Homo floresiensis

The April issue of National Geographic has an interesting article on Homo floresiensis. The article is written by Mike Morwood, Thomas Sutikna and Richard Roberts. The basics of the find are covered (who, what, when, where, etc)and brief mention is made of the microsephaly issue, but the find is presented as legitimate. They cover other issues such as island dimorphism and provide some interesting info concerning the archaeology of the site. This may be intersting.
A second article, by Josh Fischman, covers finds of Homo erctus at Dmanisi, Georga. The main emphasis of the article is on one of specimens that was toothless. More importantly, the mandible shows signs of bone resorption - indicating the individual survived after loosing his teeth. In this respect this find is similar to finds of later neanderthals. The author also discuss the spread of H. erectus out of Africa, and of course, links it to the H. floresiensis finds. One of the more interesting pieces of information in the article is that the Dmanisi fossils were smaller than the african or asian erectus specimens (excepting H. floresiensis). Height is around four and a half feet and cranial capacity averaged 650 cc's. Some traits displayed by the four skulls are similar to H. habilis and one of the discovers, David Lordkianidze, is quoted as saying "... this is something between habilus and erectus, and maybe it's the founder of erectus".

Interesting, I really need to get to a library and catch up on whats been happening in the world of Paleoanthropology.

Shout Outs and Kudos and Imax

Shout Outs: The first person to make any comments on my blog is a person named Old White Lady. I have, belatedly, added links to "It's Morning Somewhere" and "The Progressive Co-Op". Old White Lady contributes to both. Check them out!

Kudos and Imax: Another commenter here mentioned that since the Ft. Worth Science and History Museum has decided to show the "Volcanoes..." movie he bought a membership. I think this is a great idea. Maybe, if we could go to some of the museums and science centers and promise to purchase a certain number of memberships it might help convince them to show the movie. As mentioned in several other sites, we are the market for museums and science centers and maybe we should use the free market to our advantage. Any takers?

Imax: Part V

From the St. Louis Post Dispatch:

"Science Center film sparks vandalism

Vandals splashed red paint and scrawled anti-war slogans on the St. Louis Science Center, which is showing an Omnimax movie about piloting F-15 Eagle fighters, a center spokeswoman said.

She said workers cleaned the walls and cut away part of a movie poster that was defaced with obscenities. The vandalism, discovered early Thursday morning, did about $4,000 in damage.

The movie is called "Fighter Pilot: Operation Red Flag," a reference to the air-war training programs at Nellis Air Force Base near Las Vegas."

Blame is being placed on local peace activists who claim the movie is a propaganda piece financed by the Boeing company. As yet, however there are NO suspects and police are reviewing surveillance tapes.

On an unrelated note, there is a drive afoot to get as many Imax centers as possible to show the movie "Volcanoes of the Deep Sea" It is not on the St. Louis Science Center's Calander as of this post. Perhaps we should call (St. Louis Science Center 314-289-4444) or email the public relations manager -Dorothy Hutchinson-Gross at dhutchin@slsc.org

Red State Rabble has contact info for other Imax theaters around the midwest, and I should mention I got the idea to email the Science Center and recommend they show the film from him. Didn't think of it myself -still suffering brain meltdown.

It's All Too MUCH Brain Melting!!

Red State Rabble has a link to this article from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. It concerns the development of armor in a species of fish known as the stickleback. Apparently, the researchers have identified the gene responsible. Most species of sticklebacks in the US evolved after the ice age and the retreat of the glaciers. Originally, most sticklebacks were ocean dwelling species and were heavily armored. Freshwater species were not. Apparently, the difference iis in one gene. The kicker is a mutation in this gene causes one form a human disease called ectodermal dysplasia. As I understand it, the gene is responsible for events related to ectodermal development, hence, tissues that are derived from the ectoderm (such as hair, teeth, etc.) are affected. Great, interesting stuff. I thought I would do a really cool post on it, perhaps relating it back to ostracoderms and placoderms and what not. I was even going to tie it in to the development of cascades (such as blood clotting - which could then be tied to the whole irreducibly complex debate) and show how they can evolve. In the course of doing some research on these issues I stmbled across this cool article about Zebrafish. Apparently researchers at the same institute have identified three different - human- blood diseases in zebrafish. One of these is thalessemia. Great, I thought, I know all about thalessemia. It was mentioned in almost every anthropology class I had. I'll do a post on it too... So now I have about six tabs open in firefox, as well as numerous word docs to hold all the links and what not and my brain is melting cause I can't keep track of it all! Too many ideas at once - science is truely mind blowing! Come to that, where the heck is PZ Myers on this. He's all about zebrafish!

Political Compass

De Rerum Natura has a link to the Politcal Compass. I took the test and scored -6.25 on the left/right axis and -5.49 on the social libertarian/authoritarian axis. My scores would have been slightly different but there were three or four questions where I felt "none of the above" (which wasn't a choice) would have been the best answer. Bottom line, I think these kinds of labels are meaningless for any but the true ideologue. Politcal Compass models politcal orientation on two axis' rather than the normal one - we go from a strait line to a cartesian coordinate system. We could go into a multivariate system - say canonical correlates - where you can have more dimensions than vertical and horizontal. But it wouldn't make for a good sound bite.

Friday Bonus Jellyfish Blogging

Pelagia noctiluna


Jelly fish are kind of interesting and this one is no exception. They eat fish, grom up to 65 mm and can reproduce either sexually or asexually. Couldn't find any interesting info about their evolution. Although they are Cambrian and Post-Cambrian in origin. They are related to sea anemones, corals and sea pens.

Pelagia noctiluna 2

They also glow in the dark. Hence the noctiluna part of their name.

Imax: Part IV

One of my most treasured possesions is a small button that says "I read banned books!". I received this button from my wife, who is the daughter of an english professor. She gave me the button years ago when we were first dating and I have carried it around through many moves. I mention this because on my way to work this morning I was listening to the radio (to a local NPR affiliate) and heard a story about vandalism at the St. Louis Science Center. It seems a small anti-war group has committed vandalism at the Science Center because the Science Center is showing a movie called "Fighter Pilot: Operation Red Flag". I have not seen the movie and consequently do not know anything about it. I do know, however, that I do not like censorship. I do not like censorship coming from the right or the, in this case, left. I should also point out that I do not have a problem with anti-war groups but two wrongs do not make a right.

Friday Fairy Armadillo Blogging

The earliest example of armadillos occured in the Eocene and they diversified in the Miocene. Currently armadillos comprise 21 species divided into eight genera. The most elusive and poorly known species is Chlamyphorus truncatus (pictured below). They are also known as fairy armadillos. Fairy armadillos are small, weighing perhaps 120 grams. They feed on ants, worms, snails and roots.


Fairy Armadillo


Fairy armadillo 2


armadillo 


For more info go here, here, here, here and here.

My Friday Post Has Been Hijacked!

Hijacked, I say.
Carl Zimmer and De Rerum Natura have both written on I subject I was going to post about on Friday. I had found a great article I was going to use to get on the Friday Ark. Allow me to explain. Yesterday, I stumbled across this at New Scientist. It concerns a species of plant called weedy cress. Apparently, weedy cress is able to, somehow, revert to grandparental genotypes. The authors of the paper hypothesize that backup copies of the grandparental genotype are kept in the form of RNA. Fascinating stuff. I was going to post about it - had found som cool links here, here, and here. Oh Well. They are much better writers than I am. Check them out.

IMAX: Part III

I received an email from the Ft. Worth Museum of Science and History today. They have reversed their decision not to show the Volcanoes movie. Their letter read, in part:

"We want to ensure that you know the Museum supports the position that evolution is a major unifying concept of science. We use scientific evidence in our wide-ranging presentations and interpretations of how life has changed over time."

Since, they did reverse their decision, I wrote them a letter thanking them. I feel that it is important to support them for, belatedly, coming to the right decision.

The Best Essay I Have Read in Quite Awhile

This is what blogging is all about! Go to Creek Running North

Imax: Part II

I recently emailed the St. Louis Science Center and inquired about their policy concerning films related to evolution, the big bang theory and the geological history of the earth.
This is the response:


"As stated in our mission, the St. Louis Science Center is dedicated to
"promoting the interest in and understanding of science and technology"
throughout our service area. We plan to continue showing appropriate,
mission-driven films such as our current films "Forces of Nature," which
explores volcanoes, earthquakes and tornadoes and "Fighter Pilot: Operation
Red Flag" which shows the intense training and technical skills and
equipment behind flying an F-15."

You can email the public relations manager (Dorothy Hutchinson-Gross) at dhutchin@slsc.org

Eschaton: Part II

Here in Missouri the Republicans have been busy as well. On Medicaid:
"In many areas, the bill reduces Missouri's program to the minimal levels required by federal law. The elderly and disabled could earn no more than 74 percent of the poverty level, or $579 a month for a single person. They currently qualify if they earn no more than the poverty level. " Go here and here for details on medicaid.

On the malpractice front we have the following:
"The thrust of both bills is to reduce the amount of money paid to people who are injured. The bill overhauling the civil justice system would:
Reduce the maximum that could be recovered for pain and suffering to $350,000 from $579,000. The cost-of-living adjustment made to the cap every year is also eliminated.
Require that damage claims be filed in the county where the accident occurred.
Limit punitive damages to $500,000 or five times the amount of actual damages, whichever is greater. Currently there is no limit.
The bill also extends these protections to nursing homes. Lawsuits involving other types of accidents, like automobile collisions and claims about defective products, are also covered by parts of the bill." Go here for more details.
To me the bottom line is that if you are going to talk about valuing the "Culture of Life" you should not then turn around and pass laws that make it impossible for people to live up to those values. In this case the republicans are exploiting a tragedy for politcal ambition.

Thoughts from Kansas and National Geographic

In the meantime the following review of a National Geographic special appeared in the New York Times. Thoughts from Kansas has a post about it. I think he is being to kind to the reviewer. Consider the closing sentence of the review "At times, in this suggestive but inconclusive documentary, it's enough to make that old "In the beginning" story sound like hard fact." I mean, what the hell? I haven't seen the NG special yet, but plan on watching it to see how well it is done. I will keep you posted. In the meantime go check out what Thoughts from Kansas has to say.

Eschaton

I think Atrios has the best comments I have read on the Terry Schiavo controversy. A small taste

Those of us who read liberal blogs are also aware that Republicans have voted en masse to pull the plug (no pun intended) on medicaid funding that pays for the kind of care that someone like Terry Schiavo and many others who are not so severely brain damaged need all across this country.
Those of us who read liberal blogs also understand that that the tort reform that is being contemplated by the Republican congress would preclude malpractice claims like that which has paid for Terry Schiavo's care thus far.

Follow the above link for more.

Imax Censors Evolution!

I find this extremely disturbing. Science museums around the country are refraining from showing Imax films that mention evolution, the big bang, or the geological age of the earth. The Ft. Worth Museum of Science and History is one. Email Carol Murray and let her know what you think of this kind of censorship. Locally, here in St. Louis, you can email St. Louis Science Center and let them know what you think.

Friday Tapeworm Egg Blogging

Below is the egg of a tape worm. Notice the rostellum is slightly visible.
Below is a side view of an adult. The rostellum is slightly visible as are the four suckers. Note: apparently in pork tapeworms the rostellum is hooked, whereas, in the beef tapeworm it is not.


Finally a close up of the rostellum and suckers.
;


For more info on tapeworms go to Yucky Tapeworms

Interesting articles about human-tapeworm coevolution:
Here
Here and Here. Incidentally, for the creationist types this last link proves the US government believes in Evolution.

Also, for more cool animals go to The Friday Ark

From: UC Berkeley

I am posting the entire item:

Deans' Corner — Unintelligent Designs and the Responsibility of Educators
Robert Holub, Dean of the Undergraduate Division
March 14, 2005
Deans' Corner Archive
Letters & Science is a college of five deans, reflecting the disciplinary scope and diversity of Berkeley's largest school or college. In the "Deans' Corner", they take turns reflecting on topics of current interest. The "Deans' Corner" is a virtual "Op Ed" page, or — if you prefer a concrete metaphor — a Sproul Plaza.
In this contribution, Undergraduate Division Dean Robert Holub discusses 'intelligent design' and the responsibility of educators to promote scientific literacy.
At a recent academic cocktail party I had the occasion to speak with two colleagues, both fellow humanists, about various topics in higher education. At one point the conversation turned to the notion of intelligent design, and much to my amazement both colleagues indicated a great deal of sympathy for this alternative to "Darwinism." I was shocked, and although I told them that few, if any, reputable biologists in the country subscribe to intelligent design, I could tell that they were not persuaded. Somewhat dismayed, I turned to other, more congenial issues.
That even intelligent people fall for intelligent design was disquieting. I had read the news stories describing the large numbers of people who believe that intelligent design should be taught along side Darwin's theory of natural selection, and the somewhat smaller, but more alarming group that advocates creationism or intelligent design be taught instead of Darwinism. But until that conversation with my colleagues I thought that misconceptions about evolution were a phenomenon of communities far away from Berkeley, not members of faculty of the most distinguished university in the country.
Above all I used to believe that controversies around Darwin involving genuine intellectuals belonged to the historical past. Indeed, in the decades following the initial publication of the Origin of the Species in 1859 many leading scientists took exception to the notion of natural selection and substituted something involving "design" as an alternative.
Karl Ernst von Baer, for example, a renowned zoologist whom Darwin himself lauds in the Origin of the Species, granted partial validity to natural selection, but found that there were too many questions left unanswered by a theory that relied on chance variation and required enormous spans of time for the realization of species development. In a book from 1876 von Baer lists five questions for Darwinian theory, all of which are fairly typical for the thought of his contemporaries, and which have resurfaced in some form in many discussions today. First, with regard to the creation of the first organism, from which all other organisms then develop, de Baer asks why it must occur only once? Second, if one species gradually transforms itself into another, why do we not find a wealth of transitional stages? Third, if there are deviations in one generation, why would they not revert to the norm when they procreate with the non-deviant population? Fourth, how can Darwin explain the relative stability of species? According to his view shouldn't a chaos of unstable organisms be the normal state of affairs? And finally, why do we find no historical verification for transitional stages either in the fossil record or in other evidence, such as mummies?
Von Baer's own solution to what he conceived as Darwin's dilemma was derived from an analogy to the discipline he knew best: embryology. Just as organs in an embryo are transformed in various stages on their way to a final goal, so too, von Baer reasons, the species develop with a direction and a purpose. Asserting the presence of a "goal-directedness" (Zielstrebigkeit), von Baer, like today's dissenters from Darwinism, postulates a controlling or supervising force for evolution.
Indeed, as Peter J. Bowler, the prolific historian of biology, notes, in the years following the appearance of Darwin's book, the most frequent objections to his theory came from religiously inclined individuals, or from individuals who held onto teleological notions similar to those in Christianity, all of whom advocated a type of "design." "By the end of the century," Bowler continues, "theistic, or designed, evolution was no longer under serious consideration by the scientific community" (Bowler, The Eclipse of Darwinism, 15).
That we are experiencing the recrudescence of a theory dismissed by knowledgeable individuals over a century ago should give us pause. And the fault lies not solely with those individuals who are uncritical, uninformed, or dogmatic in their beliefs, but also with educators, including faculty on the Berkeley campus and on college campuses across the country. In our zeal to pursue our own scholarly goals and research achievements, we have neglected one of our most important duties: the education of a general public, and even the general student public, on issues central to an informed citizenry in the twenty-first century.
I assume that all students of the biological sciences know why almost every reputable scientist subscribes to natural selection and no biologist of any stature acknowledges intelligent design. But it is not enough for scientists and students studying science to have this knowledge. English majors, political science majors, prospective law students, and social welfare graduates – everyone on the Berkeley campus should be exposed to the arguments supporting real science and to the fallacies of views based on guesswork and unfounded hypotheses.
At issue is the scientific method itself and its misunderstandings in the world of non-scientists. The ambiguous word "theory" has misled critics into believing that what Darwin proposed was something only slightly stronger than an opinion, and that other opinions, whether founded on evidence or concocted out of thin air, are therefore equally valid. But scientific theories are more than personal views asserted in public, since they are discarded by the scientific community if they have been proven false. Once they fail to account for the empirical facts and for new discoveries, they must be altered or rejected as a valid explanation. "Theories" based on mere conjecture, by contrast, are resistant to refutation because they were not developed from, nor do they insist on, accounts involving objective evidence. The difference between Darwin's theory of natural selection and the "theory" of intelligent design is exactly that the former is a scientific theory, susceptible to falsification, while the latter is a conviction, belief, or guess without foundations in facts and new discoveries.
Students need to acquire knowledge in all areas of the university. They need to think critically, but they also need to be informed about how faculty and researchers on campus go about their investigations, and why their methods make sense. Apparently, as I found out recently, even some faculty members remain unenlightened about central issues and areas of knowledge, and I must assume many students are similarly misinformed. Until we dedicate ourselves to the task of purveying the vital information and insights of our disciplines to a general public of students and colleagues, phenomena like "intelligent design" will continue to be a blight on our intellectual landscape.

I should point out that this is from the UC Berkly Web site

Sigh!

I quit smoking two weeks ago. The main reason was that I had just come down with my fifth or sixthe cold since September. I figured if I quit smoking I wouldn't get as many colds. Guess what I'm coming down with! It is really not fair. I should be rewarded for my good behavior, not punished! God, must surely be a republican (punish the good and give tax cuts to the wicked)!
Needless to say there won't be that many posts until I shake it.

More Creationism!

This is kind of old, but the more information we have the better.

Ledger and Enquirer
Knox News: No Silence Here glad to see Knoxvillians still have some sense! (I miss McKays!)

New Fossils!

Last Friday's edition of NPR's Science Friday concerned the discovery of new fossil hominids. They date to about 4 million years ago (based on faunal assemblage - results of radiometric dating are pending) and are the oldest example of bipedal hominids yet know. A total of 12 specimens was found.

Portions recovered thus far include a complete tibia, parts of a femur, ribs, vertebrae, clavicle, pelvis, and a complete scapula of an adult whose sex and stature are yet to be determined, although it is already clear that the individual was larger than Lucy. In addition to this discovery, skeletal parts of other individuals were found in different localities in the area. These discoveries include isolated teeth, and elements from below the neck (arm bones, leg bones, phalanges).

The fossils were found approximately 37-40 miles from Hadar (where "Lucy" and other specimens of A. afarensis were found). The finds have not been identified as to species yet - apparently they were discovered around the 2nd week of February. The discoveries were made by a team lead by Yohannes Haile-Selassie and Bruce Latimer of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History.

Go to the Cleveland Museum of Natural History or to the Discovery Channel or to the New Scientist for further details.

If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

Creationism/ID is something of a hobby of mine. I try to keep track of current arguments and have had several “discussions” with proponents of creationism/ID. One of the arguments that occasionally crops up is “If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?” For example, one of the people speaking in favor of the Minority Report of the Kansas BOE used that argument. There are various, usually short, responses to this argument, for example here, here, here, here and here. However, I come away unsatisfied after reading them. So here is my, long winded, response to the question.
I guess the best place to start is with a definition of a species. According to Mayr (1942:120) species are “…groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups”. Note the “…other such groups” part of the definition. What this means, in our context, is that baboons do not breed with aye-ayes (they do not share a common gene pool). There are different species of monkeys and what happens to one does not necessarily happen to the other. In order for the evolution of baboons to affect aye-ayes there would have to be gene flow between the two species (remember evolution is about genetic change). With this in mind, the answer to the question is easy. The reason there are still monkeys is that one species evolved in one direction (towards humans) while the other species evolved in other directions. But is this all there is to it?
Papio anubis 2 

Well, no. Baboons, for example, are divided into three genera: Papio (the savannah baboons one sees at the zoo), Mandrillus (the drill and mandrill- both of which are rare) and Theropithecus (the gelada). Within Papio there are five living species of babbon (P. papio, P. anubis, P. cynocephalu, P. ursinus, and P. hammadryas). These species are all allopatric (meaning they occupy separate geographic ranges, with little or no overlap). They live in large complex multi-male groups of up to 80 individuals and not every male in the group gets to breed (which effects the effective breeding number – but that’s a different post). There is some interbreeding between the five species of savannah baboon (hence some gene flow between the species). So, what would happen if a novel mutation occurred within the P. papio genome? First, since some males leave the troop they were born into, the mutation would be spread to other P. papio troops. From there it might spread to other species of savannah baboon, but it would not spread any further than that. So, to a greater or lesser extent, the evolution of savannah baboons does not affect other species of monkeys – such as the aye-aye.

Aye-aye 


Another example would be that the evolution of old world monkeys has had no impact on the evolution of new world monkeys in, say, the last ten million years or so.
That’s all well and good but what about all this common ancestor business? The typical, short, response to the monkey question usually goes like: Evolution doesn’t say that monkeys evolved into humans, instead it says that monkeys and humans shared a common ancestor. The common ancestor then split into two lineages, one leading to monkeys and one leading to humans. Of course, most creationist/ID types think this kind of response is dodging the issue, even though it is correct (just not detailed enough). Really, the answer to the question gets back to the concept of a common gene pool and the above definition of a species. Daubentonia madagascariensis (or the aye-aye) is a small, nocturnal prosimian related to lemurs. As the name implies they are found on the island of Madagascar. They are about the weirdest looking primates one could ever see. They have ever growing incisors, like squirrels’, enormous ears, a large bushy tail, clawed digits (rather than nails) on their hands and feet and an extremely long third digit (on their hands). They feed on grubs and larvae, using their slender third digit as a probe and gnawing away the tree bark with their incisors. In some ways they fill the same niche on Madagascar as wood peckers do elsewhere. So, why do we see these extreme specializations in aye-ayes and not savannah baboons? You guessed it. They do not share a gene pool. So, while the aye-ayes were evolving specializations related to eating grubs in trees baboons were evolving adaptations related to eating fruits, roots and tubers on the savannah. What did their common ancestor eat? Probably neither. Is it still around? No, it has been extinct for quite a while.
So, there you have it. The common ancestor of monkeys and humans speciated. One lineage evolved into monkeys, one into humans (I’m oversimplifying of course). Because, they did not mutually interbreed the lineage leading to monkeys was unaffected by evolutionary events in the lineage leading to humans.

References
Fleagle, John G. 1988 Primate Adaptation and Evolution (San Diego: Academic Press)
Mayr, Ernst 1942 Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Columbia University Press)

Kansas BOE Comments Link

Over on the righ, under the Moonbat and the "Leave no child behind, Teach Evolution" sticker is a link to the comment page of the Science Standards of the Kansas BOE. Be sure to follow the link and make comments for the SCSD and agaisnt the Minority Report (no, it's not a Tom Cruise movie).

Well, Since You Mentioned It....

Apparently, following up on a previous post, Yttriun is used in making tc tubes (it gives the red color. It is also used in superconductors and radar technology. It was discovered in 1794 by Gadolin.









Yttrium
More Yttrium

Friday Fungi Blogging

Cool

Some fungi are parasitic, as you can see from the above photo. A fungi has trapped a nematode. Most fungi feed on dead organic matter (and are not photsynthetic).

I knew it could happen!!

About the time I bought my sailboat I started having some really nasty nightmares about sharks. In my dream the would jump out of the water like whales (one even winked at me, but we won't go there)! Everybody I talked to about it said it was impossible, sharks don't do that! Below are some pictures of great whites off the coast of South Africa. Clearly, they do! As I understand it they eat seals and attack their prey from below. Since great whites are such powerful swimmers the force of their attack propels them out of the water. Now if I could just find a picture of one winking I would be fully vindicated!





...and really, this has nothing to do with Yttrium!

Friday Frankenstein Blogging

Karloff at his best!

Don't Have a Title

Just sitting here thinking about this blog. I have a couple of longer blog subjects in the works. I won't get to them until this weekend though. They will be about evolution. I have seen a lot of websites and blogs cover the subject. Some good (Pharyngula springs to mind) some not so good. On the "not so good ones" I frequently find myself saying "thats not the way I would explain it", so what I am going to be doing is explaining things my own way. I hope anybody who reads this will find it interesting, if not, well blogs are diaries and I am going to writing for my own benefit. In the meantime, check out the list of blogs I have linked to, they are all pretty good and I have recently added a few.


Anyway Happy Reading!

Which Element are You?

Go here OKCupid and find out. It's fun and informative!
Here is how I did:


Y...Yttrium
You scored 37 Mass, 5 Electronegativity, 74 Metal, and 0 Radioactivity!
Yttrium? Yttrium??? You're messing with me, right? That's not a real element. Really? If you say so. Okay... how about: You are really a solitary creature, and you're somewhat set in your ways. You work, consciously or subconsciously, towards the betterment of society, but I guess you do this by befriending it's strangest elements. You're kind of a spaceman/woman, but in the end you're allright. You should try to be with the benign weirdos of the world because, by goodness, no one else will. Oh, it says here that you are abundant on the moon. Interpret as you will.



My test tracked 4 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender:


You scored higher than 50% on Mass

You scored higher than 1% on Electroneg

You scored higher than 70% on Metal

You scored higher than 1% on Radioactivity

So there you go. I should hang around with benign weirdos!

Pardon My French

I am really pissed! After spending most of Saturday getting the software installed on my new computer and putting in a new modem and soundcard what happens today? Some peice of shit company installs their fucking piece of shit adware on my computer and I can't get the crap off. It's like coming home and finding your neighbor has changed the locks to your house and is charging you $50 for a key. It ought to be illeagal for these bastards to install crap on your computer. The adware is called E2G and Spy Sweeper can't get it off. If anybody knows of a way I would appreciate some help. In the meantime I plan to fire off an angry email to the scum involved at support@e2give.com. Fuckers! Dick licking sons of bitches!

In Memorium: Hans Bethe

‘It is the most wonderful feeling when you come to a real answer. This is it, and this is correct! In science, you know you know.’
— Hans Bethe
From a 1996 interview


According to today's Post-Dispatch, Nobel Prize winning physicist Hans Bethe passed away. He was 98. Bethe was known for his work on the Manhattan Project and for discovering the atomic workings of the sun. He also made significant contributions to the Big Bang theory. His Alpha, Beta, Gamma paper (after Ralph Alpha, Hans Bethe and George Gammow), for example was a significant contribution to the literature. The Post-Dispatch mentions that he made a "significant" discovery every decade. He also still used a slide rule ( I own four myself) that he had had for 70 years. Go to Hans Bethe for more details.

More on Homo floresiensis, or this brain is not Abby Normal

Pharyngula has scans of the brain of Homo floresiensis! As mentioned, in a previous post, Dean Falk did CT scans of the brain of Homo floresiensis and compared them to chimps and modern humans - ruling out microcephaly in the process.

Evolution in Kansas

Thoughts from Kansas has a good discussion on the response to the Kansas school board's new idea - a list of questions submitted to both creationists and biologists. This paragraph is really good:

"Does a Nobel Laureate in the field of interest who has spent a lifetime in study of these issues of science have the same credibility as someone who did an internet search? Dr. Harris is quite right; I do have concerns about the credibility of people he might suggest and how they might match up to the scientists. For example, Dr. Jonathan Wells is a frequent source for comments at the public hearings and his views are clearly reflected in the minority report. Dr. Wells has no academic credibility, has done no work in biology beyond a rather weak doctoral program, has very questionable motivation for pursing his education in biology, and, because of a felony conviction, would not be qualified to be a science teacher in Kansas. My question still remains, what is the standard for credible contributors to this process."

Anyone interested in this issue should follow the link.

As a side note, I am currently reading Wells' "Icons of Evolution" and will be doing a review when finished (although I will say I have only read the Intro and chapter one and have already found errors).

I vote for this guy all the time!

This is who I'm going to vote for in 2008
Well, actually just having fun with pictures!

I'm Baaack

Okay,
So yesterday my employer was selling computers so I bought one. The computer I was using was a one hundred megaherz pentium with 64 megs of memory and a two gig hard drive. I was also using Win 95! Worked for most purposes but the one I'm using now is way better! Took most of the day today to get it up and running as the stripped it of all software. On top of that some of my old stuff - sound cards etc wouldn't fit so I had to go by new. It was well worth it.

Homo Floresiensis Lost!

According to NPR Homo floresiensis is a lost species! I think they really mean "extinct". It would be nice if they at least made an effort to learn some correct terminology! They are doing a segment on Falk's CT scans. They do mention that those who are arguing for microcephaly are still not convinced and are climing it is some rare form of microcephaly Falk didn't look for.

The Difference between Science and "Science"

John Calvert of the Discovery institute has a piece in the Witchita Eagle defining science. Here is the relevant excerpt:

Quotation marks frame the term "science" because there are two kinds of science.
One kind of science is completely objective in its goal ("objective science"). It is purely theoretical and always open to criticism and the need to change its explanations when new evidence arises. It seeks to let the evidence dictate its explanations, not any bias.
This is the way most science is practiced, and this is the way it is explained to the public and to children in public schools. The real distinction between objective science and all religion is that objective science is theoretical, while religion is dogmatic.
The other kind of science is biased in its goal ("biased science"). Its ultimate goal is to infer only natural or material causes for the origin, existence and operation of all natural events and phenomena.

Note Calvert's definition turns things on their head. Apparently the way we have been practicing science since the time of Copernicus has been totally wrong. We have been extremely successful during that time frame, by restricting ourselves to material explanations for material phenomena but I guess it's all been for nothing! Throw your test tubes out the window and lets discuss how may angels can dance on the head of a needle shall we?
Something else just occured to me. Consider the last sentence:
"Its ultimate goal is to infer only natural or material causes for the origin, existence and operation of all natural events and phenomena." Somthing seems wrong there. Is he saying we are wrong for seeking natural explanations for phenomena he has defined as natural? On the other hand, why should we not seek natural explanations for natural phenomena?

Dembski Factors 59!!

Well known ID advocate William Dembski has factored the prime number 59. For the mathmatically uninclined a prime number is divisible only by itself and the number one...till now! Go to Newton Spins in His Grave for details. Great stuff this!

Homeland Security

Just listening to NPR. Apparently the Homeland Security Dept. has electronic survelience (i.e. ankle bracelets) on over 1400 "non-citizens" and has plans to put ankle bracelets on every non-citizen in America. Invading the privacy and infringing on the rights of immigrants sure does make me feel better about our government (NOT!, Now I'm really afraid!)! How about you?

Come Sail Away With Me...

Almost Ready


One of my Joys in life is sailing. I own a San Juan 21 and during most of the summer I can be found out at the lake sailing. Normally, I keep my boat at the Lake Carlyle from the end of March to the end of October, after which I keep it at home. It is almost time to take take it back to the lake. These picture are from last summer (I just downloaded the software to use pictures on my blog and am still experimenting). I am the guy in Cardinal red and my wife is sitting near the tiller. Basically, We keep the boat on it's trailer (like the boats in the background) and lower it into the water via a hoist. So here we are rigging the sails.


Here we are still rigging the sails (incidently, the guy in white is a racer and has won several nationals- I am not into racing myself, although my wife wants to).

Under Sail 

And Finally, here we are undersail!

Honorary Moonbat

MoonBat Thanks Chris


You can get your moonbat at Chris Clarke. Chris invented the logo.

First Steps: Part II

Governor Blunt is starting to retreat on this issue! According to todays Post-Dispatch he has announced a plan that would require insurance companies to pay for: Occupational, physical and speach therapy and assistive technology. The drawback is that insurance wound only have to pay $3000 per year. Individuals would have a copay of up to $100 per month. The governor's plan would also restore 14.5 million of the money cut (since 22.7 million was eliminated this isn't saying much). Of course the insurance companies are screaming bloody murder about it.

What the Hell: Part V

Well,
Pharyngula and Chris Clarke made it on DTN. This is so not fair! I left a comment at Moonbat Central giving my blog url. I believe in socialized medicine, fours years of tuition free college education and not prvitizing social security. See What the Hell I-IV for further details.

Update: The Darwinian Orthodoxy

I have added 32 more journals - bringing the total to an even 100.

SHAME, SHAME, SHAME: A Clarification

Let me be clear about what I object to in the previous.
The KMOV reporter mentioned that people had witnessed the man abusing his children and people had witnessed the man abusing his wife. The reporter also mentioned that several of the mans neighbor's were so concerned about his behavior that they were thinking about selling their house and moving. It was in this context that the remark about nobody witnesing the man threatening people with a gun occured. It sounded to me like the previous violent behavior was being trivialized because no gun was involved. The sad reality of the situation is that in cases of domestic violence people end up dead regardless of how often or how many guns are brandished. Violent behavior against women and children is a good predictor of future violent behavior aginst women and children.

SHAME, SHAME, SHAME

Friday night there was a story on the news about a double homicide, the murder was spoted, chased and died in a car crash. Saturday we found out the real story. It seems there was a divorce and a custody dispute. The-male- reporter for KMOV said something to the effect that no one had ever seen the murderer threaten any one with a gun before, as if this made things more shocking. Depite the fact that a number of people had witnessed the man physically abusing his children. A larger number had witnessed him abusing his wife, but hey, no one had seen him threaten people with a gun! This kinda of statement is why I really don't watch the news anymore (well, that and the fact that Peter Jennings has been reduced to doing stories about UFO's). Accordint to this story on STLtoday.com the man was politically connected. One wonders if this is why he was running around free instead of being locked up like he should have been.

The Evil Darwinian Orthodoxy

The ID and Creationist crowd like to argue that we should "teach the controversy" (hence the current abuse of the schoolboard system like we see currently occuring in Kansas. Click on the permanent links for: Redstate Rabble and Thoughts from Kansas for updates). On the other hand, when you ask for evidence of a controversy they like to say that they are kept out of the science journals by the evil Darwinian orthodoxy. On the righthand side of this blog I have posted the names of a wide variety of science journals. Most of them concern anthropology, a few of them concern ecology, biology, genetics, or geology. At any rate, during my time as an undergraduate and graduate student in anthropology I accumulated many articles from all of the journals on the list. There are others, such as "Ecology of Food and Nutrition" or "The Lancet" that occasionally contain articles relating to evolution, but since their main focus is not evolution I left them off the list (but it goes to show that nothing in biology makes sense without evolution). Of course, it goes without saying that since I am not a biologist, ecologist or geologist I have barely scratched the surface of journals relating to evolution. The point of all this is that I didn't see any signs of a creationsim/design vs evolution controversy in any of the journals I used.
For another take on the "Controversy" go toThe Evolution Project and to The Non-Evolution Project.

House Bill 35 Update

I Recently wrote to my representitve (Michael Corcoran) in the Missouri House expressing my opposition to HB 35. Mr. Cocoran's response was very encouraging. Mr. Corcoran opposes this bill (as well as HB 34, both introduced by Cynthia Davis)and doesn't think the bill will get a hearing before the House Education Committee. According to Corcoran HB 34 probably wont make it out of committee or be debated on the floor. He also mentioned that Ms. Davis owns a religious bookstore in O'Fallon (which I was unaware of).

Darwin and Natural Selection

Over on the Panda's Thumb I find the following comment"

"The evidence doesn’t support mutation/selection as the all powerful force of evolution. Darwin never subscribed to it. Anyone who’s actually read “The Origin of Species” knows Darwin believed that evolution was driven by the heritability of acquired characters."

Here's what Darwin had to say on natural selection:

"As natural selection acts soley by the preservation of profitable modifications, each new form will tend in a fully stocked country to take the place of, and finally exterminate, its own less improved parent form and other less favoured forms with wich it comes into competition. Thus extinction and natural selection go hand in hand (Origin of Species pg 159)."

"Can the principle of selection, which we have seen is so potent in the hands of man, apply under nature? I think that we shall see that it can act most efficiently. Let the endless number of slight variations and individual differences occuring in our domestic productions, and, in a lesser degree, in those under nature be borne in mind; as well as the strength of the hereditary tendency(Origin of Species pg 87)."

I could probably find more but these two will suffice. Let's examine all three quotations. I interpret the first quote to mean that Darwin did not believe natural selection acting on mutation was the driving force of evolution. Two things could be said about that. First, the concept of mutation, being a term related to genetics was unknown. This gets back to comments I made in a previous post. Darwin was trying to talk about variabilty using archaic and outmoded concepts and trying to create a new vocabulary. Since genes and chromosomes and whatnot had not been discovered yet. For Darwin, variability was casued by a wide variaty of phenomena, including atavism, effects of previous sire, use/disuse of parts, and condition of life (for example, domesticated animals were more variable than wild animals because they were attended to by humans, the concept also had to do with rearing animals in a different environment than what they were accustomed to). So to say that Darwin didn't think mutation/selection "drove' evolution was misleading at best. Second, the crucial idea is that for Darwin natural selection acts on variability (however introduced). "Can it, then, be thought improbable, seeing that variations useful to man have undoubtedly occurred, that other variations useful in some way to each being in the great and complex battle of life, should occur in the course of many successive generations. If such do occur, can we doubt (remembering that many more individuals are born than can possibly survive) that individuals having any advantage, however slight, over others, would have the best chance of surviving and procreating their kind? On the other hand , we may feel sure that any variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed (Origin of Species pg 87-88)." Later in the same chapter Darwin uses the concept of natural selection to make predictions about speciation and the fossil record (he also uses this idea in a latter chapter on the imperfection of the fossil record). I could pull quite a few other quotes from "The Origin of Species" to prove my point. I could also pull some from "The variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication" and The Descent of Man; and Selection in Relation to Sex" but I think the point is made.

What the Hell: Part IV

Well,
I still have not had much success getting black listed by DTN. They did change their site. They used to have a "contribute information or names" area in the contacts section. No longer there. I think they must have gotten flooded with smart assed requests like mine. One of these days, people are going to wak up to the fact that the nutcases have seized control...
It used to be, when I was a kid, that people like Jesse Helms and Orrin Hatch were considered the extreme fringes of the far right. The current group of conservatives, however, make Helms and Hatch look moderate in comparison.

Busy Weekend

I still have not made it on DTN's enemies list and I havn't had much time to devote to it this weekend. I have spent most of my time posting comments over at Pharyngula concerning anthropological fraud in Germany. I am working something up to post here but it won't be till Tuesday or Wednesday.

Mutant Extraterrestrial Squid Have Invaded!!!

And these are their instructions:
Grab the nearest book.
Open the book to page 123.
Find the fifth sentence.
Post the text of the sentence in your journal along with these instructions.
Don’t search around and look for the “coolest” book you can find. Do what’s actually next to you


Okay, to hear is to obey. The book I grabed was James P. Hogan's "Voyage from Yesteryear". The fifth sentence reads:

"Now tell us where this stuff came from."

What the Hell: Part III

I'm making progress! I received permission to send emails to this address:
gzenone@thewildhare.org

Apparently this is the email address for the person in charge of web construction. As I know more I'll post.

What the Hell: Part 2

I still have not made it the Horwitz's enemy list. Bummer!

What The Hell?

I am a liberal, I guess. I believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I voted for Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton (twice) Gore, and Kerry! I believe in the Constitution of the United States and because of that belief think it is every citizens duty to try praise the government when it is doing right and to criticize it and try to change it when it is doing wrong! The US government is a human institution, created by and for humans and as such it is subject to the same human failings we all suffer from and those who think otherwise have forgotten their history. I also read banned books, believe in evolution and am for gay rights. Although I would like to see abortions become a thing of the past I am not for taking away a womans right to choose. There are a lot of issues that divide america, some of which I just mentioned. I could also mention some others: class, gender, ethnicity, urban vs rural, religion vs athiest. Over and above that there are "status" (in the anthropological sense) differences that divide us: father, mother, husband, wife, son, daughter, employee, employer - the list could go on forever. But the one thing that cuts through all these differences and unites us all is that we are all human beings. We are a country of competing, sometimes mutually inconsistant interests and they way we have reconciled those competing claims is through compromise. This is the very essence of the checks and balances on which our government is based. I also believe in social welfare rather than corporate welfare. I believe that the role of the government is to help the PEOPLE. I also believe that the government can help in a more effective fashion the private companies and am against the privatization of any government program. I believe that there are severe challanges ahead for this country and think that history will judge us based on what moral values guided that response. But there are those who would rather tear us apart and smear us based on ideology. There are those who would say anything, no matter how heinous, to keep themselves in power. Even if it means smashing the compromise that made this country "the beacon unto the world". Even if it means villifying their fellow citizens.

So, I say this is the stupidist thing I have ever heard in my life. Rather than face up to the mess that has been created in the last four years and trying to fix it, these people would rather explain the problems America faces by blaming librels? Give me a break. This is theodicy pure and simple, they need an explanation for the evil the perceive in the world so they blame anyone who doesn't agree with them. As I said earlier, we do face challanges, there is evil in the world (as 9/11 proved)but we can't survive these challanges by creating more Abu Gharibs, by creating list of those who arn't ideologically pure to the requisite degree. But if you insist on creating such a list, add my name! Come on! Do it! Pussies, Baawk,Baawk,Bawk!Chickens!

My Cousin Vinny, The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication, and "Bitch-Slapping" Behe

I just finished watching "My Cousin Vinny" wherein we learn such anthropological tidbits as what "utes" are (that's an anthropology joke for those of you unacquainted with native american tribes).
But what I really want to blog about is Charles Darwin. Today is his birthday. In terms of anthropology, his most important book (next to the Origin of Species) is "The Descent of Man". In it Darwin analyze the variabilty and distribution of the primates and concludes that humans evolved in Africa. A prediction that turned out to be correct.
"The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication" is less well know than either of the two books mentioned above, but is in someways more interesting. I have the two volume edition put out by Johns Hopkins University Press. In the foreword the editor (Harriet Ritvo) says the following:
"As a graduate student from the People's Republic of China told me several years ago, after having participated in a seminar that read excerpts from Variation and the Expression of Emotions, if the leaders of his government knew that Darwin had written such books, he would not be officially admired."

Leaving aside the similarities of the above qoute to some of the stories the creationist tell about Darwin, the forward is similarly derogatory in nature. I think this symptomatic of the way the work is viewed. I, on the other hand, think the book is under appreciated. Bearing in mind that I have justed started on chapter 20, here is a synopsis of the book. The first eleven chapters discuss variability in animals and plants that have been domesticated by humans. Throughout we see Darwin trying to apply the ideas he ennuciated in "the Origin of Species" -namely selection and desent with modification- to the problem of variability in domesticated animals. For example, he tries to determine the the ancestors of most of the species he discusses. For some species, such as dogs, he identifies several ancestors (in modern parlance, they would be considered polyphyletic groupings). For others, such as the chicken and pidgeon he identifies a single ancestor (Gallus bankiva for the former, Columba livia for the later). Darwin then uses selection to explain how, say, Gallus bankiva could have evolved into modern varieties of chickens. Along the way, he draws on osteological traits, coloration, behavior and the results of crossbreeding. Two more examples will suffice to show his approach to explaining variation in domesticated animals. First, he discusses dogs and cats in the same chapter. For dogs he points out that selection for a wide variety of traits led to a proliferation of different "types" of dogs. Cats, on the other hand, didn't appear to exhibit the same variation. Mummified cats from Egypt looked much like their Victorian counterparts. What could explain this difference? He points out that for dogs, with breeders emphasizing pedigree, breeding was highly controlled. Whereas for cats breeding was pretty much at random, due to their behavior - at that of their owners. Using modern terminology, dogs were split into a large number of local populations with little opportunity for gene flow between the populations. Cats, on the other hand pretty much roam freely and have a larger effective breeding population - hence there was a lot of gene flow. Second, one of the more interesting aspects of these chapters is the way he uses skeletal material. For example, when discussing rabbits he collected measuremnts on several different species of rabbits and then scaled those measurements to those of wild rabbits. By that I mean that the wild rabbit is used as the standard of comparison and measurements are expressed relative to that standard. In some cases the discussion approaches modern conceptions of allometry.
The next nine chapters are devoted to inheritance (although we don't get to pangenesis until several chapters before the end), hybridism, crossbreeding,and inbreeding. These, to me, are the most fascinating chapters. In them we see Darwin struggling to make sense of a wide variety of data, and outmoded and flatly wrong concepts (reversion, atavism, effects of previous sire, etc.). Two issues were causing Darwin problems. First, the sheer mass of data, often conflicting, which obscured patterns of variation. Second, it seems to me that there was not a adequate "language" for discussing variability and Darwin was clearly struggling. I think what appeals to me the most about the book is that it is an intellectually honest survey on the nature of variation and I have the impression that Darwin was never satisfied with his conclusion.

On that note, Evolutionblog was the first to report on Bruce Albert's response to Behe's Op-Ed piece in the New York Times. But first, a little history. In "Darwins Black Box" Behe takes several shots at Alberts. On page 115 Behe dismises Alberts' textbook (Molecular Biology of the Cell) as irrelevant to molecular evolution (mainly in the context of the evolution of vesicular transport). Then on page 152 he takes another shot regarding the discussion of metabolic pathways in Alberts' book. I don't know if Alberts' ever responded to Behe on that issue, but clearly Alberts' was angry at the misleading and intellectually dishonest was Behe quoted him in his Times Op=Ed. Pardon my terminolgy but Alberts' applies a gentle "Bitch-slapping" to Behe.

In one scence, early, in "My Cousin Vinny" Ralph Macchio's character is about to fire Vinny. Vinny pleads for one chance to question a witness. The prosecution's case, he says, is like a brick wall. First a foundation is laid and then new layers are added, each supporting the next. The dimensions fit, he says running his fingers along the length and width of a playing card. However, with a change of perspective (and here he turns the card flat) the bricks are really thin. This is a good description of ID. The dimensions of the the bricks fit and the wall they build seems solid, but if you change the perspective the bricks are revealed as to thin and the whole thing comes crashing down like a house of cards. This is why I could never accept ID. There is too much intellectual dishonesty. Rather than twisting peoples words and criticizing evolution, the promoters of ID should focus on developing a research program and conducting experiments. Darwin did!

First Steps

STLtoday - News - St. Louis City / County

Compassionate conservatism in action! Governor Matt Blunt is severly cutting the first steps program. The program is designed to help diabled children (and their families) with education and medical costs. The governor thinks that private insurance should pay the costs for these services. Ignoring the fact that most private insurance carriers don't typically cover the kinds of treatments these children need. I can vouch for this firsthand. My daughter is a special needs child and received services through the special school district. Most insurance sucks when it comes to these kinds of issues. It gets better, the governor thinks that the program is inefficient and wastefull, yet over 90% of the parents involved in the program approve of it and over 200 parents showed up to testify at the House Education Appropriations Committee hearing.
There may be times when the private sector can provide a service in a more efficient and sheaper fashion, however I would not want to place my child in the hands of a person who sole interest is in making a proffit. "I am sorry we have to cut your child's therapy, but, please, don't take it personally, it's only business. We do have an obligation to our stockholders to make a proffit, I'm sure you understand"
My wife was at some kind of leadership training seminar today. One of the speaker spent time discussing Harry Potter. The speaker did not like the Harry potter books as he felt they were "dark" and were making America dark. I would argue that it is not Harry Potter, it is actions like the above that are making America "dark". There is a rampant heartlessnes loose in America and ideological convictions are mindlessly clung to despite the cost they cause in human suffering. Still not convinced? See Here. The House of Representitives approved a bill that would give the Director of Homeland Security virtually unlimited powers. No judge, no lawyer, no court, no Senate committes would have oversite of these powers. The bill was passed by the republican majority (gee isn't that Matt Blunt's party?). Yet Harry Potter is spreading darkness in America! By the way, if you don't feel like following the link here is the text of the bill:

Section 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 … is amended to read as follows:
“(c) Waiver. —
“(1) In general. — Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary’s sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section.

“(2) No judicial review. — Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court shall have jurisdiction —

“(A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or

“(B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision.”

You can also go here Bill Would Place Homeland Security Above All Law for background. Kinda scary ain't it?

Evolving Thoughts

Evolving ThoughtsChristian math
This is fun:
I especially liked the rejection of zero as an Islamic plot. It lacks a pinch of something, though...

As I pointed out in an earlier post this is the kind of thing that happens when you start redefining science. 1+1 really equals 3+3 sure will make solving those differential equations a snap. Lets not forget how much it will simplify orbital mechanics for going to Mars. "Ground control to Major Tom... " you've missed Mars by millions of miles cause 1+1 really equals 2 not 6... (with apologies to David Bowie)!

Choose Life License Plates

The Missoure Senate has a bill that would allow "Choose Life" license plates (SB 94). A Google search shows this is happening country wide Choose Life. This is similar to what we are seeing on the Creationism front so I am wondering if both aren't part of a nationwide republican agenda. One wonders what else is on the agenda (besides corporate welfare).

Whats at Stake

From Red State Rabble concerning revisions to science teaching:
Here are excerpts from their proposed revisions
"Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building, to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena. Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us. Science does so through the use of observation, experimentation, and logical argument while maintaining strict empirical standards and healthy skepticism." (Words highlighted in blue are maked for deletion in the revised draft submitted by minority -- all supporters of Intelligent Design Theory)


They go on to explain that:
"The principle change here is to replace a naturalistic definition of science with a traditional definition. The current definition of science is intended to reflect a concept called methodological naturalism, which irrefutably assumes that cause-and-effect laws (as of physics and chemistry) are adequate to account for all phenomena and that teleological or design conceptions of nature are invalid."

What's all the fuss about? Well, all they want to do is take the science out of science classes. If you read their revisions carefully, you'll see that they don't just want an alternative (teleological) explanation for evolution taught in biology. They now challenge the naturalistic explanation for what happens when students add aqueous ammonia to a beaker containing a few drops of aqueous copper sulfate in chemistry class. Maybe, it wasn't the chemical properties that turned the solution blue, maybe it was God or some unknown designer. The danger is that while they didn't win over many members of the science standards writing committee, who, by and large, are scientists and educators, they do have a majority on the board.

Why post about Kansas? Consider the following HB 35. The fill text of which is:
To amend chapter 170, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to biology textbooks.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

Section A. Chapter 170, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 170.032, to read as follows:

170.032. All biology textbooks sold to the public schools of the state of Missouri shall have one or more chapters containing a critical analysis of origins. The chapters shall convey the distinction between data and testable theories of science and philosophical claims that are made in the name of science. Where topics are taught that may generate controversy, such as biological evolution, the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society.

I urge you to write your state representive and recommend they vote against this bill. If you don't know your rep go Here . As far as I have been able to determine the Missouri Senate does not have a similar bill.

Lest You Think It's Just Evolution

From the The Journal Gazette“What we are saying is that God has given us some very specific commands that we are to train our children in the ways of the Lord, not in the ways of the world,” said the Rev. Roger Moran, of Troy, Mo., the resolution’s author and a member of the Southern Baptist Convention’s executive committee.

That means teaching creationism over evolution, that life begins at conception and that homosexuality is immoral, as is sex outside of marriage. But it is more.

“It hits everything, when you realize the reality of life is (that) life was created by God and the entire universe is his creation. Therefore, everything has meaning and reflection on his nature, whether it is math or history or science. Two plus two equals four because God created them that way,” (emphasis mine)said Glen Schultz, who heads the Baptists’ LifeWay curriculum program for church-based schools and home-schoolers

Teachers Afraid to Teach Evolution

From the New York Times:

Afraid to discuss evolution

By The New York Times News Service

The fights in scattered school districts over whether to teach creationism or its rival, called intelligent design, as alternatives to Darwin's theory of evolution may be obscuring a deeper problem: the tendency of many districts to duck controversy by avoiding or soft-pedaling any teaching of evolution at all. Nobody knows the extent of the problem, but an article by Cornelia Dean in The New York Times on Tuesday cites ample evidence that even when evolution is theoretically part of the curriculum, it is often ignored or played down in the classroom.
Some teachers duck the subject, lest they get into trouble with school administrators or fundamentalist parents. Others assign a chapter on evolution for reading but avoid any discussion in the classroom. Still others discuss evolutionary concepts without ever mentioning "the E word" to avoid arousing controversy.

Although most state curriculum standards mandate that evolution be taught, and standardized tests typically include questions on evolution, some teachers apparently assume that evolution is a small enough part of the curriculum that their students can get by without mastering the subject. Those students remain ignorant of one of the bedrock theories underlying modern biology.

In some areas of the country, many biology teachers are themselves believers in creationism. A 1998 doctoral dissertation found that 24 percent of the biology teachers sampled in Louisiana said that creationism had a scientific foundation and that 17 percent were not sure. Several surveys have shown that many teachers give at least some instructional time to creationism or intelligent design out of a sense of fairness.

That serves the students and the nation poorly as they enter an age likely to be dominated by biology.

Apalling! Especially the bit about teaching ID or creationism out of some warped sense of fairness.

Speaking of Republicans

On the local level the republican governor of Missouri has announced plans to cut funding for various early childhood learning programs, despite studies that prove these programs substantially reduce future spending on special education programs. It seems to me this is not about government efficiency, nor does it seem that this benefits the people of Missouri in any way. If I had my choice I would rather spend a little now if it meant saving in the future. He also plans on reducing corporate taxes...So maybe this is more about transfering wealth. Phrased another way Democrats prefer welfare for the poor, Republicans prefer welfare for the rich.

"As you sow, so shall you reap..."

The above quote comes, of course, from the New Testament. I interpret it to mean that if you start something using evil methods (no matter what the intentions are) it will end in evil. A few days ago the Senate voted 60-36 to confirm Alberto Gonzales as the Attorny General of the United States. Despte the torture memos, despite Abu Gharib, despite Guantanamo. While eliminating terrorism is a laudable, and necessary goal, as long as we use torture and inhumane treatment we will never win. Sooner or later someone is going to reap the results of what Alberto Gonzales and the Senate sowed. Unfortunately, it will probably be innocent people who had nothing to do with the above illegal policies.

Ernst Mayr

Ernst Mayr passed away on Thursday. He was 100 years old and remained active till well into his 90's (publishing several books, for example). Mayr was one of the "founding fathers" of the Modern Synthesis. He also created the concept of allopatric speciation. He was one of the most important figures in evolutionary biology during the last 50 years. His impact could even be felt in anthropology, when, for example, Donald Johansen consulted with Mayr before creating the new species Australopithecus afarensis. Pretty remarkable when you consider that he started out as a Lamarkian! He will be sorely missed.

I would recommend the following books:

Animal Species and their Evolution
The Growth of Biological Thought
Systematics and the Origin of Species

Why does American Airlines Hate America?

I was watching KPLR (Ch. 11) last night and they did a story on a National Guardsman (I think his name was James Ditter, but I may not have heard correctly)who returned home from Iraq only to find that he had lost his job as an airline mechanic for American Airlines. American Airlines claims they had a contract with the union to lay people off based on seniority, so they really had no other choice but to lay off the National Guardsman. Even though laying off someone on active duty is against the law!
I have checked KPLR's website but they don't mention the story. During the story it was mentioned that Charlie Brenann of KMOX radio had done a story on it, but I couldn't find any mention on Kmox's website. I also checked the Post-Dispatch and Kmov's websites to no avail.
If the story is true I think it is really heinous. After serving in Iraq and risking his life every day he has to come home and be unemployed. I can't imagine how horrific war is and it it has to bee tough leaving that kind of situation and trying to go back to a normal life. It is even worse when you come home to no job. This is just not right!

Red State Rabble

I Discovered this site on Pharyngula. Keep updated on the Kansas Evolution Controversies and get a great poster comparing the discoveries of science with the "discoveries" of intelligent design.

Red State Rabble

The Great Dying

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, on 1/21/05, reported on a recent article in the journal Science. The article, in the Post is Volcanic heat gets blame for extictions.

The extinction event occured approximately 250 million years ago. In the event 90-96% of all species and 50% of all families went extinct. This includes 8 of 17 insect orders, 21 of 27 reptile families, 6 of 9 amphibian families and 70% of all marine invertebrate genra - including all reef building coral.
There is some evidence that indicates that this may have been two separate extiction events separated by about five million years in time. There are several different theories as to the cause of the event(s) divided into three general areas.

1)Changes in oceanic chemistry and sea level.
There is some evidence that indicates a major regression (drop in sea level)event related to the formation of the supercontinent Pangea. Along with this there is some evidence of a short term cooling trend, which may have lead to anoxic conditions in ocean bottoms (due to the shallowing ocean caused by the regression). The cooling temperatures would have lead to overturn (the cooler waters at the ocean top sink forcing anaxic water to the surface) killing most of the shallow water forms such as articulate brachiopods off. In general, the extinction event affected those species with narrow geographic distributions more than those with broad geographic distibutions.

2) Changes in atmospheric chemistry and climate.
There were several different interlinking causes. During the Permian there is evidence of a strong warming trend. There is also evidence of increased volcanic activity (in the siberian flood basalts, for example).This volcanic activity released massive amounts of sulfer dioxide into the atmosphere creating a "volcanic winter" or short term cooling trend which led to the above mentioned overturn in the world's oceans. One byproduct of the overturn was to release massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere which reinforced the warming trend.

3) Multicausal
A combination of both of the above.

With that in mind, the paper summarized in the Post attributes the extinct event to global warming and oxygen deprivation. The article also finds that there was a gradual extiction for about ten million years followed by a raridly increased extinction rate for another five million years. According to the paper the oceanic regression at the end of the Permian exposed massive amounts of oceanic sediments to the atmosphere, which caused a massive emission of carbon dioxide and methane - two greenhouse gasses. This reduced the diluted the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere from 21% to 16% or less. Since oxygen concentration decreases with increasing altitude this dilution of oxygen would have reduced living space by up to one half. According to the authors only those species living at the oceans surface would have survived. As we saw above, however, most of the species living at the ocean's surface went extinct. Finally, the authors say that since there was a low oxygen environment, evolution would have favored those organism adapted to it and hypothesize that dinosaurs were adapted to a low oxygen environment. They point out that birds (the decendents of dinosaurs) can live at low concentrations of oxygen. I'm not convinced by this last. Dinosaurs evolved and went extinct over the 190 million years following the Permian. Presumably, the oxygen content would have increased back to 21% and dinosaurs would have adapted to that. Granted, birds can tolerate lower oxygen concentrations but what this means to me is that they evolved to tolerate a wide variety of oxygen concentrations rather than that they adapted to low oxygen concentrations. I should also point out that I have based this on what I read in the newspaper, rather than the paper in Science - which I haven't had a chance to read yet - so I'm not sure about the accuracy in the Post article.

Movie Review: Van Helsing

Although, I like Hugh Jackman and Kate Beckinsale, I was disappointed in this movie. The plot was okay, but I really didn't like the varios werewolves, Frankenstein's Monster and Mr. Hyde(which was the exact same as in League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. I don't think the CGI blended in very well with the live actors. The makers of this movie would have been better off to go either with all live action or all CGI.
Another qualm is that this title character, Van Helsing, bore more than a passing resemblance to the Character "D" the title character in "Vampire Hunter D:Bloodlust" right down to the outfit.
On the plus side Kate Bekinsale and Hugh Jackman turned in good performances. Richard Roxburgh turned in a quirky performance as Dracula. When asked if he has a heart Roxburgh replies, eventually, "No, I'm hollow". I also liked the referances to earlier Universal Studios horror movies. Dracula: "Igor, why must you torment that creature so?
Igor: "It's what I do!
Overall, the movie is worth seeing, but don't expect too much.

My Mistake

I just realized that I did not post on the evolution of the eye.
Photreceptors , Rods and Cones and Rhadomeric and Ciliary Eyes .

Chimeras

For a really cool picture of a Mutant Squid Thingie Ain't biology grand?

The Evolution of Bats

A while back I provided links on the evolution of the eye. Here are two links for a fascinating discovery concerning the evolution of bats.

Bats

Evolution

My Life

I'm approximately three fourths of the way through "My Life" by Bill Clinton. The thing that struck me the most about the book was when he was talking about his ideas on health care. Apparently Bill Kristol, conservative pundit, convinced the republican party that if they passed Clinton's health care plan they would be a minority party for years to come. Consequently, we had the republicans puting the interests of the party above the interests of the people they are supposed to represent. Appalling!

Wither, the Democratic Party

Yesterday the Democrats got their heads handed to them on a silver platter. In the meantime, the Republicans picked up 4 seats in the Senate. In thinking about it, the Republicans are going with ever more conservative candidates and over the past few years have even campaigned against members of their own party who were not conservative enough. The result has been that liberal Republicans are extinct and moderate Republicans are endagered species. An incidental byproduct is that there is no longer a political "middle". We are divided between left and right with no middle (and of course republicans don't like shades of grey - it's all black and white). Conventional wisdom has it that to win an election you have to capture the center. The idea being that there are more people in the middle than on the far left or far right. But if there is no political center, how are you going to win? This is the problem the Democrats face.
It seems to me there are several options.
1) We can model ourselves after the Republican party. We can come up with one message and make sure all our candidates stick to that message and that message alone (incidently, I had a hard time telling our Republican candidate for governor from any other Republican candidate running in the U.S. because their campaign messages were virtually identical). I don't much care for this option because it does not allow much room for independent or creative thought and turns people into loudspeakers mindlessly spewing out whatever message is plugged in.
2) We can rebuild the center. Starting on a statewide level we can rebuild the party by creating messages that appeal to the common interests. We would also have to work at the federal level to make sure we don't loose anymore ground in the House and Senate. One of the great things about the Democratic party is that we have conservatives, moderates and liberals all coexisting in the same party - unlike the Republicans. This is our greatist strength. So we have the foundation, we just need to build towards the center. Because even though a lot of states went red, not all of them are conservative enough to elect, say, a Rick Santorum. There is enough flexibility in the party to be able to appeal to some of those voters.
3)In the meantime we need a new senate minority leader. I personally am all for a "Nancy Pellosi" type who can stir up a hornets nest. I think it would be bad for the party to replace Daschle with someone indistinguishable from Daschle. Of course, since Senate Republicans broke with tradition and sent Frist and others to campaign against Daschle, I think the Democrats should return the favor and target Hastert, Delay and Blunt in the house.

November 2!

Go, vote for the candidate of your choice! Your country needs you to perform this duty and you will feel better about yourself if you do!