Relative Certainty

By Charles Jennings Bryan

A research team at the University of Utah has finally solved one of science?s most enduring puzzles: Who is right, Richard Dawkins or Stephen Jay Gould? The response, obtained through a highly sophisticated computer program, surprises no one.

The details of evolution have caused many a squabble between armchair philosophers who think they can solve these questions by thinking really, really hard. Prime examples are the aforementioned evolutionary biologists Gould and Dawkins, who often argue about the importance of natural selection as the prime shaper of evolutionary history.

For a long time, these guys have wondered whether group selection can prevail over natural selection, often by alluding to brilliant scenarios like the following: “wolves extinguish groups of slow deer at a higher rate, so fleetness in deer species as a whole increases. Is this group selection, because slow herds suffer a higher extinction rate? Or is it individual selection, because a slow herd is merely a herd of slow deer?”

The Utah team, led by Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla, has finally answered the question through a very complex computer model.

The response? “It makes no bloody experimental difference, wankers.”

Dr. Clive Monti, a snotty British scientist that swears like a Latin American, agrees with the response.

“What the hell is it with scientists who argue forever about definitions? Why engage in the argument that humans should belong to the same genus as chimpanzees, for example, if the Lamarckian system of classification is screwed up anyway? What difference would it make to name us Pan sapiens or Homo troglodytes? Shouldn?t these people be looking in a microscope or something?”

The computer model, written in part by Jose Maria Morelos y Pavn from the Idaho Medical School, also recognizes other futile scientific discussions, such as whether all psychology can be explained in terms of natural selection (the computer?s answer is no, accompanied by a slap on the head); whether the Schrdinger equation can be derived from other existing laws (the computer?s answer was, “are you high?”); and whether the multiregional theory of human origin holds over the Out-of Africa theory (the computer?s answer was simply, “sure, if you ignore TONS of genetic data, you stupid Pan sapiens).

The computer?s highly advanced program also hinted at the fate of the Neanderthals, a cousin species to modern day humans that seemed to disappear 30,000 years ago in Europe: “Neanderthals were big. Scandinavians are big. Draw a line, Einstein.”

This amazing discovery marks the end of the weekly science columns at The Daily Utah Chronicle.

I, for one, have been intellectually satisfied, and now I am ready to move on to bigger and more challenging mysteries, such as why watching sports kicks ass.

Screw you, science, and good night.