An old joke, but serious business for anthropologists and archaeologists studying the introduction of poultry to South America. Introduction of chickens to South America by European explorers had been proposed (or assumed), but Pizarro documented the presence of chickens among the Inca at contact. Researchers at the University of Aukland, using commensal modeling (studying distribution patterns of animals typically found with humans, such as rats, dogs, and domestic species), came to an interesting conclusion published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Examining mitochondrial DNA sequences from 12 samples collected at El-Arenal-1 in Chile, Alice Storey and colleagues found that the sequences match those found at prehistoric sites in Polynesia – Mele Havea in Tonga (2,000-1,550 BP) and Fatu-ma-Futi in American Samoa (AD 700-1390). The chicken bones found at El Arenal-1 were radiocarbon dated to between 1304-1424 AD, meaning they were present on the west coast of South America prior to Spanish or Portuguese contact on the east coast of the continent around AD 1500.

Radiocarbon and DNA evidence for a pre-Columbian introduction of Polynesian chickens to Chile is an important study in two ways. One, it provides the first direct proof of Polynesian contact with South America. (See this post). And since chickens aren’t known for being great fliers, they must have instead come by boat, or in this case, Polynesian sewn plank canoes. Two, it demonstrates what DNA analysis of other types of archaeological remains (not just human) can tell us about human migration patterns.

–
Image adapted from Storey, A., Ramirez, J., Quiroz, D., Burley, D., Addison, D., Walter, R., Anderson, A., Hunt, T., Athens, J., Huynen, L., & Matisoo-Smith, E. (2007). Radiocarbon and DNA evidence for a pre-Columbian introduction of Polynesian chickens to Chile Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104 (25), 10335-10339 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0703993104

Sometimes I see a headline that just stops me in my tracks. This morning, I saw this headline: “O’Reilly: Like Iran, ‘the reason North Korea is causing trouble is that it wants to influence the November Election’“!

What?! Huh?!

In my world travels I have learned this: from the perspective of those outside the United States, our two parties are not substantially different. What we call ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’ is all right wing conservative in other countries. We’re quibbling about what shade of turquoise it is, really.

So, it stands to reason from that perspective, then, that they could care less who the hell the US President is; it’s all the same to them. We’re still a bunch of pushy, arrogant, self-righteous, Christian-bible-thumping, science-fearing idiots looking for an excuse to go to war and take your oil.

How self-centered must you be to actually think that the rest of the world, or anybody in the world outside the US, is following our political elections that closely; or better yet, actively seeking to influence them for personal gain? How seriously have your critical thinking skills lapsed to conclude that a complete replacement of Republicans with Democrats, as unlikely as that is, will somehow benefit North Korea in a meaningful way? Hello?!

Even if the US went totally soft on North Korea, it has little bearing on how the UN will handle it; or, moreover, how China will or Russia will. We are but one country.

That’s right, the Oklahoma legistlature – the last bastion of the morally upright – has untwisted its knickers enough to allow legal tattooing. Tattooing was legal in all 49 other states, and will finally be legal in Oklahoma this November, reversing a law that’s been on the books since 1963! However, it’s still illegal to hunt whales or take a bite out of someone else’s hamburger. Baby steps….

I ran across this article this morning, and felt compelled to bring it up. I find it truly stunning, the lengths the Bush administration seem to go to, to silence information like this. I’ve said it before: this is not a problem we can ignore and hope it goes away. Whether you believe it’s happening or not, the stakes are high enough to at least let people know and look into it. It sickens me to think how irrational that group, as a whole, appears to be if they are censoring critical information of this nature to support a political ideology.

Viterbo, Italy, is the venue where Rev. Enrico Righi is being sued by atheist Luigi Cascioli, for allegedly deceiving people into thinking Jesus was an actual historical figure.

“This complaint does not wish to contest the freedom of Christians to profess their faith, sanctioned by [article] 19 of the Italian Constitution,” says Cascioli, “but wishes to denounce the abuse that the Catholic Church commits by availing itself of its prestige in order to inculcate – as if being real and historical – facts that are really just inventions.”

Attorneys for Righi and Cascioli presented their arguments before Judge Gaetano Mautone in a closed hearing.
“The point is not to establish whether Jesus existed or not, but if there is a question of possible fraud,” said Cascioli’s attorney, Mauro Fonzo, according to the Associated Press.

Although Cascioli and his attorney know their case has little chance of success in the home of the Roman Catholic Church, their strategy is to go through the necessary legal steps that will enable them, ultimately, to bring their case before the European Court of Human Rights. There, says Fonzo, he will accuse the church of “religious racism,” said the report.

Cascioli, the author of “The Fable of Christ,” claims his childhood friend violated local laws against deception when he stated in a 2002 parish gazette “that the historic figure of Jesus was the son of Joseph and Mary (two totally imaginary characters and therefore historically non existing [claims Cascioli]); of having the same Jesus been born in the village of Bethlehem and of having grown up in Nazareth.”

Specifically, Cascioli says Righi has broken two Italian laws: the “abuse of popular belief” – which amounts to intentionally deceiving someone – and “impersonation” – meaning one gains by giving a false name to someone.

On his website, Cascioli alleges the person known as Jesus is “for the most part based on the figure of John of Gamala, son of Judas, downright descendant of the Asmoneian stock.”

Rev. Righi says the existence of Jesus is “unmistakable” due to a wealth of both pagan and Christian evidence pointing to his reality.

“Cascioli maintains that Christ never existed. If he doesn’t see the sun at midday, he can’t denounce me just because I do. He should denounce all believers!” Righi told the London Times recently.

Among his examples are the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, thought by scholars to be the most important non-Christian source on the issue. One of his passages of “Jewish Antiquities,” a work completed in A.D. 93, mentions the execution in A.D. 62 of “the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, James by name.”

Cascioli declares he is not intent on having the matter be decided by a court of law, saying, “I wrote to [Righi] an open letter, stating that I would withdraw the lawsuit if he were capable of supplying proof, just one proof, of the historical existence of Jesus.”

South Dakota state senators are expected to vote today on a bill that would ban most abortions. The bill has already passed the house, the republicans hold a majority in the senate, and the republican governor, Michael Rounds, is an abortion opponent. Supporters of the bill are hoping for a court challenge if it passes, which opponents have promised. Given the new appointments on the Supreme Court, supporters hope to have a challenge case that would provide the court with the opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade, and deny all American women the right to safe, legal, reproductive health services.

“I’m convinced that the timing is right for this,” said state Rep. Roger Hunt, a Republican who has sponsored the bill, noting the appointments of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the court.

“The strong possibility of a third appointee sometime soon makes this all very real and very viable,” Hunt added, a reference to conjecture that Justice John Paul Stevens, 85, might soon retire. “I think it will all culminate at the right time.”¹

–
¹South Dakota lawmakers mull outlawing abortion

The defense gets its turn today in the Dover Intelligent Design trial, and first up will be Dr. Michael Behe of Lehigh University. His involvement in the ID movement (he testified in the Kansas School Board Debate also) have prompted the faculty of his department to release the following statement:

The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.

The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of “intelligent design.” While we respect Prof. Behe’s right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.¹

–
¹ Department Position on Evolution and “Intelligent Design”

Monday, a group of 85 scientists filed a “friends of the court” brief with Judge Jones, asking that he refuse to rule in the case on the grounds that:

1) The nature of science is not something to be decided by the courts.

Maybe not, but the Supreme Court has already weighed in on what is NOT science. In the 1987 decision in Aguillard vs. Edwards, the court ruled that creationism should not be given equal time in science classes because it is fundamentally a religious principle.

These same historic and contemporaneous antagonisms between the teachings of certain religious denominations and the teaching of evolution are present in this case. The preeminent purpose of the Louisiana Legislature was clearly to advance the religious viewpoint that a supernatural being created humankind. The term “creation science” was defined as embracing this particular religious doctrine by those responsible for the passage of the Creationism Act. Senator Keith’s leading expert on creation science, Edward Boudreaux, testified at the legislative hearings that the theory of creation science included belief in the existence of a supernatural creator. Senator Keith also cited testimony from other experts to support the creation-science view that “a creator [was] responsible for the universe and everything in it.” The legislative history therefore reveals that the term “creation science,” as contemplated by the legislature that adopted this Act, embodies the religious belief that a supernatural creator was responsible for the creation of humankind. ¹

2) Dissent within the scientific community is healthy.

Absolutely, but because it is the scientific community, dissenters on both sides must have a scientific basis for their hypotheses. Saying that gaps exist in one theory does not prove another theory true.

3) Existing scientific establishments are sometimes unable to admit the possibility that they are wrong.

Not true. Science is built on the notion that the discovery of new data may require a reformulation of current hypotheses. Evolution and natural selection have undergone rigorous testing for the last 146 years. In their brief, the friends of the court admit:

The current formulation of intelligent design theory by its proponents, and its application to recent scientific discoveries, is still in its youth compared to many other scientific theories.

Perhaps intelligent design should be considered if it can withstand 146 years of scientific scrutiny.

4) Religious motivations [of the researchers] are irrelevant to the scientific merits of a hypothesis.

The religious motivations of the researchers should certainly not be relevant to determining the merits of a hypothesis, but I would argue that ID proponents are misusing the scientific method. The scientific method works by developing hypotheses based on observations, not by creating a hypothesis and then finding data that appear to support it.

It is not a coincidence that the authors of Of Pandas and People changed the wording of their book from creationist to intelligent design proponent and from creator to designer, as witness Dr. Barbara Forrest demonstrated this week in court. The changes were made after the Supreme Court ruling in 1987, but they reveal that ID has a patent religious bias, and that is not science.

–
¹ EDWARDS, GOVERNOR OF LOUISIANA, ET AL. v. AGUILLARD ET AL. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. 482 U.S. 578, December 10, 1986, Argued; June 19, 1987, Decided

The Dover, PA School Board appeared in federal court today to defend their decision that students in 9th grade biology class be read the following disclaimer before learning about evolution:

The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.

At court today, defense lawyer Patrick Gillen stated, “This case is about free inquiry and education, not about a religious agenda,” while board president Sheila Harkins insisted, “The whole thought behind it was to encourage critical thinking” and the notion that board members were motivated by personal religious beliefs was “not true at all” (See full story here – subscription required).

Mr. Gillen and Ms. Harkins should have mentioned that to Rev. Ed Rowand, Dover school board member, who said in in an interview with the York Daily Record after his Sunday service that the lawsuit resulted from :

“…intolerance from those that are sure that evolution is the only explanation…Intelligent design, as I see it, is science. I see a designer, an intelligent designer. Intelligent design does not tell me who that is, and we’re not saying who that is. I know God created it, but that isn’t the issue.”

Wrong, Rev. Rowand, that is exactly the issue.

Emboldened by success with the KBOE, anti-evolutionists are taking the battle to natural history museums.

increasingly…guides find themselves face-to-face with patrons angry that the museum’s exhibits use evolution to explain the history of dinosaurs and fossils.

Read the full story here.

An official at KU’s Museum of Natural History responds:

“It’s like with any information. It’s up to a well-educated citizenry to make good use for it, and museums are no different. We can’t force visitors to think a certain way.”

I think well-educated is the key here, and in that vein, KU, in conjunction with other midwestern museums, has developed the Exploring Evolution traveling exhibit to showcase current research on evolution. If it’s coming to a museum near you, you should check it out.