Pretty Boy

Shelly's off earning her keep, so here's a little DWD instead.

Recently, and on a multiple occasions, I've been informed I'm a pretty boy (yeah, one occasion was Shelly). I spent some time contemplating the definition, comparing my behaviors and attributes to the designation.
Here's how I earned the moniker in my rural county of residence.

Grooming
As a pretty boy, I use my razor daily unless my wife is away. What's more, I use it on my entire face, no sparing of chin or upper lip. Or both at the same time.


Wardrobe
 First of all, I have a walk-in closet. I can almost open a drawer and a cupboard door simultaneously without jabbing myself in the thigh or taking a door corner in my pretty boy eye.

 The other qualifier is closet content. Everything in there was obtained from clearance sales at Target and Old Navy and Ross. What's more, not one article of attire is from Mossy Oak® or RealTree®.



Logging
I have never been a logger. Pretty boys only fell dead trees and cut them up and load a truck and split them by hand for firewood. A hobby. Not only is logging a job and a career, it's a status symbol.

I also suspect it's a mechanism of sexual selection in certain populations of Homo sapiens. Good thing I'm already married.


Dentition
I'm only missing one tooth. A wisdom tooth. And it's the only one this pretty boy grew. And it was removed with the use of anesthesia.



Triathlons
Pretty boys like me gravitate to these events as we have too much time and energy, have obsessive compulsions about cardiac and non-type two diabetic status.

We spend money on childish bicycles instead of manly four-wheelers.


Employment
Bucking hay and moving irrigation pipe and vaccinating and trimming hooves. On a cattle ranch? Tough guy. On a sheep ranch? Pretty boy.


So what's next for pretty boy? Maybe buying a car less than ten years old. But only if I want to maintain my image. Otherwise, I'll get a truck with big enough tires to show off my silver silhouetted naked chick mudflaps.

Evolutionists, Creationists, and War Profiteers.

The origin of life: a topic of discussion sure to offend at least someone, so obviously I had to bring it up. Many humans insist evolution and creation are polar opposites, like Democrat and Republican, vanilla and chocolate, or some other superficially-illustrative-but-actually-non-antonymous pairing. (It's more accurate to say politician and taxpayer, vanilla and seawater, or chocolate and regurgitated stomach acid.) If you view evolutionism and creationism as the extreme ends of a spectrum, brace your egos for impact, people. You're wrong.

What those who insist on conflict regarding the grand mechanics of life are really comparing is science and religion. Their mistake, besides being an overly-emotional mammal (wait, emotional and mammal – that's TWO mistakes), is trying to compare two different variables on a single continuum. This isn't a black and white number line with infinite integers of gray between them. What's necessary for accurate representation is a coordinate grid. Enter the abscissa and the ordinate.

Consider the level of acceptance an individual has with what's in the Bible and what's been studied by biologists for the last 150 years. As these are variables completely independent of each other, they plot like an X and a Y.

Take Young Earth Creationists as an example. By the way, mismatching adjectives and subject in that name can create some funny mental images. Like pre-schoolers rolling playdough balls. The label is a simple way to categorize those who adhere literally to what's written in the first page and a half of Genesis: the Earth is 6000 years old and is part of a divine creation out of nothing which took six 24-hour periods to complete. High literal belief in Genesis chapter one (y axis), zero acceptance of scientific research on the topic (x axis). Might look like this.

Similar but with a key difference, Old Earth Creationists take the timeline of Genesis figuratively. “Days” is a reference to a non-specific time period. As a result, they accept the findings of geologists and astronomers about the age of the solar system and the Earth, though there is variation in acceptance of biological principles.

Billy Graham, a well known Christian leader once made a statement regarding his faith and the principles of evolution.

"I don't think that there's any conflict at all between science today and the scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we've tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren't meant to say, I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. ... whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man's relationship to God." (Billy Graham: Personal Thoughts of a Public Man, 1997. p. 72-74)

My interpretation would be to put him here, overlapping the Old Earth Creationists, but with a bit more leeway about the scientific evidence accepted.

I've been made aware of another individual with some impact on modern Christianity. Pope John Paul II was some kind of a clergyman of some denomination or other. He gave a statement in 1996 to a scientific group of his church.

“In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points....Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies – which was neither planned nor sought – constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.” (Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. October 22, 1996)

I would place him on the diagram like this.

There has been a more recent movement known as Intelligent Design. The premise of this group is that unanswered questions in the explanations of evolutionary mechanisms suggest other sources of change, perhaps a higher, unmeasurable power. The observations so questioned span molecular and subcellular development all the way to evaluations of galactic parameters. All fascinating questions. At first glance this seems to be a happy combination of belief in God and acceptance of science. When presenting their hypotheses though, they meet with resistance from the scientific community, because any hypothesis involving the existence of deity is untestable. The Deitometer has yet to be invented and properly calibrated with positive and negative controls. Had they paid attention in grade 10 biology, they would know that eliminates their questions from the realm of scientific query. It doesn't necessarily make them wrong, though. An inability to measure something is not proof of non-existence, only non-science. Hmm. Deitometer. I smell research funding proposal with high costs and low expectation of results. Maybe I should change jobs...

But what of the evolutionary biologists? Percent of scientists who don't accept evolution: 0.015%. They are the ones whining because they can't get published or hired. Couldn't be the fact that they misunderstand the junior high basics of what science is...
(Chang, Kenneth. "Few Biologists But Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition" (php), The New York Times, 2006-03-21. Crowther, Robert (2006-06-21). Dissent From Darwinism 'Goes Global' as Over 600 Scientists Around the World Express Their Doubts About Darwinian Evolution.)

Scientists who believe in a higher power fall mainly into a group known as Deistic Evolutionists. An impersonal entity organized the universe as we know it, or at least set the events in motion, but he or she or it doesn't have a personal presence in people's lives. The rest of the higher-power-believers are Theistic, the only difference from the former being the personal nature of said power. They believe there is personal involvement and even daily interaction.

Any discussion of this topic would be incomplete without Atheism. Typically with full acceptance of scientific findings, those in this group are more likely to be disinterested by anything but that which is measurable and testable. However, disproving God with science is as useless as proving. Nothing to measure, nothing to test, all that's left is personal belief and faith. Whether that faith is in a presence or absence is irrelevant for this argument. Either way it's religion and not science.Where do they go on the chart? I don't know. How about here...

The final diagram looks nothing like a continuum. Told ya. More like the colorized left side of a Rorshach blot (I see a male turtle's plastron with sexy tattoos, and I'm really losing my focus, here). Also, it's a mess of disagreement and argument and difference of opinion, flavored by arrogance, ignorance, and mistrust both earned and gratuitous.

Okay, that was cynical. I wrote a bit longer than I could hold to the professional detachment. Back to objectivity.

What I find the most interesting is what groups exhibit the most variation. It's those who include some form of Creation in their beliefs. To pin down a Christian definition of how Creationism and Evolutionism relate is impossible. There is too much variety, too much personal interpretation of too little data. My non-cynical nature (located in one of my toes) thinks this is great. A huge variation in religious belief is tolerated and even encouraged. In not many places is that possible. Still, why attack the science which takes no stand on a deity when other Christians disagree on the preferences and commandments and even the very nature of that said deity. It's fine to scrutinize someone else's house, ignoring the crews which are subdividing your Father's house into tenement apartments?

Even those with full acceptance of a century and a half of observation have some variety in their theological side. Again, the personal life aspect. So does the disagreement in these two groups mean religion just makes a mess of things and is irrelevant? I'm trying to be a nice turtle, so I will make no comment. Okay, one. Maybe two. First, wars with a religious flavor, which is most of them: humans don't need divine help to be that stupid. Second, peaceful and community-centered religious teachings are biologically helpful. No, the problem stems from some of the believers.

Is it that science is just too rigid and unwilling to accept outside ideas? Doesn't matter, because without a testable hypothesis, Creationism of any flavor can't ever be considered science.

The issue isn't complete without a discussion of motivation. Why is so much energy spent pushing various interpretations of 1.5 pages of a thousand-plus page text? Why are scientists attacked for failing to take into account that which isn't even measurable? Some subjectivity is possible in my illustrations, but the greater variation, the lack of unity, lies within the Creationists. Yet they don't bother each other. Either they don't realize others interpret two chapters differently, or they don't have the courage to bring it up and challenge one another. Maybe they don't want to cause contention. That's a good Christian reason, but it's not the real one.

A review of how Creationism is pushed with overpriced books and videos, in huge auditoriums packed full, and I think it becomes pretty clear. Sure, scientists write text books, but very few people buy them. They teach in auditoriums, but to one or two groups over a semester, not a different crowd paying for seats sufficient to pull in a biology department Ph.D.'s salary in three days.

What's the real issue? American humans swarm to controversy. They pay well to hear it. Controversy requires a villain, though. Until recently, scientists were too busy expanding human knowledge to bother about being so labeled. Now the superficially evangelical but greedy-beneath-the-facade have swollen the ranks of the scientifically illiterate to the point of concern for public education and research. Scientists try to fight off the inverse renaissance and Creationists cry foul. I guess they missed that Golden Rule thing Jesus said.

Forget the Deitometer idea. I'm gonna start a multi-level Creationism marketing company.



P.S. Some useful reading material, but not very funny.

Evolution, Religion, and Free Will .
http://www.americanscientist.org/issue/id.3747,y.0,no.,content.true,page.1,css.print/issue.aspx

Myth: Many scientists reject evolution and support creationism.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

The Origin of the Universe, Earth, and Life
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=R8

72 Nobel laureates, 17 state academies of science, and 7 other scientific organizations support rejection of Creationism as science.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html

What bwings us togevah today

Since my escape attempt, whenever I'm turned loose in the house I have to wear this harness Derick William Dalton made for me. I think it's out of an old material sample for a couch. He's so cheap. He sewed velcro on to secure it around my shell and and tied a long string to it so I can't hide anymore. I do get to run around outside more often though, so I suppose the trade-off is alright. I just wish it was a sexy lizard-skin green instead of davenport blue.

Last time I was free in the house, he left a copy of The Atlantic on the floor. Well, to be fair, his kids probably kicked it off the end table while jumping repeatedly onto the couch. Luckily I had all day to peruse it, as it's tough to turn pages without opposable digits. I'll give you primates that one. So, one article was on marriage, that it's an outdated institution and is pointless. I completely agree with Ms. Sandra Tsing Loh, of course. But then I read the article.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/07/let-8217-s-call-the-whole-thing-off/7488/4/

I had to check the title again. Marriage? That's not what the article was about. Listen to this and decide if my title is more accurate: To Thine Own Selfish Be True.

The author's marriage got boring and so she did that weird thing humans do (you know, trying to reproduce but blocking the biological outcome?) only it was with some other guy. Then her friend complained about her marriage: her husband cooks like a French master and keeps in great shape and takes care of the kids but gives her grief about her weight and shows no affection. (I'm with him, but apparently mammals are supposed to show affection. Must be your squishy-soft skin and silky-fine hair. I have to see DWD and his wife cuddle frequently. Blech.) Another friend's hubby also keeps his hands and other things totally to himself but spends his free time watching other people pretend to reproduce. A third friend goes through men faster than I do.

I can see how that all relates to marriage, but as an expert on self-centeredness thanks to personal practice and millions of years of evolution, I can tell you that the civil joining of two Homo sapiens was not the central theme.

I'm all for free love, especially if he has a nicely indented plastron with a glistening coat of wax (ooh, that gave me chills!). But promising monogamy to a spouse and a community then backing out is colder than me in January under three feet of snow and one of dirt. And selfish. Too fat? That's why the author's friend isn't getting any? There's something else going on. Her Chef Boyar-bicyclist is either getting it on the side or has other issues he won't talk about. Selfish and selfish. Friend number two's hubby found another way to be selfish but pretend he's not. As for love-machine girl, maybe I'd better not comment, but I know how human males take a dumping. They only think they are tough.

So, she says, stick around the kids to keep parental relationships with them, but don't bother with the initial marriage part. I say go a step further and skip the parenting, too. Bury the kids in the sand with some food nearby and let them fend for themselves until they are strong enough to dig themselves out. Parenting is a waste of time.

Just don't mis-label your article in a highbrow-even-for-snobby-primates magazine. It's selfish to make readers retitle it for you.

Window to the world

I suppose giving Derick William Dalton a soapbox for his biased version of that last story won't hurt anything. As if we'd believe him.

In the meantime, I've been running loose in his house. The freedom is nice and the exploration is invigorating. The kitchen door has glass running nearly it's full height, so it's a great place for me to sit and enjoy the outdoors without subjecting myself to natural selection. Not that I'm against it, even though it is why I'm twelve centimeters instead of twelve meters long, and am forced to eat worms and leftover salad and patter through the house instead of eating trees and mammals while tromping through the forest making the ground shake. Natural selection is a great idea for populations, but it doesn't interest me personally. Have I grown soft in my domestication? Don't have what it takes to survive and reproduce in the wild? No, but how to explain it... I suppose if natural selection were a religion, I would be an unrepentant sinner. If it were a genre of art, I would be the avant garde. French Foreign Legion, I'm AWOL.

But mostly I'm at the window to watch the hummingbirds. Talk about natural selection. I can't tell if their behavior is from an inferiority complex over their size, or if they just like being small and zippy, with nothing to prove to anyone. Except to reptiles of course, but they fell off our wagon millions of years ago.

DWD put the feeders up on purpose as he likes the twittering and buzzing and iridescence. It was annoying at first. And I have to admit, as hard as that is to do, I was jealous as they hovered and moved faster than I could keep track. Luckily, my shell protects my psyche as well as internal organs. I get bitten, I laugh. Fragile little hummingbirds get one mistake. Ever.

I couldn't make out the twittering, so I started making up dialogue as I watched them eat.

“Then he says (slurp slurp) 'Let's hang out. (slurp slurp) I'll show you a flowering elderberry bush I found.' (slurp slurpee slurp)”

“Oh (sipsipsip) honey, (sipsipsip) that's so romantic! (sipsipsip) What did you (sipsipsip) do (sipsipsip) after?”

“Nothing (slurp slurp). Didn't go at all (slurp slurp). My ex came zooming out of a tree (slurp slurp) and it was a who's-beak-is-longest contest (slurp slurp) after that. They both forgot all about me (slururururp).

Which makes me wonder why they don't help each other out more. The females seem to get along, several drinking at the same time. But then a male chases them all off and spends more time watching his back than drinking himself. Two males never bond at the watering hole. They could learn a bit from the humans that way, but then they might have a harder time with the reproductive part of natural selection. Instead, it's action sequence aerial dogfights nearly all day. That part kept me interested until I got motion sickness.

Unless it's all a game. The males don't have to produce eggs, so maybe they aren't under the same calorie demands. The females want genes for their young from a guy who looks like he'll never make a mistake, so the males could spend all their time chasing each other around and the one who doesn't starve gets all the action. Maybe the females like getting chased. It burns off their energy so they can eat more. Perhaps the males pretend to chase each other around when the females are looking to impress them. Maybe they find a lookalike and one eats while the other flirts, then they switch off and split the rewards. Or maybe they switch off then, too.

Either way, there are about a dozen of them out there flying around like they haven't a care in the world, and the more I watch the more I get depressed. Maybe my shell's not as thick as I supposed. I'll outlast them like I did the rats, but that doesn't make me feel any better just now. But the forecast of four days of heavy rain does. Fly around in that, hummingbirds.

The difference between psychiatry and dermatology? Lipstick.

I'm often fascinated by the facial features of humans. Specifically, how much more they can communicate than a reptile. See, here's what I can say: eyes open, eyes closed. That's I'm watching you, I'm not. I can't say I'm watching you because I think you are a good-for-nothing crook. Well, I could be saying that, but it looks identical to when I say the curve of your plastron is a total turn-on and I want you to fertilize my eggs. Do you see the problem? And do you see why male box turtles have had to evolve long rear claws to hold open the female's shell in the back? You hairless pink monkey girls think you have a hard time commuicating with your mates. Did I say pink? I meant pink and brown and tan and olive and - well, you get the idea.

Binocular vision seems like an interesting concept. If you don't mind people sneaking up behind you. I see Derick William Dalton's kids try this on each other once in a while. The problem is, they always giggle before they pounce. I suppose it's kind of cute, but how does he expect them to survive in the wild like that? One little giggle, zero point eight seconds, that's all I need to close up shop. Then who's giggling? Me. From inside my fortress. Of course, eyes on the side, of which I'm very fond I'll have you know, would be more efficient without the bulk of the rest of my turtleness. I'm not complaining about my figure. I am quite comfortable with my body shape, and Animal Planet with all those half-starved zoo models will not injure my self-image. Does that Russian tortoise really think she's attractive with glistening mango juice on her face? And the way she sticks her back legs out of the shell much farther than is comfortable? That's not biology, that's just a floozy show. Besides, the size of my shell doesn't matter. My neck is long and flexible, and I can easily peek around behind it.

Here's what I wish I did have, though. Lips and a dimple. Then I could smile, the dimple would dent into my right cheek, and I would be adorable. More adorable, I mean. The lips, on the other hand, aren't for what you think. It has nothing to do with food or affection, only communication. Picture this: eyes open, red lipstick. That means hello. Eyes open, red lipstick, and dimple: let's be friends. With the eyes closed, there are so many possibilities. With a hiss or two thrown in, I have an anthropologically recognized language.

Blue lipstick? Interesting possibilities for meanings. I'll have to read up on my Mary Kay and Sigmund Freud and get back to you.

A Political Runt. Or is it rant?

I was trying to concentrate on an escaping worm yesterday. Don't you dare laugh at my lack of speed. Have you ever eaten one the size of your leg with no hands? My hard time was exacerbated as DWD was on another political tirade on the phone. Something about hating fancy felosi. Sounds like an Italian dressing, which is weird, because DWD loves salad. So do I for that matter, as he gives me the leftovers. He has started these rants a few times a day over some apparent change in a health fair. I think he must have attended one. If I were a betting girl, I'd say his cholesterol was checked and too high. DWD doesn't handling aging or lack of fitness very well.

I thought he was done so I started to nod off under my heat lamp, tummy full of earthy, wormy, goodness. Then he started in on trying to get money from some Irish guy. He wanted to bill O'Reilly or O'Malley or O'Someone. He had a lot of mean things to say about this person, too. This also made no sense as DWD does no work overseas. In fact, I suspect he simply does no work.

My point is though, why do you all stress out so much? Too much on your plate at work? Not enough on your plate at the table? Just hibernate. Take a break. It's a good rest. Then have sex when you wake up and pass on your genes. Nothing matters after that. Homo sapiens of the world, chill out.

Wait, what? You have to raise your young? Wow. That sucks.