Strollerderby : evolution

Danger Babies: Why Why Why?

Amy Kuras — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 20:01:00 GMT

I am heading into Toddlerdom: The Sequel so one would think I am fairly imperturbable by now, but not so much. Reading this story from USA Today about the terrifying near-misses toddlers get themselves into alternately made me laugh, screech in horror and knock every piece of wood I could reach, lest I tempt fate by finding any of this the least bit amusing.

We’re talking kids who unlock gates and toddle into the street – at 18 months of age. When they had been sound asleep in bed. Twins who boost each other over the baby gate.

This makes my near misses sound mild (my daughter pulled her toy shelf onto herself and a TV down on the floor, both of which still give me the twitches when I think about how lucky we were things were not much, much worse).

But there are some evolutionary reasons for this heart-stopping behavior, apparently. Gumming everything may expose them to tiny amounts of germs that help strengthen their immune systems, and eating dirt maybe gets them some iron (I don’t know, my daughter was borderline anemic and my funniest memory of her first mobile summer was watching her sit in the garden while I worked and just fling dirt over her head and attempt to eat it).

Of course, then you’d think evolution would breed this dangerous behavior out of them –but children in early hunter gather cultures were carried in slings throughout toddlerhood, giving hem less opportunity to get into stuff.

Honestly, I think it’s better for kids to be a little more free-range once they can stand on their own little feet. Even the most dedicated babywearers I know tend to let them down a little more once they are bigger, and both my kids have to be on the move to be happy.

But there are days when swaddling him in bubble wrap doesn’t seem like the worst idea. What’s your best “mear miss” moment with a toddler?

Happy Birthday Charles Darwin!

Shannon LC Cate — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 23:30:00 GMT

Guess who's 200 today? Yes, yes, Abraham Lincoln. But down to the year, Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin were born on the same day. One put down a revolution. One started one.

I am a big fan of Charles Darwin and always sad to see him maligned by creation "science" types claiming that evolution, being "only a theory" is therefore not worthy of being taught in school science classes. I wonder if those folks are willing to jump out a window, since, after all, gravity is only a theory.

Darwin's latest attackers, in the form of Seattle's Discovery Institute planned to usurp the usual Darwin Day celebrations in schools interested in participating instead in what they call "Academic Freedom Day." They planned to promote "debate of evidence for and against evolution."

When roughly 100% of the professional scientific community is in agreement on something, it seems a bit beyond debate to me. You?

If you'd like to celebrate Darwin with your kids at home, my favorite kid-friendly book on the subject of his life and work is The Tree of Life by Peter Sis. Sis's beautifully, intricately illustrated story of the Life of Charles Darwin is a captivating choice for older children (8 and up--up to you, in fact!)

Happy Darwin Day. May we all evolve a little this year.

image: an illustration from Peter Sis's The Tree of Life

Your Kid is Getting a Texan Education: Even if You Live in Connecticut

Shannon LC Cate — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 23:02:00 GMT

As Texas works to revise its science education guidelines for public schools, concern has surfaced that "loopholes" will be pushed into the standards allowing religious-based "creationism" into the public school curriculum. A mandate to teach evolution's "strengths and weaknesses" worries Church-State separation watchdogs who point to Louisiana's similar wording, which also includes permission for teachers to use "supplemental materials" to teach evolution's "weaknesses."

The reason Texas's policy matters so much is that, as the second largest purchaser of textbooks (after California), that state's policies have a way of influencing the content of textbooks that are offered for sale everywhere else.

How long will it take before we all agree that public education in this country is not for prostletizing? Here's an enlightening anecdote:

A friend of mine was teaching an introductory class in American religion at the college level. When she brought up the debate about creationism in public school science classes, many of her students were confused. It seems she had students in the class who represented religions with at least three distinct creation myths (yes, I said "myths") and they were puzzled as to which of these stories it was that the public schools were teaching as science.

It is puzzling indeed--and proof of how critical it is in a pluralistic society to keep religious instruction in the private realm.

Pain in Childbirth May Be, Well, Pointless Now?

Kelly Mills — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 21:33:00 GMT

Hmmm, this is real interesting. Some natural childbirth advocates suggest that the pain in childbirth adds something valuable to the birth process, helping mothers bond with their babies and even bringing um, sexual pleasure (in some cases, but not mine, oh lordy no!) However, a study discussed here in Salon (via Jezebel) suggests that theory may be backwards. Instead, labor and delivery pain might have served to signal to the mother that she should seek assistance, and in fact drive her to desire "companionship and security" from others. From an evolutionary standpoint, this could have meant people who sought help and protection during times like childbirth and illness were more likely to survive. (Hey, if the degree of labor pain indicated individual evolutionary fitness, I would have totally had it made! Um, it doesn't, by the way.)

So, if pain has simply functioned to drive delivering mothers to seek companionship (personals ad, anyone?) then perhaps it's a perk we don't really need any more. And it could be that people are suffering without it serving any real need. Cough.

Okay, I'm sorry, but I like this take on things, curmudgeon that I am. I do think in some circles there's a strange sort of romanticism attached to labor pain, and even the idea of "natural" childbirth as being somehow noble or righteous. Buuut, that said, there are risks attached to the interventions designed to alleviate the pain of labor, and women should be informed of those as well before making any decision. I think the problem is that childbirth is so fraught with anxiety for so many of us---not only because it hurts, but because lots of us want to make the "right" choice for our babies and ourselves. Turns out "right" for me was an blessed, welcome epidural administered after I tried to go natural for a long time, but I would not think of telling you it ought to be the right way for you.

Only 43% of British Moms Offered Home Birth. Outrage!

They Say: Antibiotics For Preterm Labor May Do More Harm Than Good

Come Again? Orgasmic Childbirth

Related on Babble:

Insufferable: Why do people talk about managing birth pain, not eliminating it?

Morning News: McCain's Best Debate, But ...

Madeline Holler — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 13:00:00 GMT

On the one hand, last night's presidential debate -- the third and, can you believe it, final -- was John McCain's best. He got off a couple of zingers ("if you wanted to run against George Bush, you should have run four years ago"), used "air quotes" effectively (if you respond to that kind of thing, which we do), he introduced the personal story of a plumber/entrepeneur Joe to good effect, he actually looked at his opponent, smiled, shook hands vigorously.

He even said "good job" at the end of the night.

Yet ... yet. John McCain came across uncomfortable, tightly wound and also ... as a bit doddering.

McCain returned to Joe the Plumber one too many times. He said Obama voted against Stephen Breyer for Supreme Court justice when he meant Samuel Alito. One set of air quotes mocked a women's health exception for abortion. And he seemed to be saying, there at the end, that Sarah Palin's son was special needs because of autism (goes without saying, it's Down syndrome). Sadly for McCain, never before have we heard such convincing arguments from Obama that Ayers means nothing to him or his campaign. John McCain made that happen.

No surprise then that the markets are betting big on Obama.

But Karl Rove says that Obama still hasn't closed the deal, while acknowledging that if McCain indeed wins the election, it will be the most impressive comeback ever.

If you're stressed at all about the long-term effect of the financial markets meltdown, don't read this. Those recessions you remember after the tech bubble burst and following 9/11 were nothing compared to what's really in store.

The good news? If you've been saving to buy a home -- and for some reason resisted funky loan offers -- prices are still falling and will likely continue through 2009 and beyond.

Know who won't get hit with hard times? TV characters! Here's the reality check on what TV's favorite people would make in real life.

Real-life TV people David Duchovny and Tea Leoni are splitting up. Seems his sex addiction got in the way of their relationship. (At least Madonna and Guy Ritchie won't feel so alone.)

Here's something many a divorcee or dumpee can vouch for: losing a partner makes you depressed. Meanwhile, bonding with one releases a loyalty chemical.

Child development experts say parents who go on all those nanny shows aren't being loyal to their children. They say these programs, which showcase kids at their absolute worst, invade children's privacy and may cause long-term harm.

Don't tell Sarah Palin but a fish fossil discovered in northern Canada gives clues to patterns in evolution. And that's really all we have for Daily Palin, except that Barack Obama wouldn't say she's qualified to be president and John McCain still can't say how. OK fine, we have this little gem too: she denies that she's ever been negative about her running mate's opponent. Because if there's one thing we all want said about us it's that we pal around with terrorists! Does she listen to herself, like, ever? Oops. Last bit: she's pretty much lost all credibilty at back home in Alaska.

Finally, a speedy recovery to Nancy Reagan. She at the hospital recovering from a broken pelvis. Think she watched the debates? Or Nanny 911?

Photo: MSNBC.com

Palin Claimed Dinosaurs and People Coexisted

SunnyChanel — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:47:00 GMT

You know when little Johnny is playing with his dinosaurs and he starts to have them attack little Sally’s Barbies? While Sally starts to cry hysterically, you calmly explain that dinosaurs existed before people and that this run-in would have never actually happened. But in Sarah Palin’s house? Barbie isn’t safe at all. Palin once claimed that men and dinosaurs coexisted and that Earth was created 6000 years ago even though scientists say that dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago.

According to Wasilla resident and educator Philip Munger, he asked Mayor Palin in 1997 about her religious beliefs in a casual conversation.

"Palin told him that "dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time,". When he asked her about prehistoric fossils and tracks dating back millions of years, Palin said "she had seen pictures of human footprints inside the tracks," recalled Munger, who teaches music at the University of Alaska in Anchorage and has regularly criticized Palin in recent years on his liberal political blog, called Progressive Alaska.

The idea of a "young Earth"—that God created the Earth about 6,000 years ago, and dinosaurs and humans coexisted early on—is a popular strain of creationism.

Though in her race for governor she called for faith-based "intelligent design" to be taught along with evolution in Alaska's schools, Gov. Palin has not sought to require it, state educators say.

In a widely-circulated interview, Matt Damon said of Palin, "I need to know if she really think that dinosaurs were here 4000 years ago. I want to know that, I really do. Because she's gonna have the nuclear codes." "

Barbie better hide.

Via Huffington Post

Let There Be Science in Science Class

LilySea — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 13:36:00 GMT

According to the Wilmington Star-News the school board of Brunswick North Carolina is considering putting creationism in the science curriculum. Says board member, Jimmy Hobbs, "It's really a disgrace for the state school board to impose evolution on our students without teaching creationism. The law says we can't have Bibles in schools, but we can have evolution, of the atheists."

Though declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1987, as well as plenty of lesser courts, teaching creationism—especially in its new, not-so-secret identity of “Intelligent Design”—as some kind of gesture towards intellectual “balance” is a horse some folks seem determined to just keep beating.

How I wish I could be sure that horse was dead. But with creationist, Sarah Palin, on the Republican presidential ticket, a parent can never be too sure. As someone who is neither an atheist nor a creationist, the insistance on either-or rhetoric in public discussions of this topic drives me insane. Everybody I know "believes" in evolution. If "belief" is indeed the right word to apply to something as scientifically certain as gravity. Ninety-nine percent of the people I know believe in a higher power. Of those, 75% at least are Christians. The fundamentalist theocrats trying to claim that creationism is the Christian "side" of this debate are falsely representing pretty much every Christian I know. And it's a lie that kids can't have Bibles in schools. That would be as unconstitutional as teaching creationism.

Teaching Evolution as Theory not fact

Brett Singer — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 15:00:00 GMT

An article in last week's New York Times discussed a major hot-button issue in schools across the country: evolution vs. creationism, or its offshoot, intelligent design.

It's a long article, and certainly worth reading. I won't try to summarize the whole piece in this post, but the big surprise for me was that it was less about two competing theories/beliefs, or even about science versus religion. It was about a teacher who, in my opinion, has the patience of Job.

That teacher is David Campbell, who teaches Biology in Orange Park, Florida. The story the article tells is not of him fighting with parents, the school board, or local churches. Actually, he's not fighting with anyone. This quote sums up his attitude nicely:

"He scanned the faces of the sophomores in his Biology I class. Many of them, he knew from years of teaching high school in this Jacksonville suburb, had been raised to take the biblical creation story as fact. His gaze rested for a moment on Bryce Haas, a football player who attended the 6 a.m. prayer meetings of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes in the school gymnasium.

"'If I do this wrong,' Mr. Campbell remembers thinking on that humid spring morning, 'I’ll lose him.'"

His main concern is not "proving" anything one way or the other. It's teaching.

"'Faith is not based on science,' Mr. Campbell said. 'And science is not based on faith. I don’t expect you to ‘believe’ the scientific explanation of evolution that we’re going to talk about over the next few weeks. But I do expect you to understand it.'"

That, to me, is the bottom line. Campbell's students, although they probably don't think so, are incredibly lucky to have him.

image/source: NYTimes

Are your kids aware of the election?

They Say: no link between autism and measles vaccine

Palin family online - real or fake?

McCain, Palin oppose teen pregnancy aid and sex education

Toys R Us Says Government Safety Standards Not Good Enough

Teaching Abstinence Doesn’t Work: Palin’s Preggo Kid.

Dad arrested for leaving son at McDonald's

Green products that don't work

For a good marriage, women need to stay home

33 year old mom wins silver medal, saves son from leukemia

Evolution Bad: Ben Stein’s Intelligent Design

Cole Gamble — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:31:00 GMT

We interrupt your regularly scheduled animosity toward Scientology with this Religious News Break. Did you know there is a conspiracy to squelch the teachings of Intelligent Design from our schools? Once again those fat cats at Big Science are choking us with their “truths” when what our children really clamor for is the rebel yell that is Intelligent Design.

At least, that’s what Ben Stein wants you to think. Stein stars in a new documentary called Expelled which asserts that creationism must be taken seriously by scientists. Among Mr. Stein and the filmmakers’ persuasive points: the theory of evolution paved the way for the holocaust…

Bueller? Bueller?

Expelled just opened last Friday, so if you want to catch it, you might wanna go soon. I predict it will have a short theatrical life and then enjoy a resurrection of cult-like following on DVD.

Before I jump into my rant let’s get to the questions for you. I realize I might make a lot of assumptions about our reading audience on Babble. Perhaps there are more intelligent design supporters out there than I give credit, so let me ask: do you think there is room for intelligent design in school curriculums? Is there room for it anywhere? Do you think it’s harmful to view it as a credible alternative to evolution?

Still here? Okay. Here’s MY big question: Why do science and religion have to go head-to-head ever? Pardon the cliché, but they are apples and oranges. In my mind, the two deal in categories of thought completely exclusive from one another. In other words:

Science looks for KNOWING. How do the chemicals in our brains create the sensation of love? How do they create pain?

Religion looks for MEANING. What does love mean? What does hurting mean?

As I have mentioned before, I believe faith and reason can coexist, we just need to know where they belong. Knowledge belongs in schools, faith belongs in churches. I don’t know why understanding the separation is so hard. I wouldn’t swing a bat in a china shop, nor would I bring an antique vase to a baseball game. Religion is a philosophy. It’s meaningful, but not fact. Biblical fact is not fact. You can’t apply the tenets of any philosophy to answer a scientific matter. That’s why you will never see a mechanic fix a Volkswagen by applying the Socratic Method.

Trying to shoehorn faith into the construct of science is as ill-fitting as, well, trying to pass a camel through the eye of a needle. Intelligent design is a closed system. Where science is always reaching out for answers, intelligent design draws a box around everything we understand and calls everything outside that box “God.” Case closed. Makes it hard to find new cures for diseases when you’ve already determined that is unknowable. Back in the early days of man, when there was no science only religion, the average human lifespan was under 30. If you are reading this and over the age of thirty, science is what got you here. Intelligent design, not so much.

How many minutes does Intelligent Design have left in the public’s attention span? Intelligent design just doesn’t seem like a concept that has legs. (You might argue it’s always been there, but thrusting it as an “empirically” proven theory to sit along side evolution seems like a rather modern and perhaps desperate positioning.)

Finally, it kind of hurts my heart because I had a soft spot for Ben Stein, silly old conservative he is. Yeah he was a speechwriter for Nixon. Yes, he’s responsible for Jimmy Kimmel, and by extension, responsible for The Man Show. His stint as host of a game show that might have actually been harder than Jeopardy gave me the impression that he is a man who puts intelligence first, not “intelligence.” I met him once and he seemed like a genuinely nice man (not that he shouldn’t be) full of curiosity. We were in a theatre I worked and he grilled me about the history of the theatre and this crazy thing called “improv” that we performed there. He just struck me as someone who valued knowledge and wanted to know more about everything he encountered. Oh well.

Next Up: Degrees In Flat Earth Studies And The Geocentric Model Of The Universe

Amy S.F. Lutz — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 18:40:00 GMT

As if online degrees weren't dubious enough, now the Institute for Creation Research, in Dallas, Texas, is preparing to offer an online master's degree in Creation Studies.

Although evolution would be part of the curriculum, the program would only be open to "students who believe that God created the universe in six days and that those who deny Jesus Christ face eternal damnation," according to United Press International. Participants must also denounce the standard Christian no-nos of adultery and homosexuality.

The whole notion of a degree in Creation Studies would be ridiculous if it weren't so scary. According to the head of the Institute's science education department (science education, people!), graduates would be qualified to teach in public schools. And the Texas Commissioner of Higher Education is meeting with these religious fanatics to discuss their new degree. In fact, he was the one who suggested the nifty name, "Creation Studies." It seems to me that the state of Texas conferring any legitimacy at all to such purely religious piffle is a violation of church and state, but what do I know?

Why Don't Pregnant Women Tip Over?

Madeline Holler — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 23:18:00 GMT

I'll answer that: my huge ass served as a sturdy anchor. So the better question is, why don't skinny pregnant twigs like Nichole Richie tip over.

I can answer that too. Anthropologists who studied the spines of living and long-dead fossilized women found that the vertabrae evolved over time specifically to keep pregnant women balanced and capable of running away from predators (like the fetus-fetishizing paparazzi?)

The researcher studied the lower spine of 19 modern-day pregnant women and found the lower back extends across three vertabrae in women and just two in men. Moreover, the connecting points were larger and the bones themselves shaped in a way that allowed them to stack without shifting or breaking. All this gives the female lumbar greater range of motion, which allows them to lean back as the size of their bellies increases, keeping them from toppling over when they walk (but not helping them in the least when trying to put on boots at 37 weeks gestation).

But why the difference? Evolution, of course!

The women who had this genetic mutation survived to have babies who also survived who had babies who also survived ... all because they could forage and get away from predators despite an enormous mid-section.

It's imperfect, since pregnant women still often complain of back pain. But like many traits that evolved, it's good enough. Especially if you have a skilled masseuse.