andrew_jorgensen | Fish with feet

Entry tags:

Fish with feet

My mother, who last week was installed as the new pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of Nowheresville, Michigan, just sent me this email:

As I listen to Diane Rheme talk about the Florida case, I would like to tell you my wishes. I do not want to be kep alive if I am in a persistent vegatative state is. After I reach 80 or so, I would like to die naturally. If I break my neck I do not want to be put in a halo. One of my parishioners who is over 90 broke her neck and is in a halo. It looks terribly painful.

To which I responded, "In that case, you really picked the wrong line of work. You should have stayed a lawyer – they never get put into haloes." Not that my mother, in her heretical Zen Presbyterianism, puts much stock in the concept of an afterlife -- or in many of the other tropes of Conservative Christianity. She really wants to get one of those Darwin Fish for her car, an act that might be seen as antagonistic to community values, judging from the number of Jesus Fish I saw affixed to cars on the Ohio and Indiana Turpikes when I drove up to visit her. (It should be noted that I was down with the Jesus Fish long before it sold out and went mainstream: it was an important symbol to Philip K. Dick, and as a crossword devotee, I love it just for its simplicity as an acrostic.)

However, if the Darwin Fish is antagonistic, those antagonised by it give as good as they get. Before I had even left the East side of Cleveland, I passed a car with the bumper sticker:

I felt a little antagonised myself, because I first thought that this was referring to the old canard that Darwin had renounced evolution on his deathbed, a canard that even creationists have abandoned. (The one story of a noted agnostic scientist undergoing a deathbed conversion to Christianity which is well documented is that of John Von Neumann, who was born into Judaism and spent most of his life as an atheist, but did in fact convert to Catholicism -- for the second time in his life -- while he lay dying in Walter Reed Hospital. Of course, Von Neumann was instrumental in the invention of game theory, and he may have just been taking Pascal's Wager.) After a moment of reflection, I decided that the bumper sticker was merely saying that Darwin, now that he is burning in Hell, has probably reconsidered, which is Argument No. 39 of the 519 Arguments for the Existence of God, the Argument From Post-Death Experience:

Person X died an atheist.
He now realizes his mistake.
Therefore, God exists.

In any case, while I like both the Jesus Fish and the Darwin Fish, I'm a little disappointed in some of the other options. Frankly, it's not enough for me just to say whether or not I accept evolution, I want the ability to say which of the strains of modern evolutionary theory ("modified descendants," if you will) I favor, all from the comfort of my driver's seat. For example, were I too favor a gradualistic view of evolution, I could paste the following to my bumper:

(Do note that I could stick an outline of an acacia tree in front of each fish and have a pretty good iconographic reduction of Lamarckianism.)

On the other hand, were I instead a subscriber to the theory of punctuated equilibrium, I could use this bumper sticker:

Though, as this representation still seems to buy into an implied progressive view of evolution, it's not the best description of Gouldianism. And while I'm misrepresenting the big names in popular evolutionary writing, I'll commit a false synecdoche and generalize Richard Dawkins's ascription of selfishness to genes to the organism as a whole:

I'm a little confused by adaptionism, and I'm a little confused by my own illustration of adaptionism.

I'm not sure whether the feet of the fish evolved as an adaption to the ecological niche provided by the abundance of soccer balls, or whether the soccer balls evolved in response to the presence of feet. It's probably co-evolution.

I like cladistics, I really do. It's a nifty little classification scheme. However, one might not be able to tell that I like it from:

That graphic demonstrates how I can't seem to break free from the progressivist view. It also shows a little break from actual physiology: tetrapods remain tetrapods, and unlike dragons, do not grow a set of true wings without repurposing another pair of limbs. I suppose my drawing skills are poor enough that I could get away with saying that that last fish has grown not wings but instead a complex back plate, in the manner of Stegosaurus, probably for the purpose of heat distribution.

Finally, we have what I consider an entirely accurate summation of Evolutionary Psychology:

Ahh, car fenders. They're the new Lyceum, I tell you!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Have you seen the ones at
http://www.meangene.com/darwin/taxonomy.html

RAS

I had not seen that page, though I have seen several of the fish variations before. But I had forgotten the Far Side one!

While at first glance it's a funny way to snub your nose at creationism by substituting a religious symbol (the fish) for a scientific symbol (the fish evolved into a land animal), at second glance it seems to imply (especially to a religious person who'd have a fish on their car) that you worship science.

Which isn't the case, in my case, anyway. I believe it's rational to accept most of the well-confirmed theories of science, like, say, the theory of evolution, but science is an evolving thing itself, modifying itself over time in response to new evidence, to human foilbles, to cultural changes. It's a human endeavor, a powerful one, but ultimately human.

And evolution is a case in point. Darwin is less the father of evolution than he is the father of the theory of Natural Selection, which is so heavily constrained by other factors, and is itself an almost unfalsifiable any time to you try to unpack the notion of what is "more fit".

By the way, I love those pictures. They just make my point (and yours, too, I imagine) about the variety of competing scientific models as we fallible humans try to hammer out the mysteries of the universe.

Thank you! I appreciate it, especially now that I know I had such a high-minded purpose! I was afraid my point had been merely "I have Photoshop."

to tell you what your purpose is. ; )

I need to get over my three-alarm headache before I can write you a proper response, but let me offer an outline here. I agree that observation of the facts which would lead one to think that organisms evolved predate Darwin, which is why his theory is more properly called "the theory of descent with modification by means of natural (and sexual) selection." I am not so sure that the natural selection part of the theory is unfalsifiable (or almost so). I will have to think about that. The notion of "survival of the fittest" to which you refer does contain some amount of tautology; however, I'm not certain that Darwin has to take much of the credit or the blame for "survival of the fittest" -- I think it's someone else's term. In any case, natural selection should not imply any exterior standard of fitness (or for that matter that nature has any standards of discernment at all).

I do not worship science. I worship LJ comments and those who leave them.

"Survival of the fittest" is indeed not Darwin's term. It comes from Herbert Spencer, who had written a number of evolution-like pieces in the decade before the publication of the first edition of Darwin's Origin of Species (1859). The idea of a "struggle for existence" was very much "in the air" and both men were influenced by Malthus. Spencer went on to write any number of works that purported to be based on evolution, and he was at one point wildly influential.

In later editions of the "Origin," Darwin specifically said that his principle of descent with modification by means of natural selection could accurately be described by the term "survival of the fittest", and gave Spencer credit for the term.

RAS

Yep, that explains a lot.

Yes, that's it exactly. It reminds me that Gould, at least, suggested that Darwin's best statement of his theory came in the first edition, before he included the "improvements."

On a different subject, do you mind if I ask how you found this? And, now that you've followed us home, can we keep you?

RAS is my father. I know

scrollgirl on LJ and happened to see this entry when i was checking out friendsfriends when i should have been doing my homework. volokh.com had been discussing bumper stickers and the Darwin fish, so i sent the link along to my dad.

-Elizabeth

P.S. I heart your UserInfo quote.

Wow! I feel honored to have people recommending me to family. I feel like a list of 600 blonde jokes! Seriously, be forewarned that if you send your father over here any more, I'm going to adopt him! And thanks for the pimpage (http://www.livejournal.com/users/hermionesviolin/268829/)!

I probably should have creditted that Volokh post, and the Chris Mooney post (http://www.chriscmooney.com/blog.asp#379) which led me there.

Friendsfriends is the most marvelous thing. I've been using it to follow the saga of whether or not you'd get to write the column you'd want. As both a former college newspaper columnist and someone interested in genetics, it tweaked my interest. Though I never had to get an editor to preapprove my subject choices!

masqthephlsphr gets all the credit for the UserInfo quote.

Thank you for stopping by! Do come again!

1) Blogs = HOTT!

2) Friendsfriends is so very marvelous. And aw, i have a following! *blushes* Okay, so only for one topic, but still. I seem to have a small fanclub on LJ, which is all flavors of weird, but i bask. (And so many of my friends have brilliant people on their lists whom i semi-stalk, so it's generally a happy land of intelligence and mutual admiration.)

3) Well yes i know you didn't write the quote, but reading it i thought "That's my kind of person!" It also reminded me of myself :) (Also, it occurs to me that i may be in your area over the winter holiday.)

Excellence is a range of differences, not a spot.

--Stephen J Gould, Full House

Which explains why I get so little done at work these days. : )

I used to teach philosophy of biology, and one of the things we would cover are the standards of evidence in evolutionary biology. Some critics of Adaptationist models charge that these scientists' main criteria for the soundness of a theory to explain the evolution of a species is that they can come up with some "plausible story" about why that species' ancestors were more fit than their competitors.

If the "plausible story" criterion is indeed the way they judge acceptable theories, they open themselves up to all sorts of speculation, biases, etc, especially when the traits they are talking about are behavioral (as opposed to strictly physiological).

I've slept on it, gotten rid of my headache, and decided that it's easier for me to just reject Popper than it is for me to craft a thoughtful response. I'm stuck in little language loops of what falsifiability means. Perhaps I need coffee, or just to be smarter.

The "Just So" story critique of adaptionism, especially when it comes to sociobiology, was one of Gould's favorites, and is certainly on the mark with much of the hyperadaptionism out there.

Well, Popper's main sin was being a philosopher. Trying to find "the" model of ideal scientific reasoning when there are in fact a gazillion of them in that messy thing called real life.

And trying to make his model of scientific reasoning precise and elegant, without realizing that the simpler the explanation, the less it explains in that messy thing called real life.

*giggles*

Love the fish! Especially the last one.

I liked that one too, as should now be apparent.

Around here a Darwin "fish" is an invitation for someone to vandalize your car.

I want a holographic one, that changes depending on the angle you look at it. That way the fundie nut jobs can have their comfy views and the rest of us can search for the truth ;-)

The "truth" is probably a combination of all of them. How would you show that?

Jeanie

Well, I'm not too big on "truth" myself. "Seek better questions" is more my style. Or would be if "seek" were my style. "Lie back in the comfort of one's own conceptions and let better questions perhaps drop by with some tea" might be a better description.

I can be a bit of a nut job too, probably more so than most Christians I know.

of the Touched by a Miracle show. Or as my friends and I call it, the The Anti-Darwin Show. Heartwarming stories of people who did not receive a Darwin award, despite strong efforts.

I'm not familiar with that show -- this will come as no shock to anyone.

My central evil nature makes me wonder if they'll do a follow-up show years from now called Regression To The Mean.

Your "central evil nature" makes you a probable Calvinist. On the other hand I know that were you to actually be a Christian, you would be the last Calvinist Presbyterian. (Yes, I can split infinitives since I don't write in Latin.) I'm not sure what to make of the evolution/darwin fish discussion particularly in view of the fact that I spawned if not the discussion, then you. I reiterate my prior message to you that you have a phonemonal take on life and a wry sense of humor.

I welcome the splitting of infinitives, though speaking of linguistics, I'm still wondering how phonemes come into the whole thing.

It has nothing to do with phonemes, it has to do with telephones! You have a telephone take on life--distant but local at the same time. OK so I can't spell. (And my sense of humor is unfortunately mostly forced.) I used to be able to spell, but it is a casualty (or causality)of old age (and my dyslexia). (Next time I'll use the spell check.)

....Sorry, still laughing at the usericon under which you posted this. Ah, JW, how Thou'rt fallen.

My contributions to this debate are as follows:
1) Even the "plausible story" standard of evidence is more than the faith-based explanations have going for 'em;
2) I guess I subscribe to Dawkinsism, primarily because the man is so damn charming;
3) Science *is* a religion to too many people (i.e. they place undue, uncritical faith in it -- I'm talking about laypersons here, not prof'l scientists;
4) I'm adding you, but how do I know you?? An abundance of Faith icons (heh) in your comments section suggests....but then again....eh, what the heck. ATHEISTS UNTIE!!

I'll skip straight to number four:

The simplest, most true and least helpful answer to the question of how you know me is that Chris Wiggins introduced us sometime in late August, 1990. If you can't figure it out from my User Info page (http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=dherblay),

lynnmonster can. That little bit "john sladek (http://www.livejournal.com/interests.bml?int=john+sladek), lawrence block (http://www.livejournal.com/interests.bml?int=lawrence+block)" should be a dead giveaway.

OH MY FUCKING GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@!!!

AIM me you crazy bastard! rvkhNZ

I'd love to, but I have aversions to any product from AOL. I'm generally on Yahoo Messenger, though; my ID is the first four letters of my last name followed by my given (i.e., middle) name, no spaces or underscores or anything.

Okay, well that would be nice in theory, except my Trillian is all screwy and I don't know how to fix it. AIM is so delightfully idiot-proof.....can't you think of it as taking something from evil AOL without giving anything in return? I do.

In other news, I never knew you had a middle name. I'm going to assume it's your first name that you've kept shrouded in impenetrable mystery this whole time.

Oh, wait, that was Imara.

You gave me quite a turn there for a sec.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Fish with feet

Loved your fish!

Thank you!

Why I will never have one of those Darwin fish on my car

Re: Why I will never have one of those Darwin fish on my car

Re: Why I will never have one of those Darwin fish on my car

Luckily you have philosopher friends

Re: Why I will never have one of those Darwin fish on my car

Re: Why I will never have one of those Darwin fish on my car

"Survival of those who survive"

Re: Why I will never have one of those Darwin fish on my car

Too cute!

Re: Too cute!

Re: Too cute!

Re: Spurious Stephenism

LJ comments are big fun!

On the unfalsifiability thing

Re: On the unfalsifiability thing

Rejecting Popper

no subject

Thank you!

Now make one combining them all :-)

Thank you!

Which somehow makes me think

Re: Which somehow makes me think

Re: Which somehow makes me think

Hey mom!

Re: Hey mom!

Hahahahaha

Re: Hahahahaha

Re: Hahahahaha

Re: Hahahahaha

Re: Hahahahaha

Re: Hahahahaha

My first name is "Clovis"

Re: My first name is "Clovis"