Oh, science. How you torment me so.

Dear Science,

You stepped into my life like a dream, like a miraculous way to answer my questions--more than that, a way to approach my deepest and inner most questions (questions that I even dared to utter aloud). Have a question? No problem. Just apply a little something called the scientific method and all of your questions fade into the background and slowly become answers.

Yes, I was that naive.

With the closing of my very first graduate seminar (why thank you), I have come to the realization that my faith in science is more muddled than it has ever been before.

Eh?

I now realize that we have more questions than we will ever be able to answer. There are more intricacies and complexities than I ever dared to imagine. Gone are the golden days when, as a thirteen year old, I closed my Algebra textbook and thought, "Thank God I am done with math. What more can they teach me?".

... enough to make your brain gush out of your eye sockets. Whoops, too graphic?

Yes, I still love you, science. And yes, I still believe in your potential. But I now realize, more than ever, that my romance with you with be an enduring journey. While I am not quite sure I am ready for the roller-coaster at right exactly this moment (please, let me think about finals first), I will be at your level soon. Just let me prepare myself.

Your faithful partner in crime,
Lauren

The Demographic Transition

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

It pains me much to announce the following: we no longer live in a society built upon Darwinism.

I expect that gasps and cries of panic have surfaced the crowd.

Yes, it pains me as much (if not more) than you. Darwin, my knight in shining armor-- the one man who could explain to me why we do the things we do -- has been cast aside, cast aside as an excuse for poor sociobiology. Worse than that-- cast aside because the fittest no longer have the highest fitness anymore.

Don't get me wrong-- I am the first to correct those who misinterpret Darwin's idea of natural selection as a tribute to "the survival of the fittest". Those who make this mistake under my careful watch are subsequently tared and feather (if they are lucky). However, it would seem that societal interactions have taken a heavy turn within the past decade or so.

Let me describe the general situation to you:

Allie is a eighteen year old woman, who graduated from high school and immediately proceeded to marry her high school sweet heart. Immediately thereafter, she started to reproduce, popping them out like bubble gum year after year after year. Fast forward twenty years and viola-- fourteen children all from the same genetic material. Here's to hoping that Allie's genetic material is impressive, for the general sake of mankind.

Brenda, unlike Allie, pursues schooling at a university before attending medical school. She puts her family life on hold for the sakes of her schooling and ultimately her career. Brenda then proceeds to marry and have one child during her early thirties. Way to perpetuate your genetic material, Brenda. And guessing from your M.D., its too bad that you didn't perpetuate more of your intelligent genetic material into the next generation.

Here you have it: a clear conflict of fitness. Human behavioral evolutionists can't get over this conflict of interests. Why would Brenda want to spend more time pursuing education if its not going to improve her overall reproductive fitness? Sure, her degrees indicate that she has a high degree of intelligence. And yet, according to Darwin, Allie's life choices would be more evolutionary founded.

However, when you look at evolutionary theory, there really isn't anything so special about this. As a result, I, for one, really don't understand this preoccupation with the demographic transition.

Eh, what?

Well, for one, it is widespread evolutionary knowledge that selfish populations tend to not persist, while altruistic populations do persist. If you ask me, we, humans, are simply heading down the road of selfishness-- ultimately kicking ourselves in the foot (so to speak) with a less intelligent population (no offense, Allie). Why should we, humans, be unlike any other selfish animal population that dies out with the embrace of selfish policies?

And back to my previous point, who ever said that Darwinism indicated "survival of the fittest"? Seriously, guys-- come on. Let the brilliant man talk. Darwinism indicates the survival of the luckiest. Yes, Brenda might be fitter in terms of her intelligence than Allie; however, she isn't proving to be so lucky in terms of her inner model of maximizing her reproductive fitness.

Besides, who says that we have to measure fitness in terms of reproductive success? Why don't we measure it in terms of monetary wealth? If you ask me, this would solve this whole problem. Then we could all rest easily.

Would someone please enlighten me as to what is so terribly different about this demographic transition? I am desperately trying to cast off my inner sociobiolgist who tells me that this is indeed the way that humans are supposed to be headed... for the sake of mankind, help me out!

... perhaps Darwin still champions all?

Warm Regards,

Your Inner Cynic

Darwin’s Tree of Life, 2010

“We are all connected;
To each other, biologically
To the earth, chemically
To the rest of the universe atomically”

~ Neil deGrasse Tyson, an Astrophysicist


Darwin’s observation of evolution and natural selection changed the way that scientists viewed the world. In fact, an American biologist, Theodosius Dobzhansky, once claimed that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”.

I have since been captivated with life’s interconnectedness— captivated with the thought that we are made up of the same elements that make up the stars, the thought that we share ancestors with insects and redwood trees.


Through my memorial, I wish to depict my own captivation with Darwin’s ingenious, as well as display the influence that his observations have had on science. He has given us a new way to think about life around us—that we, indeed, are related to every single organism on this Planet.


My sculpture draws on the essence of this interrelatedness through my depiction of a tree-like structure (a phylogenetic tree). The modules of paper and saran wrap are all essentially the same, with the exception to the randomly placed black dots on ink on the paper. Like every biological organism on this planet, we have all evolved from the same source. However, it is these imperfections that make us unique, and have allowed us to thrive in environments that other organisms may not survive in.


Hence, Darwin’s Tree of Life.

Run, run, as fast as you can

"Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!"
~ The Red Queen from "Through the Looking Glass" by L. Carroll

The Red Queen. Powerful, confident, completely mad, and yet brilliant at the same time. How could her logic possibly make sense? Or better yet, how could such a backwards statement actually make sense in the light of such an intricate topic as evolution?

Run, run, run. Run fast. Better than that-- run faster than you ever imagined you would run. And yes, according to the Red Queen, this is quite possible.

And while such a statement would seem to send a message of hopelessness and defeat, I find faith in it: why not? Why shall I not run as twice as fast as I can? The very mechanisms of life itself serves as a reminder that we can all run just a little faster than we thought possible-- that failure is only a state of mind. Perhaps you aren't actually running in place, rather, purely perceiving it.

I'm going to run a little faster. Thank you, Red Queen.

In the Name of Ecology

It stank. In fact, it stank so badly that my fellow classmates seriously considered chucking my precious research out of the lab and back into the ocean where it belonged. But I wouldn’t allow it: that stench, those slimy pieces of rotting bull kelp had become my pride and joy during my summer at Bodega Marine Laboratory (BML) --my child of some sorts for those few and precious weeks. It drove me crazy (up the wall, in fact, as I spent days and nights hoping and praying that the tide wouldn’t sweep it off in its currents, or some cranky bird wouldn’t tear it apart in the hope of a good meal), but I was doing it for the good of Ecology, which made it worth all of my pain and suffering.

It was from this very experience that I decided that I had to study abroad in Costa Rica. I want to smell the rainforest, feel the rainforest (even if it means feeling through mosquito bites), taste the rainforest. Once I am engulfed in this explosion of the senses, I want to begin another research project that I won’t stop talking about for the rest of my life—-just as important to me as beach wrack has become.

I know that it will not be easy. In fact, I am certain that it is going to be hard, harder than anything else that I have encountered. I know that on top of learning about tropical rain forest ecology, I will have to learn how to bridge the language and culture gap, while immersing myself in the hospitality of the Costa Rican people. I know that bridging these gaps is going to take compassion, courage, and patience.

But I also know that the hardest projects are the ones worth pursuing. I am ready to listen and learn about the Costa Rican culture. I am ready to brush up and use my high school Spanish, even if I sound like a five-year old during the process. I am ready to feel that rain forest, ready for this challenge. In the name of Ecology, I am ready to brave it all.

An Unexpected Obsession

Star Trek ruined me. No, seriously—ruined me. I wasn’t ready for it. But now, I couldn’t (and I wouldn’t) settle for a “less than ordinary life”.

The universe called to me wherever I went. My mind wandered between Earth and the stars. I jokingly (well, maybe not so jokingly) asked my parents for a space shuttle for the holidays, and watched any science fiction show I could get my hands on – Battlestar Galactica, Babylon 5—in an attempt to escape my frustration with this “intergalactic space travel-less” time period.

Movies and novels that I had once deemed “average” were now exhilarating. Velociraptors became evolutionary miracles. Stephen Hawking became my hero. My imagination had been unlocked and was quickly engulfing my ability to settle for reality.

I was caught in my own world of the impossible, struggling with the fact that I had been born in an era where space travel consisted of simple missions to the moon, and aliens were pure speculation rather than fact. I became accustomed to that tightening knot in my stomach. I knew that I would never be able to join Star Fleet, never able to explore the galaxy in search of new civilizations and alien species. And it was slowly killing me inside: slowly, but surely.

And just when I was about to give up my dreams of the stars, I discovered science writing. I realized that I could combine my enthusiasm for scientific knowledge with my overactive imagination. Hence, I found a way to shorten the gap between scientific reality and the impossible. My goal is to shorten your gap as well.

And now I can watch Star Trek without dying inside. Now, I can travel the universe whenever and wherever I am. Here's to finding the impossible in reality. And who knows-- maybe I will make it to the Moon someday.

Romance among the Sexes: A Conflict of Darwinian Interests

Eveline was a tall, attractive, red-headed women, who loved to draw and read Shakespeare—a true romantic. And like many women her age, she came to college looking for love (the degree was a mere side-product), looking for the one chivalrous man who would save her from her loneliness, love her for who she was, and would spend the rest of life with her most willingly. And one day love came crashing into her—literally. It began with a bike crash, and ended in dinner. They dated for a while, went on glamorous outings to Chipotle, told each other of their dreams over Tuesday Dollar Scoop Nights, stayed up late at night telling each other secrets, and even named a few of their future children. Eveline could have sworn that she was in love, that she had finally found the one. That was, until he split. Disappeared—nowhere in sight. Such is the story told over, and over, and over again—countless tales of women looking for the one, countless tales of men looking for the many. Yes, it is a tragedy for those lonely romantics out there, but biologically speaking this behavior makes complete sense.

And just how does a broken heart and lack of a suitable mate make biological sense? Am I just making excuses for poor and inconsiderate behavior? It would appear counterproductive—energy lost over romance and love (energy that could have been used for finding food or running from predators), with no offspring to show for it. However, remember that there was a time when contraceptives did not exist, and polygamy, rather than monogamy persisted—a time that is currently still the present for many non-human groups.

From the very beginning of time, there has been a conflict among the sexes. This very conflict in romantic interests falls under the category of sexual selection, a sub-category of one of evolution’s mechanisms—natural selection. Douglas Futuyuma, an evolutionary biologist who has written a textbook on evolution, describes evolution as the “change in the properties of groups of organisms over the course of generations” (Futuyma 2005). In other words, the prevalence of specific physical characteristics change in a population over time. In human terms, this is like saying that the frequency of black haired people throughout the world has increased with time.

Charles Darwin, the founding father of the notion of evolution and natural selection, proposed that evolution occurred through a mechanism called natural selection. He noticed that, on a wide scale, organisms normally produce more offspring than can survive, and that there was variation among traits that were genetically passed on to the next generation. Because of these truths, Darwin proposed that organisms who have more favorable physical traits in their environment survive to reproduce, therefore passing their genetic material onto the next generation. Thus, as long as these physical traits are favored in the organism’s habitat, the offspring will survive to reproduce and pass on the genes again, thus increasing the frequency of the gene in the population.

So, how are natural selection and sexual selection different from each other? Darwin noted that while “natural selection depends on the success of both sexes, at all ages, in relation to the general conditions of life”, sexual selection “depends on the success of certain individuals over others of the same sex, in relation to the propagation of the species” (Darwin 1871). In other words, sexual selection is one of the many mechanisms in which natural selection persists, yet focuses on the differences in successful reproduction among the sexes and how this relates to the species as a whole. On the other hand, natural selection looks at successful reproduction in terms of the entire population. Yes, it is true that both males and females wish to reproduce with the common Darwinian interest of their genetic material surviving to the next generation. However, because “females produce relatively few, large gametes (eggs) and males produce many small gametes (sperm)”, males tend to want to release as many as their sperm as possible, while females tend to be quite choosey with whom they mate with (Futyuma 2005).

Let’s give this example context, and look at it in terms of walruses. Male walruses can mate with as many females as they wish, with the overpowering consequence of increasing the chances of their genetic material’s survival with each time that they mate. If the sperm does not make it to the female’s egg, it is not a large energetic loss; sperm cost relatively energetically little to make, so the notion that a single egg is fertilized far outweighs the loss of many sperm.

On the other hand, females make fewer eggs because they are energetically costly. Why waste one of her precious eggs on a male who will make her offspring less likely to reproduce? What if her potential mate is rather small and therefore has trouble keeping warm (ie. might die of frostbite)? What if his tusks are not large enough to defend his territory? Females get fewer chances at reproduction, so they make sure that they only mate with those with the best genetic material.

Alas, the female’s resulting pickiness often results in a phenomenon called “Runaway Selection”. If a female walrus begins to favor larger tusks because it indicates that the male is better suited to defend himself from potential aggressors (and thus has better genetic quality), she will mate with males who have larger tusks. Thus, males with overall larger tusk size will be introduced into the next generation, females mating with males with larger and larger tusks and therefore creating this continuation of increasing tusk sizes into future generations. However, what happens when these tusks are so large that it prevents the male from running away from predators, or finding food? An equilibrium is found between large tusk size and survival of males, so that both the goal of survival and mating can be achieved.

Sure, this all makes sense in polygamous societies (ie. walruses), but we humans are monogamous and have values, correct? Yes, and no. Let’s look at it this way: it would make sense for men to copulate with as many women as possible, as doing so would increase chances of their genetic material’s survival. Sure, society encourages monogamous relationships through the highly coveted values of marriage and faithfulness; however, society on some level also encourages the promiscuity of males, while condemning it in females. Famous male stars, such as Hugh Hefner and James Bond, are accepted, even glorified, in their attempts to mate with as many women as possible. On the other hand, famous female stars, such as Britney Spears and Lady Gaga, are looked down upon for their promiscuous and provocative ways—not idolized for the embracement of their sexuality like Hugh Hefner or James Bond, rather condemned for their immoral behavior.

Okay, so this attitude is prevalent in our society. But why and how? Is this just how society has formed over time or can it be explained biologically? Evolutionary biologists would argue that it is instinctual. As the descendants of winners, our ancestors have been very successful in the propagation of their genetic material. Since males who copulate with many females generally have a higher chance of passing on their material, we can confidentially say that we are the descendants of males who have followed such practices.

Now that I have thoroughly slashed your ideas of true love and romance with a conflict of Darwinian interests, let me give you something else to think about: Eveline did eventually find love. And he did not disappear. He did not split after a few weeks. And he even had large muscles, which make him the perfect mate in terms of genetic quality. They settled down, started a family, and relished in a completely monogamous relationship. Now, what does that tell you about the Darwinian conflict among the sexes? Perhaps Darwin is not completely 100% correct. Perhaps there is still hope for the hopeless romantics out there. Here’s to hoping.