Author Archives: bob

Buffalo River Hog Farm Update

Back in November, many applauded the decision of the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) to deny the permit which allows the C&H Hog Farm to operate in Mt Judea. The site is just a few miles upstream of the Buffalo National River. The denial of the permit means that the farm should cease operations within 30 days. But not so fast. Everything is back in court, a couple courts actually.

First the briefest of backgrounds. The farm was permitted in 2012 to hold 6,500 hogs and spread annually their feces and urine on a few hundred acres of hay fields adjacent to Big Creek. It drains downstream about six miles to its confluence with the Buffalo National River where every year several million people canoe swim, fish, hike, camp and generally recreate. And there is the problem, can these activities coexist? Yes, we need places to recreate and places to raise hogs, but can’t we figure out how to do these things in separate places? My guess it is a lot easier to move a hog farm than move the nation’s first national river.

The original permit allowing the farm to operate had certain flaws so when it expired the farm had to request a new permit. On Jan 10, 2018, the ADEQ offered up a draft denial of C&H hog farm’s request for a Regulation 5 permit to operate; however, they allowed the farm to operate before a final ruling following a public comment period. On November 19, they formally denied the permit.

C&H then went to a local district judge in Jasper and got a ruling to stay the denial and allow the farm to operate while on appeal. Subsequently, the Judge denied the ADEQ and intervenors to dismiss the stay so the farm will continue to operate while battles continue in the courts. Time will tell if ultimately the ADEQ decision to deny the permit will prevail. We should trust the judgment of the scientists and engineers at ADEQ and its oversight body, the Pollution Control and Ecology Commission which oversees the actions of the ADEQ.

Now enters another player, stage right. Biennial law making starts up next January. Our ledge is quick to take on anything in their purview and they are the lawmakers and budget determiners so just about anything is game. Recall they got into a fight and threatened the budget of the supreme court for a ruling they didn’t like about a ballot issue.

Rumor has it that certain powers are preparing legislation to weaken the requirements for siting Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs.) Legislative mischief in this case could do considerable damage to our natural environment in an effort to keep the farm in business. Other legislation could weaken air and water quality standards which would impact everywhere in the state. Or they may strengthen the “right to farm” legislation so farms could not be regulated to protect the natural environment. Hold on to your hats, or canoes, or hiking boots. The environment of the Natural State may be in for a rough ride.

Agriculture and tourism are the two biggest industries in the state. We all need to work to ensure that both prosper and that neither gets in the way of the other.

Dr. Bob Allen, Ph.D., is Emeritus Professor of Chemistry at Arkansas Tech University

It’s Time for Underground Transmission Lines

What do the Camp wildfire in California, sales of Tesla Model 3, and the east coast hurricanes have in common? The answer is that currently, none involve underground electric transmission and distribution lines.

The Camp Wildfire in Northern California this year was the deadliest in the history of California. At least 85 people died, 12,000 structures were destroyed, and over 220 square miles were burned. This one wildfire alone caused 10 billion dollars in property damage. Although climate change-induced drought and increasing population density both contributed to the catastrophe, the ultimate cause was most likely a short in an overhead electric transmission line.

Several million people lost electric power due to Hurricanes Michael and Florence. Extensive damage to downed transmission and distribution lines can take weeks to replace or repair. This delay impacts the local economy and threatens the health of those dependent on hospitals, clinics, and electrically powered medical devices. The cost to repair the electrical grid damage will be tens of millions of dollars.

Tesla’s lower cost but still pricey Model 3 is outselling all other luxury cars combined. In August it became the fifth highest selling car in the United States. As we convert our transportation systems to electric power we need to upgrade and expand our electrical grid.

At the same time, climate change is threatening the stability of traditional overhead transmission and distribution lines. Storms such as tornadoes and hurricanes can knock down lines. Floods and droughts both can cause shorting of lines and loss of power. It is time to consider burying our grid. Estimates of the costs of burying the grid as opposed to overhead lines vary wildly, some up to a order of magnitude higher.

Not calculated in these costs are the externalities mentioned above. Also as is often the case, the price of modernization goes down with both economies of scale and improvement in the technology itself.

A couple of years ago a major controversy raged across this part of Arkansas over the proposal for a large transmission line designed to bring cheap wind-generated electricity from the midwest to consumers to our east. Politics, the advent of cheap natural gas from fracking, and strenuous objections from landowners caused the cancellation (delay?) of this project.

There is no question that vast reserves of cheap wind energy exist on the great plains, but the power needs to be delivered to users, most of which are to the east of the plains. Large-scale transmission lines are needed.

One project looks to the future. A 350 mile HVDC underground transmission line has been proposed to run from Mason City, Iowa to Chicago. It will take advantage of cheap wind power. To lower project costs the line will use existing railway rights of way. Major transmission lines could also be located aside highway rights of way. It is not safe to put overhead lines along highways as they present a serious collision hazard.

All of our infrastructure needs maintenance and occasional upgrades as environmental conditions change. We can pay for a more stable climate and resilient electrical grid now, or have our children pay much more in the future.

Dr. Bob Allen, Ph.D., is Emeritus Professor of Chemistry at Arkansas Tech University.

Global Cooling Myth

Those in denial about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AWG) frequently make a claim about a past prediction of global cooling rather than warming. The argument goes something like this: How can we trust the scientific community about their dire warnings of global warming when not that long ago they were warning about an impending ice age? What is it, warming or cooling? They don’t know.

The graph of the earth’s temperature between 1880 and now is bumpy to say the least, in scientific terms it is called a noisy signal. If you look at a short enough time period one can find both periods of warming and cooling. From about the 1940s to the 1970s there was a period of cooling; overall however, the trend is to warming. We are now about 2 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than 1880.

This brief period of cooling led to a number of studies focused on climate change. One significant discovery in this era was a climate driver known as “Milankovitch cycles.” This was a recognition of a certain wobble in the earth’s tilt and small changes in earth’s orbit. Whereas these cycles may have been important in past ice ages, they had little or nothing to do with the current changes in contemporary climate issues.

Another factor studied was particulate matter in the atmosphere. The brief cooling of the 40s-70s may have been impacted by larger than previous amounts of fine dust particles from burning fossil fuels. The dust actually caused reflection of sunlight, lowering the amount of light and heat that reached the surface of the planet. In fact, this has led some to the dangerous proposition of injecting dust into the atmosphere to combat AGW.

These were the discussions of scientists in the 1970s, where publishing in peer-reviewed journals is what goes for scientific discussions. A recent study, a peer-reviewed publication of course, looked at the number of publications in the 70s relating to changes in the earth’s climate. The authors of this study found there were only 7 papers predicting cooling, 20 predicting no change, and 44 predicting warming. The was never any consensus of global cooling, only a brief discussion.

The state of scientific publications now is a resounding consensus for global warming. The data is clear, the planet is getting warmer which is forcing changes to the climate. We know the warming is due to human activities because of correlations between warming and increases of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere and deforestation.

Being skeptical about scientific findings is healthy. In that respect science is self correcting. Misunderstanding and outright fraud have been uncovered by questioning scientific results. But at some point when a consensus becomes clear, even overwhelming then the refusal to accept the consensus changes from healthy skepticism to dangerous denial.

Denial of AGW is hazardous as it allows some to justify inaction. The longer we wait, the more expensive will be our actions to mitigate damage. It is somewhat like a debt, the longer one waits to pay it off, the more costly it becomes. Inaction now just shifts greater costs to the future, our children.

Dr. Bob Allen, Ph.D., is Emeritus Professor of Chemistry at Arkansas Tech University.

Climate Change in the Courts

Remember school house rock and “How a bill becomes a law?” The Saturday morning programming focused on wide-ranging subjects including civics. The video addressed legislation but there is another mechanism to “make law” or at least influence government policy. Individuals and cities or states can seek redress in the courts to force actions of government agencies when they think the agencies are acting in violation of existing laws or constitutional mandates.

The suggestion that human activities, most notably burning fossil fuels, can influence global climate has been around since early in the Nineteenth century. The connection has been strengthened ever since. A landmark decision of the supreme court occurred during George W Bush’s second term in 2007. Several states and cities, led by Massachusetts successfully sued the Environmental Protection Agency to force regulation of Carbon Dioxide and other greenhouse gasses as pollutants.

The case, Massachusetts v EPA turned on the definition of a pollutant. The court ruled that greenhouse gasses are pollutants and therefore should be regulated to protect the environment. This allowed the Obama administration to ramp up efficiency standards for cars and light trucks and to produce the clean power plan which clamped down on carbon emissions from power plants.

President Trump has acted to reverse both of these Obama era regulations. His actions are being contested in the courts, based to a considerable degree on the previous supreme court interpretation of greenhouse gasses as pollutants and the need for their regulation.

Another interesting case is before the court now. This case, Juliana v U.S. is being brought by a group of children ages 11 to 22 against a number of agencies including the EPA, Energy, Interior, and Defense departments. This is literally a children’s crusade for the right of future generations to live in a stable climate.

Apparently, the government will not challenge the scientific consensus that the planet is warming and the climate changing. Nor will they deny human influence on the changes. Rather the government will argue that the claimed harms of weather extremes cannot be reasonably connected to climate change.

The connection between any individual storm event and climate change is a difficult claim to make but let me use a favorite sports analogy. Mark McGuire, a slugger for Oakland and St. Louis, hit home runs both before and after employing anabolic steroids to enhance his performance. Can any one home run be linked to “juicing?” No, of course not. However, both he and Sammy Sosa both broke the previous home run record while juicing.

We are now breaking records for climate disruption while enhancing climate change. The job of the litigation will be to make that connection. If so the court should rule with the children to protect their future.

The children are not asking for damages per se, but rather are asking the judge to order the affected agencies to revamp regulations with the goal of reducing emissions of Carbon Dioxide and other greenhouse gasses to much lower levels than exist today.

It is time to abandon fossil fuels

The transportation sector of our economy has recently become the number one contributor of greenhouse gasses, surpassing electricity production just this year. Oil production is up due to improved recovery methods, essentially fracking. This causes a lowering of the price of gasoline stimulating the purchase of bigger cars and hence more fuel consumption.

Meanwhile, greenhouse gas production from the electricity sector is down because of increases in electricity production from renewables such as wind and solar. Coal-fired plants are on the decline with much of that production being replaced with cleaner-burning natural gas.

The obvious need now is to wean our transportation systems off the use of fossil fuel products such as gasoline and diesel and convert them to electric power. Electric vehicles are inherently more efficient even when charged from the grid. Gasoline and diesel are pure fossil fuel whereas electricity from the grid has contributions from fossil fuel free wind, solar, nuclear, and hydro. Much electricity is produced from natural gas but it is cleaner burning than gasoline and diesel.

Most types of transportation are accessible to electrification. Some rail lines, particularly passenger trains in the east are already electric powered and there are no great impediments to extending this to all rail traffic both freight and passengers. Long-haul trucking will soon see the first generation of electric 18-wheelers. Tesla Motors is currently testing a semi with a 500-mile range. In the wings are delivery vans and pickup trucks.

Several totally electric passenger vehicles are on the market now. Tesla model 3 and Chevrolet Bolt are small sedans showing up across America. They both have a range of about 250 miles and the build-out of rapid charger networks will transform passenger car traffic.

Short range delivery vehicles are ripe for conversion to electric power. They have defined routes and predictable energy needs plus a central location for charging when not in use. Charging delivery vehicles at night is especially beneficial because there is excess generating capacity so rates are lower.

One of if not the best application of electric fleet vehicles are buses. Clean running buses in urban locales can greatly improve air quality over fossil fuel powered buses, even those employing clean burning natural gas. With electric buses there are no local pollution emissions and greatly reduced greenhouse emissions from remote generating plants.

Everyone with a child or grandchild, a niece or neighbor, who rides a school bus daily is exposed to noxious emissions from those buses. The bus that idles while waiting to pick up a load of children at school, the bus that idles while picking up and dropping off children in the community, the bus that runs up and down our highways and byways are all significant sources of pollutants such as fine particulates, carbon monoxide, and the components which form smog and ozone.

And finally, if climate change and the health of children aren’t enough, consider the fact that electric vehicles are cheaper. Electricity as a fuel is one third to one quarter the cost of gasoline and diesel. Maintenance costs are considerably lower for electric vehicles – fewer moving parts, no oil changes, radiator fluids, longer brake life due to regenerative braking, etc.

It’s time to start talking to superintendents, school boards, the PTA – anybody that will listen. Electric school buses are good for both our children and our pocket books.

Voting for Change

The mid-term elections are just about over with mixed results. The Democratic message was one of access to affordable healthcare and human rights. The Republicans argued for the need to protect our southern border from migrants. What wasn’t often discussed was the increasingly loud drumbeat for addressing climate change.

The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the most dire yet. Previous reports have generally given a range of possible effects, be they global warming, ocean acidity, or sea level rise. The essence of this latest report is that the predicted outcomes appear to fall at the extreme end of the range. Basically, it is getting hot even faster, sea levels are rising even faster, etc. The pace of climate change is accelerating and the obvious response should be a more rapid reduction in the release of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

Efforts have been made by some. Seven candidates for governor ran and won promising to support renewable energy solutions. Governors-elect in Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Nevada, Maine, New Mexico, and Oregon campaigned to expand their Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) . The percent capacity for renewable energy has been expanded and target dates for attainment have been shortened.

Governor-elect Jared Polis, Colorado will seek a target of 100% renewable energy by 2040, up from the current RPS of 30 % by 2020. Also with a target of 100% is Connecticut Governor-elect Ned Lamont. The Connecticut target date is 2050. The leader in concern for climate change, California, already has an RPS of 100% BY 2045. The recent wildfires in California have been linked to climate change and only serve to strengthen the resolve of Californians.

Unsurprisingly, all seven are Democrats. This reflects the desires of the party’s membership, where concern for global warming is much higher than among Republicans. A recent Pew Research Center poll showed that 70% of Democrats trust the science of global warming. Compare that with Republican trust at only 15%.

The climate lost in a couple of direct challenges. In ever-so-blue Washington State, a ballot issue to impose a carbon tax failed. Colorado failed to drastically limit drilling for oil and gas on state property. Arizona voters rejected a 50% by 2030 RPS, while Nevada approved the exact same RPS.

Here in Arkansas, we don’t have any RPS. We do have a favorable net metering regulation. Some homes and small businesses have grid-tied renewable energy systems. Using solar panels as an example, such grid-tied systems can send energy to the grid when the sun shines making the meter run backwards. When the sun doesn’t shine the owner draws power from the grid.

Right now the “exchange rate” is neutral. Owners of such systems get paid the same price as they pay when consuming. The cost-effectiveness of renewable systems depends on the rate structure which is determined by the Public Service Commission. Big producers such as Entergy and SWEPCO are lobbying the PSC hard and fast to limit the competition by seeking a rate structure far less favorable to small producers of renewable energy.

Voting – Compassion vs Fear

Most of the campaigns where the race is truly competitive, say within a five-point spread, are making their closing arguments. They are focusing on a message that has been honed over a year or so of campaigning.

In campaigns which involve national issues and even some local ones which have become nationalized a couple of central themes have evolved. Democrats are delivering a more positive message of the importance of compassion, health care, and civil and human rights whereas Republicans operate more on fear, fear of violence, fear of immigrants, and essentially fear of “others.”

Stepping away from the labels of Democrat and Republican and using the proxy of liberal and conservative, there is good evidence from psychological and even neurophysiological data for these different approaches to campaigning. It is not only what you think but actually how you think – how your brain responds to subject matter and what part of the brain is activated.

First the more obvious sources of difference between liberals and conservatives. Upbringing, education and personal experiences all influence our political attitudes. Two of these are easily observed. College students from conservative communities as freshmen in college tend to vote much like their parents. Graduate students from those same communities tend to vote much less conservatively. A liberal education actually does make one more liberal. Buzzwords like egghead, ivory tower and over educated are used almost exclusively by conservative commentators when describing liberals, never visa versa.

Women tend to be more liberal than men most likely due to personal experiences. Women are more likely to support collective actions which protect a broader swath of society such as children, minorities, ethnic groups, and the LGBTQ community. Conservatives are more of the “rugged individualists” where experience has shown them that personal actions are more important – being the soldier, the protector of the family, the breadwinner.

Of course all of the above are very broad generalizations and exceptions abound but the data are robust and come from very large data sets in well-controlled studies.

These themes are seen clearly in campaign verbiage. No better example is the issue of border protection and immigration. Republicans believe that building a wall at our southern border will protect us from immigrant hordes of murderers, rapists, and drug gangs. A recent twist is that immigrants from Central America will bring disease to our shores. One commentator claimed that they will bring Small Pox, a disease which no longer even exists. It was eradicated by an international vaccination program almost 40 years ago. He also warned of a biblical plague of leprosy, a disease easily treated with antibiotics.

They believe that blocking immigration from predominantly Muslim countries will prevent terrorism in our country while the only real current terrorist threat is from indigenous white nationalists. Recently pipe bombs have been mailed to news agencies and democratic politicians, and a gunman murdered eleven at a Pittsburgh synagogue.

Democrats believe in an immigration policy that controls our borders while at the same time recognizing that migrants fleeing violence should be treated with dignity and respect. They don’t believe in open borders, regardless of what Republicans claim.

Dr. Bob Allen, Ph.D., is Emeritus Professor of Chemistry at Arkansas Tech University.

Deregulations Have Harmful Effects

It doesn’t matter, we won. Although this claim was made by President Trump in regard to the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the supreme court, it could easily apply to most if not all of his accomplishments. He can claim two significant victories as president, the tax cut and deregulation of numerous environmental protections.

Republicans’ justification for tax cuts is always the same. Lowering taxes stimulates the economy and the growth in the economy will raise tax income despite the cuts. And as always it doesn’t work. Rather than increased revenue to the national coffers, The Congressional Budget Office is projecting that the annual deficit it will exceed 1.5 trillion dollars by 2028 and that assumes no changes from existing taxes and spending laws and no recession.

President Trump, with the devout approval of the republican party, appears to be winning on the deregulatory front as well. Even in the face of the most dire warning yet from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), his actions exacerbate global warming and climate change rather than reverse or even mitigate the problem. One might question the pronouncement of an individual scientist but the most recent IPCC report is based on a consensus of the world’s atmospheric scientists.

Imagine that you didn’t trust a diagnosis from your doctor and decided to get a second opinion, a reasonable precaution. By analogy with the IPCC report, you would have to go to hundreds of other doctors before you could find a different opinion, if at all.

Now is the time for us to be acting. You repair the roof while the sun shines, but the clouds are gathering and we are running out of time to act. The solution must be to decarbonise our energy systems. And it can be done with little to no change in our lifestyle. Efficiency through design and building codes save both energy and money. Fuel efficiency standards for automobiles and light trucks save both energy and money. Tighter controls of fugitive emissions of methane save both energy and money.

Wind and solar have the capacity to produce all of the energy we need in this country. The only shortfall is with energy storage, but we are not that far away. A modest investment in the development of battery storage plus overdue investments in the infrastructure for distribution and transmission of electrical energy is the path forward.

So what are we doing? Not just nothing, we are actually acting to make things worse. President Trump wants to burn more coal, roll back efficiency standards on cars and trucks, and remove restrictions on regulations of fugitive emissions of methane. By fiat; that is, executive order, he placed a thirty percent tariff on foreign-made solar panels. This has caused the shelving of billions of dollars of solar projects. Right here in the River Valley, Clarksville’s plan to expand their solar project is on hold.

If we are serious about making America great, we will do so by becoming the world’s leader in sustainable energy technology. Young Americans are much more concerned about the risks to the future, and their resolve to elect officials that care about the future and act accordingly will make the difference. VOTE BLUE

It’s Time for your Flu Shot

The efficacy of the flu vaccine in the 2017-2018 season was less than ideal, about 40 percent. This means that with the vaccination you were about 40 percent less likely to get the flu than without. The problem comes from nature of the Influenza virus itself. The virus is what is known as an RNA virus, when it reproduces it is likely to reproduce somewhat incorrectly. This makes matching the vaccine to the virus more difficult. Regardless, even with those low odds, you’re better off getting the shot and hopefully the vaccine will better match the virus this year.

Don’t be misled by anti-vaccination groups. They list scary sounding ingredients and list possible risks if exposed to millions of times higher doses than are present in a vaccine. An example is formaldehyde, present in many vaccines in trace amounts. In large doses it can be toxic, but not in the amounts present in vaccines. It is actually a component of natural metabolic processes in the body. If you want to talk about a dose, one bite from a pear contains many times as much formaldehyde than a slew of vaccinations. Don’t worry about exposures to trace amounts of ingredients.

The effectiveness of vaccinations depends on so-called herd immunity. To stop a communicable disease does not require absolutely everybody is vaccinated, just a high enough percentage to disrupt transmission. Some individuals can’t be vaccinated for certain diseases such as neonates for pertussis or because of severe immune reactions to proteins present in the vaccine. They are protected from disease by virtue of the fact that those around them have been vaccinated and therefore don’t carry the disease.

A real problem with getting a vaccination is a misperception of risk. A person may know of someone who got a flu shot, and had a bad reaction or had the shot and still got the flu. This knowledge introduces bias. It doesn’t however change the fact the overwhelming odds are in favor of getting the shot. Depending on the vaccine, the strain of influenza, and several host factors, “ … recent studies have supported the conclusion that the flu vaccination benefits public health, especially when the flu vaccine is well matched to circulating flu viruses” – Centers for Disease Control statement. The odds of a severe negative outcome, usually due to an allergic reaction to the vaccine are in the one to millions range.

Back to the bias of knowing someone for which a flu shot didn’t work, or had a reaction. Does knowing someone who won the lottery make you more likely to win the lottery? Most folks would say of course not. But this is the same kind of bias. You think of just one outcome among many. That doesn’t change your odds.

We all know someone who doesn’t wear a seat belt. S/he frequently justifies the self-endangerment by claiming that they know of a case where someone died due to the seat belt. The same bias. Evidence from literally billions of passenger miles shows seat belts save lives.

Vaccinations are generally safe and efficacious. Vaccinations protect not only those vaccinated but also others who can’t through the herd immunity. Participate in society, get the shot.

Evolutionary Views

Acceptance of Darwin’s brilliant deduction on evolution as the source of all biological diversity was brought to the world in 1859 with the publication of “The Origin of Species.” Now, almost 160 later, not all are convinced. The problem of accepting, really a matter of understanding, evolution becomes the sharpest when considering human origins.

All religions have their own take on the origin of mankind, and there are thousands of different stories. Abrahamic religions dominate with over half the world’s population and share the story of Adam and Eve. That said, much of modern religious thought sees no intrinsic conflict with evolution, but fundamentalist wings of many religions persist in denying what is obvious to science.

The United States is arguably the most scientific nation in the world based on the number of peer-reviewed scientific publications. Simultaneously, it is one of the more backward nations of the developed world with 4 in 10 adults believing that God created man in his image, with no evolutionary if, ands, or buts.

Besides the religious conflict about human origins is the problem of diversity itself. Who would ever have guessed that a whale is just a proto-cow that wandered back into the sea and decided to stay? Or that today’s chickens are yesterday’s dinosaurs. Many incrementally small changes over long periods of time have created the diversity we see today. We obviously can’t run experiments over billions of years to prove the concept once and for all, but experiments which prove evolution can be done in real time over the course of just a few years.

Johnathan Losos in his book “Improbable Destinies” described two such studies, one with guppies and one with lizards that clearly demonstrate how mutations and natural selection impact diversity.

The guppy study involved different populations of guppies in streams in Trinidad. It was observed that guppies in pools above waterfalls were much more flamboyant with colorful spots compared to guppies living in pools below waterfalls where drabness prevailed. The hypothesis was that the colorful guppies enjoyed an essentially predator free environment. Those below the falls were in pools which contained predators and therefore only the bland survive.

A simple but elegant experiment over the course of four years showed that transferring colorful guppies to a downstream pool free of other guppies but with predators causes the descendants to become much less gaudy and therefore less likely to be preyed upon. Random mutations among the guppies that produced less visible descendants were less likely to attract attention of predators.

The lizard study, actually brown anoles, also employed moving a population from one isolated locale to another. In this study the anoles from one small island were transferred to other small islands some with and some without predators. In a few short seasons, the anoles’ descendants on the islands with predators had shorter legs that allowed more facile movement into the upper branches of shrubs. Predation was the selective pressure, mutations allowed for the variance in leg length.

Real evolutionary morphological changes can be observed in a short time period, so now just imagine what kinds of changes can occur given millions and billions of years with different mutations and different selective pressures.

Charles Darwin (and Alfred Wallace who independently came to the same conclusion as Darwin) were right. We humans are evolutionarily related to every other living thing on the planet.