MICE IN A RED STATE, & A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT

Eric in Mérida sent along a link to a new article in The Atlantic, by Ed Yong, entitled The Wild Experiment That Showed Evolution in Real Time. Evolutionary scientists established two large, identical enclosures, except that one had dark soil, the other light. Both enclosures were populated with local mice whose individual coats displayed the normal variation of hues. Owls more easily spotted dark-furred mice on light soil, so in the light soil pen more light-furred mice survived to produce offspring; over the generations the average coat color of the whole population drifted toward lighter fur. It was the opposite in the dark-soil pen.

This is exactly what textbooks have been telling us happens for decades. However, the general principles of how evolution works have been so obvious, and so frequently confirmed in the lab, that very seldom have they been tested in the field, which this study did. Also, these researchers went further than usual, identifying the gene responsible for the mice's coat color, plus they figured out how mutations in that gene affected inherited color.

Still, the study basically just ties the knot on a body of insight that's been around for a long time. For me, the most interesting feature of the experiment is that it dealt with evolution, yet took place in Nebraska where roughly a third of the citizens believe that species were created as they are now, and another third believe in evolution, but through God's design.

Recognizing the ticklish situation, when talking to local people the researchers just didn't use the word "evolution." They simply told people what they were doing, and sometimes over some beer shared accounts of what they were seeing. Local folks remained friendly and supportive.

Rowan Barrett, project leader, explained that even though the locals might react negatively to the word "evolution," many people in the area were farmers who understood about inheritance and genetics. Many were hunters well aware of Nature's survival of the fittest. They knew about natural variation, and that a slow deer was easier to shoot than a fast deer. "Inheritance, variation, fitness... all the pieces are there," explained Barrett.

So, if we conduct a mind-experiment in which one enclosure consists of predominantly conservative, religious, red-state people like Nebraskans, and another enclosure is predominantly populated with the kind of people in the blue states, in the long run, citizens in which pen will prove to be best adapted and thus survive longer?

At first I assumed that blue-state people would survive longer because they're more open to new ideas and therefore can evolve new mental adaptations for the changing world. However, remembering Barrett's observation that his red-staters understood the importance of inheritance, variation, and fitness, I contrasted that with the situation among blue-staters. Most people in the more urban blue states, my experience has been, don't have that basic, first-hand experience. And I believe that having personal insight into inheritance, variation and fitness is much more adaptive for sustainable living on Earth than not having them.

But, the mind-experiment didn't stop there. Also my experience is that many red staters let religious doctrine and simplistic political notions affect their judgment and behavior, neutralizing any deep-seated, natural insights they may have. Also, blue staters tend to not live up to their own "progressive" ideals, maybe doing things like driving a hundred miles to buy a basket of apples advertised as organic and locally produced.

After experiments are conducted and data are collected and analyzed, conclusions are stated. When I analyze all the above, and factor in the proven fact that the behavior and thinking of most people can be swayed one way or another by artful propaganda, I come to the conclusion that reality is too tricky and the human mind too vulnerable to too many influences for anyone to be sure about the appropriateness and survivability -- or the "goodness" or "badness" -- of his or her own thinking and behavior.

Also, both the Nebraska and the mind experiment remind me of this: That whatever the soil color you're born onto, what's important is the diversity in the population. Without diversity there can't be competition, and without competition there can be no weeding out of unsustainable ways of being and thinking. And without this weeding out, there can be no adaptive evolution of the population in an ever-changing Universe.