossils of bacterial biofilms around 4 billion years old have been found).  So multicellularity was never an overwhelming advantage, even if it opened different ways of life for some--and these relative exceptions are the most visible species.

The safety-in-numbers aspect of multicellular organisms seems to be a good way that being big can be successful even in the ever-present face of mutations, most of which are harmful.  Safety in numbers may have allowed multicellular organisms to evolve in the first place.

Monday, October 31, 2016

This is the forest primeval: each tree an evolution

This is the forest primeval. 
The murmuring pines and the hemlocks,
Bearded with moss, and in garments green,
indistinct in the twilight,
Stand like Druids of old,
with voices sad and prophetic,
Stand like harpers hoar,
with beards that rest on their bosoms.
Loud from its rocky caverns,
the deep-voiced neighboring ocean Speaks,
and in accents disconsolate
answers the wail of the forest.


These famous lines, from Longfellow's 1847 epic poem Evangeline, spoke of a sad human tale in the days of early European settlement in the New World. The story was about people, but there is much to tell about the Druids of old, the lives and evolution of treest can be quite surprising.

This post was motivated by a recent trade book The Hidden Life of Trees, by Peter Wohlleben, a German forester, who described what his life in the woods has taught him about trees, their nature, evolution, and biology.  It's written at a pop sci level, and is often quite subjective and evocative, but it's laden with important facts when it comes to trying to understand the evolution of these terrestrial beasts. And, in a sense, these facts generalize in many ways.



The author discusses all sorts of observations that have been made about the responses of different parts of trees (bark, vessels, wood, leaves, roots) to their environment (sunlight, presence of trees of their own species, or of other species, of insect, fungal and other parasites), even going so far as to describe the sociology of trees and their responses to being isolated vs being in a forest of their friends and relatives. Trees interact with their own detected relatives, connected via communication through the air and underground via fungal networks, to the point that they even assist each other, when in trouble, with nutrients. It is a remarkable picture of interactions between organisms in organized, positively coordinated ecosystems.

The book is very selectionist, in that every trait is described as an adaptation to this or that condition, but trees that seem very similar can be different in these respects, so there is the assumption (very hard to prove, if even possible) that each trait evolved 'for' its current function. This is a more deterministically selectionist or even determinist viewpoint than we think is justified by actual fact, even if the functional aspects are as described (which we have no reason to doubt). Indeed, many examples are given of ways trees respond differently to different environments, and hence are not rigidly programmed to live in one particular way.

In any case, our point here aside from recommending an interesting and informative book, is to muse over some we think rather widely missed aspects of trees, their lives, and how they manage to survive and evolve.

While the author is a very strong selectionist when it comes to explaining who does what among trees or among woodsy species, I think he--and for all I know the vast majority of botanists--overlooks what is likely a very major aspect of arboreal evolution.

One major problem that seems to need to be more widely considered (maybe it is by botanists, but we haven't seen much that refers to this particular issue) relates to the implications of time scales (a matter that Wohlleben discusses in detail). Trees can live for decades, centuries, or even millennia.
Wohlleben very clearly and repeatedly stresses the fact that trees live on such a different time scale compared to us, that it can be hard for us to fathom how their lives evolve--and evolve is the appropriate word. If trees are, so to speak, rooted in their origins for hundreds or even thousands of years, while insects, fungi, and other plants and animals (not to mention microbes) have generations in years or even minutes, how can trees ever adapt or survive? By the time a tree has reached a venerable age, hasn't it been out-evolved by almost every other species that lives in or that is blown into its neighborhood?  By the time it dies, when any of its seeds germinate they must already be obsolete, ready to fight the last war-or the last war minus 10 or 100 or 1000.

One answer, in my view, is the largely overlooked fact of the evolution of tree--of each individual tree--during its lifetime.

The evolution of tree (not trees)
Unless my feeble knowledge of botany totally fails me, I think there is a lot going on even at the normal pace of things, within an individual tree. That is that each tree is a remarkable micro-example of evolution in itself.

Each tree starts life as a single fertilized egg (its seed). During its life, that little cell divides into billions, probably trillions, of descendant cells. These make up its roots and, important for us, its trunk, branches, leaves, and flowers. While there are various aspects of communication among these cells, they are essentially independent.

Each cell division along the way from the root tip to the branch tip (or 'meristem'), mutations will occur. This happens in humans, too; such mutations are called somatic because they don't occur in the individual's germ line (that is, the cell lineage that leads to sperm or egg), and hence while the mutation carried by the original cell and its descendants may affect the local tissue, the change isn't inherited by the next generation. Only mutations in the germ line are, and indeed that's where the idea of 'mutation' historically arose. Most somatic mutations will have no effect on the gene-usage of the cell involved, but if they do it might be negative and the cell will die or just misbehave in a way that has no consequences because it's surrounded by countless healthy cells. Sometimes, such as with cancer, somatic mutations can be devastating.

Trees are different. They have no separated somatic and germ lines. Mutations occurring from the seed to the roots and limbs may lead to dead cells, or do nothing, or they may be screened for their 'fitness', their ability to generate the bark, vascular, leave of other tissues in their local time and place. They are, relative to other cells in the tree, removed by what we could call a version of natural selection. Those mutations that survive will be passed down the line or, rather up the line as the trunk, branches, and leaves grow.

Here is a photo of an oak tree and (metaphorically) its single starting genome:



At the end of the countless stems in a tree, over its long lifetime, would be meristem cells each carrying a wide but individually unique variety of mutational differences from what was in the founding acorn. At the meristem, in the appropriate time of year, cells differentiate into pollen and ovule cells. These are many generations of selection away from their founding acorn, and on a given tree there must be a great variety of genotypes, whose sequences would form a tree (a phylogeny), much as we find when we compare DNA sequences from dog species, or from individual humans.

A single tree is a very large evolutionary 'experiment'. Branches affected by harmful mutation, simply aren't there, so to speak. They and their genomic lineage are 'extinct'. A single tree, and its lifetime, comprise such a large 'experiment' that they are comparable in numbers to whole species of shorter-lived, germ-line-dependent organisms.

Here is a photo of a tree from our yard that may illustrate the point. Why are only the leaves on this one branch turning to fall colors so much earlier than the others on the same tree? There may be local environmental reasons, such as different sunlight or water supply or parasite effects, but this seems rather unlikely because other branches in similar positions, even on this same tree, are still green.




And now here is another photo, of a different tree in our front yard that we think illustrates the points we're making. This red oak loses its leaves in the usual way....except for the one major branch shown. Its leaves do not fall until the following spring, but the remaining branches on this tree drop in fall as would be normal. This happens every year and is not a fluke of some particular season.



A forester might have a local explanation, that there is some connection between the location of roots supplying these particular branches, relative to the underground water or soil conditions, but one possible explanation is somatic mutation. That is, some mutational effect, arising when the branch was early in its formation, led to a difference in the abscission  layers of the leaves to be produced by that branch, that retained those leaves through the winter.   If the explanation is local physical conditions, of course, that means the tree cannot be predicted from its founding acorn's sequence. But it is rather difficult to believe that somatic mutation doesn't have at least the kinds of effects seen.  A good experiment would be to take an acorn from this part of the tree and plant it next to one from another part of the tree and see what happens. Unfortunately, the answer wouldn't be available for many years....

Our point here is that among the countless cells in a tree's life, between its origin as a single cell and the also countless generations of its own acorns from its founding genome through its long live, there simply must have been countless somatic mutations, occurring all along the roots and trunk and branches, cell division by cell division.  Their descendants, down the root network, and up the trunk and into the branches must have been screened for the viability of any phenotypic effects, which many must have had.  If insects or bacteria attack or animal predators or the climate change, parts of a tree may be better able to survive than others.  Cells in the trees' future lives will have the benefit of these changes.  They may be small, but they may accumulate over the decades.  The branches affected by less helpful changes would flower less, or lead to branches that die or fall to predators, and so on--ones we never see later on, when we look at the tree.  Among the countless meristems every generation will be a population of differing genotypes to be passed on to its season's thousands and thousands of seeds.

In this way, by working through meristems everywhere (above ground) on the tree are cells with new genotypes screened for suitability in its environment at each time during the tree's life.  A tree is not a single organism, but a population of descendants of a founder.  The acorn was primeval perhaps, but not the forest.  It is this kind of within-life evolution that may, or perhaps must, explain how a single, immobile organism can survive for so long in the dynamics of local ecosystems.

That is, it's the tree itself, in its ever-renewing parts from root to twig, not just its evolving population of annual seeds, that must be evolving.  Decades, centuries, or millennia must often encompass changes in the biota around each primeval individual, and would destroy it, if it, too, were not evolving.  Otherwise, it would seem like asking for doom to be fixed in a given location for hundreds or thousands of years, surrounded by junior, dynamically evolving predators and competitors.  

The forest is always primeval: Each individual tree, in this view, is an evolving population, always adapting in its unchanging location to its locally changing conditions.

Thursday, October 27, 2016

Causal complexity in life

Evolution is the process that generates the relationships between genomes and traits in organisms.  Although we have written extensively and repeatedly about the issues raised by causal complexity,  we were led to write this post by a recent paper, in the 21 October 2016 issue of Science, which discusses molecular pathways to hemoglobin (Hb) gene function.  Although one might expect this to be rather simple and genomically direct, it is in fact complex and there are many different ways to achieve comparable function.

The authors, C Nataragan et al.,  looked at the genetic basis of adaptation to habitats at different altitude, focusing on genes coding for Hb molecules, that transport oxygen in the blood to provide the body's tissues with this vital fuel.  As a basic aspect of our atmosphere, oxygen concentrations differ at different altitudes, being low in mountainous regions compared to lowlands.  Species must somehow adapt to their localities, and at least one way to to this is for oxygen transport efficiency mechanisms to differ at different elevations.  Bird species have moved into and among these various environments on many independent occasions.

The affinity of Hb molecules for, that is, ability to bind oxygen, depends on their amino acid sequence, and the authors found that this varies by altitude.  The efficiency is similar among species at similar altitudes, even if due to independent population expansions. But when they looked at the Hb coding sequences in different species, they found a variety of species-specific changes.  That is, there are multiple ways to achieve similar function, so that parallel evolution at the functional level, which is what Nature detects, is achieved by many different mutational pathways.  In that sense, while an adaptation can be predicted, a specific genetic reason cannot be.

The authors looked only at coding regions, but of course evolution also involves regulatory sequences (among other functional regions in DNA), so there is every reason to expect that there is even more complexity to the adaptive paths taken.

Important specific documentation....but not conceptually new, though unappreciated
The authors also looked at what they call 'resurrected ancestral' proteins, by experimentally testing the efficacy of some specific Hb mutations, and they found that genomic background made a major difference in how, or whether, a specific change would affect oxygen binding.  This shows that evolution is contingent on local conditions, and that a given genomic change depends on the genomic background.  The ad hoc, locally contingent nature of evolution is (or should be) a central aspect of evolutionary world views, but there is a widespread tendency to think in classical Mendelian terms, of a gene for this and a gene for that, so that one would expect similar results in similar, if independent areas or contexts.  This is a common, if often tacit, view underlying much of genome mapping to find genes 'for' some human trait, like important diseases.  But it is quite misleading, or more accurately, is very wrong.

In 2008 we wrote about this in Genetics, as we've done before and since here on MT and in other papers.  In the 2008 article we used the following image to suggest metaphorically the nature of this complex causation, with its alternative pathways and the like, where the 'trait' is the amount of water passing New Orleans on the Mississippi River.  The figure suggests how difficult it would be to determine 'the' causal source of the water, how many different ways there are to get the same river level.

Drainage complexity as a metaphor for genomic causal complexity.  Map by Richard Weiss and ArcInfo
One can go even further, and note that this is exactly the kind of findings that are to be expected from and documented by the huge list of association studies done of human traits.  These typically find a great many genome regions whose variation contributes to the trait, usually each with a small individual effect, and mainly at low frequency in the population.  That means that individuals with similar trait values (say, diabetes, obesity, tall, or short stature, etc.) have different genotypes, that overlap in incomplete and individually unique ways.

We have written about aspects of this aspect of life, in what we called evolution by phenotype, in various places.  Nature screens on traits directly and only on genes very indirectly in most situations in complex organisms.  This means that many genotypes yield the same phenotype, and these will be equivalent in the face of natural selection and will experience genetic drift among them even in the fact of natural selection, again because selection screens the phenotype.  This is the process we called phenogenetic drift.  These papers were not 'discoveries' of ours but just statements of what is pretty obvious even if inconvenient for those seeking simple genetic causation.

The Science paper on altitude adaptation shows this by stereotypical sequences from one individual each from a variety of different species, rather than different individuals within each species, but that one can expect must also exist.  The point is that a priori prediction of how hemoglobin adaptation will occur is problematic, except that each species must have some adaptation to available oxygen.  Parallel phenotype evolution need not be matched by parallel genotypic evolution because selection 'sees' phenotypes and doesn't 'care' about how they are achieved.

The reason for this complexity is simple: it is that this is how evolution working via phenotypes rather than genotypes molds the genetic aspects of causation.

Thursday, October 13, 2016

Genomic causation....or not

By Ken Weiss and Anne Buchanan

The Big Story in the latest Nature ("A radical revision of human genetics: Why many ‘deadly’ gene mutations are turning out to be harmless," by Erika Check Hayden) is that genes thought to be clearly causal of important diseases aren't always (the link is to the People magazine-like cover article in that issue.)  This is a follow-up on an August Nature paper describing the database from which the results discussed in this week's Nature are drawn.  The apparent mismatch between a gene variant and a trait can be, according to the paper, the result of technical error, a mis-call by a given piece of software, or due to the assumption that the identification of a given mutation in affected but not healthy individuals means the causal mutation has been found, without experimentally confirming the finding--which itself can be tricky for reasons we'll discuss.  Insufficient documentation of 'normal' sequence variation has meant that the frequency of so-called causal mutations hasn't been available for comparative purposes.  Again we'll mention below what 'insufficient' might mean, if anything.

People in general and researchers in particular need to be more than dismissively aware of these issues, but the conclusion that we still need to focus on single genes as causal of most disease, that is, do MuchMoreOfTheSame, which is an implication of the discussion, is not so obviously justified.   We'll begin with our usual contrarian statement that the idea here is being overhyped as if it were new, but we know that except for its details it clearly is not, for reasons we'll also explain.  That is important because presenting it as a major finding, and still focusing on single genes as being truly causal vs mistakenly identified, ignores what we think the deeper message needs to be.

The data come from a mega-project known as ExAC, a consortium of researchers sharing DNA sequences to document genetic variation and further understand disease causation, and now including data from approximately 60,000 individuals (in itself, rather small compared to the need for purpose). The data are primarily exome sequences, that is, from protein-coding regions of the human genome, not from whole genome sequences, again a major issue.  We have no reason at all to critique the original paper itself, which is large, sophisticated, and carefully analyzed as far as we can tell; but the excess claims about its novelty are we think very much hyperbolized, and that needs to be explained.

Some of the obvious complicating issues
We know that a gene generally does not act alone.  DNA in itself is basically inert.  We've been and continue to be misled by examples of gene causation in which context and interactions don't really matter much, but that leads us still to cling to these as though they are the rule.  This reinforces the yearning for causal simplicity and tractability.  Essentially even this ExAC story, or its public announcements, doesn't properly acknowledge causal context and complexity because it is critiquing some simplistic single-gene inferences, and assuming that the problems are methodological rather than conceptual.

There are many aspects of causal context that complicate the picture, that are not new and we're not making them up, but which the Bigger-than-Ever Data pleas don't address:
1.  Current data are from blood-samples and that may not reflect the true constitutive genome because of early somatic mutation, and this will vary among study subjects,
2.  Life-long exposure to local somatic mutation is not considered nor measured, 
3.  Epigenetic changes, especially local tissue-specific ones, are not included, 
4.  Environmental factors are not considered, and indeed would be hard to consider,
5.  Non-Europeans, and even many Europeans are barely included, if at all, though this is  beginning to be addressed, 
6.  Regulatory variation, which GWAS has convincingly shown is much more important to most traits than coding variation, is not included. Exome data have been treated naively by many investigators as if that is what is important, and exome-only data have been used a major excuse for Great Big Grants that can't find what we know is probably far more important, 
7.  Non-coding regions, non-regulatory RNA regions are not included in exome-only data,
8.  A mutation may be causal in one context but not in others, in one family or population and not others, rendering the determination that it's a false discovery difficult,
9.  Single gene analysis is still the basis of the new 'revelations', that is, the idea being hinted at that the 'causal' gene isn't really causal....but one implicit notion is that it was misidentified, which is perhaps sometimes true but probably not always so,
 10.  The new reports are presented in the news, at least, as if the gene is being exonerated of its putative ill effects.  But that may not be the case, because if the regulatory regions near the mutated gene have no or little activity, the 'bad' gene may simply not be being expressed.  Its coding sequence could falsely be assumed to be harmless, 
11. Many aspects of this kind of work are dependent on statistical assumptions and subjective cutoff values, a problem recently being openly recognized, 
12.  Bigger studies introduce all sorts of statistical 'noise', which can make something appear causal or can weaken its actual apparent cause.  Phenotypes can be measured in many ways, but we know very well that this can be changeable and subjective (and phenotypes are not very detailed in the initial ExAC database), 
13.  Early reports of strong genetic findings have well known upward bias in effect size, the finder's curse that later work fails to confirm.

Well, yes, we're always critical, but this new finding isn't really a surprise
To some readers we are too often critical, and at least some of us have to confess to a contrarian nature.  But here is why we say that these new findings, like so many that are by the grocery checkout in Nature, Science, and People magazines, while seemingly quite true, should not be treated as a surprise or a threat to what we've already known--nor a justification of just doing more, or much more of the same.

Gregor Mendel studied fully penetrant (deterministic) causation.  That is what we now know to be 'genes', in which the presence of the causal allele (in 2-allele systems) always caused the trait (green vs yellow peas, etc.; the same is true of recessive as dominant traits, given the appropriate genotype). But this is generally wrong, save at best for the exceptions such as those that Mendel himself knowingly and carefully chose to study.  But even this was not so clear!  Mendel has been accused of 'cheating' by ignoring inconsistent results. This may have been data fudging, but it is at least as likely to have been reacting to what we have known for a century as 'incomplete penetrance'.  (Ken wrote on this a number of years ago in one of his Evolutionary Anthropology columns.)  For whatever reason--and see below--the presence of a 'dominant' gene or  'recessive' homozyosity at a 'causal' gene doesn't always lead to the trait.

In most of the 20th century the probabilistic nature of real-world as opposed to textbook Mendelism has been completely known and accepted.  The reasons for incomplete penetrance were not known and indeed we had no way to know them as a rule.  Various explanations were offered, but the statistical nature of the inferences (estimates of penetrance probability, for example) were common practice and textbook standards.  Even the original authors acknowledge incomplete penetrance, but this essentially shows that what the ExAC consortium is reporting are details but nothing fundamentally new nor surprising.  Clinicians or investigators acting as if a variant were always causal should be blamed for gross oversimplification, and so should hyperbolic news media.

Recent advances such as genomewide association studies (GWAS) in various forms have used stringent statistical criteria to minimize false discovery.  This has led to mapped 'hits' that satisfied those criteria only accounting for a fraction of estimated overall genomic causation.  This was legitimate in that it didn't leave us swamped with hundreds of very weak or very rare false positive genome locations.  But even the acceptable, statistically safest genome sites showed typically small individual effects and risks far below 1.0. They were not 'dominant' in the usual sense.  That means that people with the 'causal' allele don't always, and in fact do not usually, have the trait.  This has been the finding for quantitative traits like stature and qualitative ones like presence of diabetes, heart attack-related events, psychiatric disorders and essentially all traits studied by GWAS. It is not exactly what the ExAC data were looking at, but it is highly relevant and is the relevant basic biological principle.

This does not necessarily mean that the target gene is not important for the disease trait, which seems to be one of the inferences headlined in the news splashes.  This is treated as a striking or even fundamental new finding, but it is nothing of that sort.  Indeed, the genes in question may not be falsely identified, but may very well contribute to risk in some people under some conditions at some age and in some environments.  The ExAC results don't really address this because (for example) to determine when a gene variant is a risk variant one would have to identify all the causes of 'incomplete penetrance' in every sample, but there are multiple explanations for incomplete penetrance, including the list of 1 - 13 above as well as methodological issues such as those pointed out by the ExAC project paper itself.

In addition, there may be 'protective' variants in the other regions of the genome (that is, the trait may need the contribution of many different genome regions), and working that out would typically involve "hyper astronomical" combinations of effects using unachievable, not to mention uninterpretable, sample sizes--from which one would have to estimate risk effects of almost uncountable numbers of sequence variants.  If there were, say, 100 other contributing genes, each with their own variant genotypes including regulatory variants, the number of combinations of backgrounds one would have to sort through to see how they affected the 'falsely' identified gene is effectively uncountable.

Even the most clearly causal genes such as variants of BRCA1 and breast cancer have penetrance far less than 1.0 in recent data (here referring to lifetime risk; risk at earlier ages is very far from 1.0). The risk, though clearly serious, depends on cohort, environmental and other mainly unknown factors.  Nobody doubts the role of BRCA1 but it is not in itself causal.  For example, it appears to be a mutation repair gene, but if no (or not enough) cancer-related mutations arise in the breast cells in a woman carrying a high-risk BRCA1 allele, she will not get breast cancer as a result of that gene's malfunction.

There are many other examples of mapping that identified genes that even if strongly and truly associated with a test trait have very far from complete penetrance.  A mutation in HFE and hemochromatosis comes to mind: in studies of some Europeans, a particular mutation seemed always to be present, but if the gene itself were tested in a general data base, rather than just in affected people, it had little or no causal effect.  This seems to be the sort of thing the ExAC report is finding.

The generic reason is again that genes, essentially all genes, work only in their context. That context includes 'environment', which refers to all the other genes and cells in the body and the external or 'lifestyle' factors, and also age and sex as well.  There is no obvious way to identify, evaluate or measure the effects of all possibly relevant lifestyle effects, and since these change, retrospective evaluation has unknown bearing on future risk (the same can be said of genomic variants for the same reason).  How could these even be sampled adequately?

Likewise, volumes of long-existing experimental and highly focused results tell the same tale. Transgenic mice, for example, in which the same mutation is introduced into their 'same' gene as in humans, very often show little or no, or only strain-specific effects.  This is true in other experimental organisms. The lesson, and it's by far not a new or very recent one, is that genomic context is vitally important, that is, it is person-specific genomic backgrounds of a target gene that affect the latter's effect strength--and vice versa: that is, the same is true for each of these other genes. That is why to such an extent we have long noted the legerdemain being foist on the research and public communities by the advocates of Big Data statistical testing.  Certainly methodological errors are also a problem, as the Nature piece describes, but they aren't the only problem.

So if someone reports some cases of a trait that seem too often to involve a given gene, such as the Nature piece seems generally to be about, but searches of unaffected people also occasionally find the same mutations in such genes (especially when only exomes are considered), then we are told that this is a surprise.  It is, to be sure, important to know, but it is just as important to know that essentially the same information has long been available to us in many forms.  It is not a surprise--even if it doesn't tell us where to go in search of genetic, much less genomic, causation.

Sorry, though it's important knowledge, it's not 'radical' nor dependent on these data!
The idea being suggested is that (surprise, surprise!) we need much more data to make this point or to find these surprisingly harmless mutations.  That is simply a misleading assertion, or attempted justification, though it has become the intentional industry standard closing argument.

It is of course very possible that we're missing some aspects of the studies and interpretations that are being touted, but we don't think that changes the basic points being made here.  They're consistent with the new findings but show that for many very good reasons this is what we knew was generally the case, that 'Mendelian' traits were the exception that led to a century of genetic discovery but only because it focused attention on what was then doable (while, not widely recognized by human geneticists, in parallel, agricultural genetics of polygenic traits showed what was more typical).

But now, if things are being recognized as being contextual much more deeply than in Francis' Collins money-strategy-based Big Data dreams, or 'precision' promises, and our inferential (statistical) criteria are properly under siege, we'll repeat our oft-stated mantra: deeply different, reformed understanding is needed, and a turn to research investment focused on basic science rather than exhaustive surveys, and on those many traits whose causal basis really is strong enough that it doesn't really require this deeper knowledge.  In a sense, if you need massive data to find an effect, then that effect is usually very rare and/or very weak.

And by the way, the same must be true for normal traits, like stature, intelligence, and so on, for which we're besieged with genome-mapping assertions, and this must also apply to ideas about gene-specific responses to natural selection in evolution.  Responses to environment (diet etc.) manifestly have the same problem.  It is not just a strange finding of exome mapping studies for disease. Likewise, 'normal' study subjects now being asked for in huge numbers may get the target trait later on in their lives, except for traits basically present early in life.  One can't doubt that misattributing the cause of such traits is an important problem, but we need to think of better solutions that Big Big Data, because not confirming a gene doesn't help, or finding that 'the' gene is only 'the' gene in some genomic or environmental backgrounds is the proverbial and historically frustrating needle in the haystack search.  So the story's advocated huge samples of 'normals' (random individuals) cannot really address the causal issue definitively (except to show what we know, that there's a big problem to be solved).  Selected family data may--may--help identify a gene that really is causal, but even they have some of the same sorts of problems.  And may apply only to that family.

The ExAC study is focused on severe diseases, which is somewhat like Mendel's selective approach, because it is quite obvious that complex diseases are complex.  It is plausible that severe, especially early onset diseases are genetically tractable, but it is not obvious that ever more data will answer the challenge.  And, ironically, the ExAC study has removed just such diseases from their consideration! So they're intentionally showing what is well known, that we're in needle in haystacks territory, even when someone has reported big needles.

Finally, we have to add that these points have been made by various authors for many years, often based on principles that did not require mega-studies to show.  Put another way, we had reason to expect what we're seeing, and years of studies supported that expectation.  This doesn't even consider the deep problems about statistical inference that are being widely noted and the deeply entrenched nature of that approach's conceptual and even material invested interests (see this week's Aeon essay, e.g.).  It's time to change, but doing so would involve deeply revising how resources are used--of course one of our common themes here on the MT--and that is a matter almost entirely of political economy, not science.  That is, it's as much about feeding the science industry as it is about medicine and public health.  And that is why it's mainly about business as usual rather than real reform.

Friday, October 7, 2016

Science journals: Anything for a headline

Well, this week's sensational result is reported in the Oct 5 Nature in a paper about limits to the human lifespan. The unsensational nature of this paper shows yet again how Nature and the other 'science' journals will take any paper that they can use for a cheap headline.  This paper claims that the human life span cannot exceed 115 (though the cover picture in a commentary in the same issue is a woman-- mentioned in the paper itself--who lived to be substantially older than that!).  The Nature issue has all the exciting details of this novel finding, which of course have been trumpeted by the story-hungry 'news' media.

In essence the authors argue that maximum longevity on a population basis has been increasing only very slowly or not at all over recent decades.  It is, one might say, approaching an asymptote of strong determination. They suggest that there is, as a result of many complex contributing factors-of-decline, essentially a limit to how long we can live, at least as a natural species without all sorts of genetic engineering.  In that sense, dreams of hugely extended life, even as a maximum (that is, if not for everyone), are just that: dreams.

This analysis raises several important issues, but largely ignores others.  First, however, it is important to note that virtually nothing in this paper, except some more recent data, is novel in any way.  The same issues were discussed at very great length long ago, as I know from my own experience.  I was involved in various aspects of the demography and genetics of aging, as far back as the 1970s.  There was a very active research community looking at issues such as species-specific 'maximum lifespan potential', with causal or correlated factors ranging from the effects of basic metabolism, or body or brain size.  Here's a figure from 1978 that I used in a 1989 paper




There was experimental research on this including life-extension studies (e.g., dietary restriction) as well as comparison of data over time, much as (for its time) the new paper.  The idea that there was an effective limit to human lifespan (and likewise for any species) was completely standard at that time, and how much this could be changed by modern technologies and health care etc. was debated. In 1975, for example (and that was over 40 years ago!), Richard Cutler argued in PNAS that various factors constrained maximum lifespan in a species-related way.  The idea, and one I also wrote a lot about in the long-ago past, is that longevity is related to surviving the plethora of biological decay processes, including mutation, and that would lead to a statistical asymptote in lifespan.  That is, that lifespan was largely a statistical result rather than a deterministically specified value.  The mortality results related to lifespan were not about 'lifespan' causation per se, but were just the array of diseases (diabetes, cancer, heart disease, etc.) that arose as a result of the various decays that led to risk increasing with duration of exposure, wear and tear, and so on, and hence were correlated with age.  Survival to a given age was the probability of not succumbing to any of these causes by that age.

This paper of mine (mentioned above) was about the nature of arguments for a causally rather that statistically determined lifespan limit.  If that were so, then all the known diseases, like heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and so on, were irrelevant to our supposed built-in lifespan limit!  That makes no evolutionary sense, since evolution would not be able to work on such a limit (nobody's still reproducing anywhere near that old).  It would make no other kind of sense, either.  What would determine such a limit and how could it have evolved?  On the other hand, if diseases--the real causes that end individual lives--were, together, responsible for the distribution of lifespan lengths, then a statistical rather than deterministic end is what's real.  The new paper doesn't deal with these, but by arguing that there is some sort of asymptotic limit, it implicitly invokes some sort of causal, evolutionarily determined value, and that seems implausible.

Indeed, evolutionary biologists have long argued that evolution would produce 'negative pleiotropy', in which genomes would confer greater survival at young ages, even if the result was at the expense of greater mortality later on.  That way, the species' members could live to reproduce (at least, if they survived developmentally-related infant mortality), and they were dispensable at older ages so that there was no evolutionary pressure to live longer.   But that would leave old-age longevity to statistical decay processes, not some built-in limit.

Of course, with very large data sets and mortality a multicausal statistical process, rare outliers would be seen, so that more data meant longer maximum survival 'potential' (assuming everyone in a species somehow had that potential, clearly a fiction given genetic diseases and the like that affect individuals differently).  There were many problems with these views, and many have since tried to find single-cause lifespan-determining factors (like telomere decay, in our chromosomes), an active area of research (more on that below).  We still hunger for the Fountain of Youth--the single cause or cure that will immortalize us!

The point here is that the new paper is at most a capable but modest update of what was already known long ago.  It doesn't really address the more substantive issues, like those I mention above.  It is not a major finding, and its claims are also in a sense naive, since future improvements in health and lifestyles that we don't have now but that applied to our whole population could extend life expectancy--the average age at death--and hence the maximum to which anyone would survive. After all, when we had huge infectious disease loads, hardly anybody lived to 115, and in the old days of research, to which the authors seem oblivious, something like 90-100 was assumed to be our deadline.

The new paper has been criticized by a few investigators, as seen in reports in the news media coverage.  But the paper's authors probably are right that nothing foreseeable will make a truly huge change in maximum survival, nor will many survive to such an extended age.  Nor--importantly--does this mean that those who do luck out are actually very lucky: the last few years or decades of decrepitude may not be worth it to most who last to the purported limit. To think of this as more than a statistical result is a mistake.  Not everyone can live to any particular age, obviously.

The main fault in the paper in my view is the claim in essence to portray the result as a new finding, and the publication in a purportedly major journal, with the typical media ballyhoo suggesting that.

On the other hand....
On the other hand, investigators who were interviewed about this study (to give it 'balance'!) denigrated it, saying that novel medical or other (genetic?) interventions could make major changes in human longevity.  This has of course happened in the past century or two.  More medical intervention, antibiotics and vaccines and so on have greatly increased average lifespan and, in so doing in large populations, increased the maximum survival that we observe.  This latter is a statistical result of the probabilistic nature of degenerative processes like accumulating wear and tear or mutations, as I mentioned earlier.  There is no automatic reason that major changes in life-extending technologies are in the offing, but of course it can't be denied as a possibility either. Similarly, if, say, antibiotic resistance becomes so widespread that infectious diseases are once again a major cause of death in rich countries, our 'maximum lifespan' will start to look younger.

Those who argue against this paper's assertions of a limit must be viewed just as critically as they judged the new paper.  The US National Institute on Aging, among other agencies, spends quite a lot of your money on aging, including decades (I know because I had some of it) on lifespan determination.  If someone quoted as dissing the new 'finding' is heavily engaged in the funding from NIA and elsewhere, one must ask whether s/he is defending a funding trough: if it's hopeless to think we'll make major longevity differences, why not close down their labs and instead spend the funding on something that's actually useful for society?

There are still many curious aspects of lifespan distributions, such as why rodents have small bodies that should be less vulnerable per-year to cancer or telomere degradation etc. that relate to the number of at-risk cells, yet only live a few years.  Why hasn't evolution led us to be in prime health for decades longer than we are?  There are potential answers to such questions, but mechanisms are not well understood, and the whole concept of a fixed lifespan (rather than a statistical one) is poorly constructed.

Still, everything suggests that, without major new interventions that probably will, at best, be for the rich only, there are rough limits to how long anyone can statistically avoid the range of independent risk our various organ systems face, not to  mention surviving in a sea of decrepitude.

One thing that does seem to be getting rather old, is the relentless hyperbole of the media including pop-culture journals like Nature and Science, selling non-stories as revolutionary new findings.  If we want to make life better for everyone, not just researchers and journals, we could spend our resources more equitably on quality of life, and our research resources on devastating diseases that strike early in the lives we already are fortunate to have.