Here's a couple more conferences that I would really like to go to. Mostly for the venue, though. They are about evolution, but Greece and Uruguay exert an immense pull on their own.
11th International Congress on the Zoogeography, Ecology and Evolution of Eastern Mediterranean
Irakleio, Crete on September 21 to 25, 2009
Website
150 years of Darwin's Evolutionary Theory: a South American celebration
Punta del Este, Uruguay, on September 2-6, 2009.
Website
Confirmed keynote speakers: Giorgio Bernardi, Daniel Dennett, Douglas Futuyma, Takashi Gojobori, Eviatar Nevo, Francisco Salzano, Emile Zuckerkandl
So, if anyone knows of a good place to apply for money to travel to Uruguay (my first choice), then I shall be waiting to hear from you...
Field of Science
-
-
Change of address1 year ago in Variety of Life
-
Change of address1 year ago in Catalogue of Organisms
-
-
Earth Day: Pogo and our responsibility1 year ago in Doc Madhattan
Matt Ridley on ideas having sex
As mentioned a few times already, I have just been to the 74 Symposium at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. The many experiences I had there will continue to fill the pages here for quite some time. Now, I'd like to summarize an interesting talk given by Matt Ridley: "When Ideas Have Sex: The Role of Exchange in Cultural Evolution"
Ridley started by comparing two objects that both are made to fit neatly in the palm of a human hand, a stone chipped for throwing, and a computer mouse. The difference is that the stone is made by one brain, while the mouse is made by many brains. Most likely there isn't a single person who could make a mouse. He then gave the example of the steam machine. Six of them, with Watts' the fourth in a line of machines each built on principles of the former. James Watts is often given the credit, but he didn't invent the steam engine any more than Fender invented string instruments. Ridley quoted a Francois (last name?): "To create is to recombine," driving home the point familiar to evolutionary biologists that recombination (a genetics term) generates variation on which novelty is built, and that this is true in cultural evolution as well. He argued that the invention (of appearance) of bipedalism, use of tools, use of fire, and language is not enough to increase cranial capacity to the point where it is today. Instead, he contends, what really required such an astounding, and otherwise disadvantageous increase in cranial volume, was the emergence of exchanges, or trade (yes, several disadvantages to having such a large brain must be overcome: high energetic cost, large skulls leading to high rates of death during birth, high costs of caring for what is basically premature infants). As evidence for this he notes that no animals exchange food. Tests have been made with monkeys, but no matter how hard they try to induce them to trade with each other, they never do. This lead him to the formula that the difference between us and them is one of kind, rather than degree. In humans this in turn led to the sexual division of labor, which is also not observed among other animals. There is not even evidence to suggest that Neandertals divided tasks differently between male and female, while there is evidence that they had language, tools, fire, and walked on two feet. Of course, one could object that Ridley's hypothesis doesn't square so well with the fact that Neandertals had larger brains that humans, though it could be hypothesized (but not tested) that the human brain is different in kind, while not larger than that of Neandertals.
What can be invented and produced further depends on the size of society. The more people can exchange ideas and items, the more technology (i.e. novel products) is created. People who have been isolated from contacts with foreigners, for example on the island of Tasmania with only 4,000 individuals, never developed new tools, but in fact their technology simplified over time. It is the differentiation of professions within society that enables large-scale constructs, like airplanes and electric guitars, none of which could ever be produced if everyone carried out all the same tasks.
Technologies evolve building on top of previous ones, but on top of that similarity to evolutionary biology, technologies may also speciate, as when a subpopulation of E. coli evolves the ability to metabolize citrate, or when dog breeds become so different that they cannot interbreed anymore, as with chihuahuas and great danes (this is at least true if all other dog breeds of intermediate size went extinct). As an example of that Ridley mentioned the internet, which he proposed is about to split into two different things: "What my daughter do [on the internet] is vastly different from what I do." If that's the only example, then I would say that this speciation hypothesis was contentious at best, but if I think about it, computers are so diverse in forms now as to compare with dog breeds, so perhaps I cannot reject the comparison.
Matt Ridley is the author of four books on human nature, and one biography of Francis Crick. His newest book will be on evolutionary economics.
Previous posts on the 74th Symposium at CSHL:
Second day at CSHL
First day at CSHL
74th Symposium at CSHL
Ridley started by comparing two objects that both are made to fit neatly in the palm of a human hand, a stone chipped for throwing, and a computer mouse. The difference is that the stone is made by one brain, while the mouse is made by many brains. Most likely there isn't a single person who could make a mouse. He then gave the example of the steam machine. Six of them, with Watts' the fourth in a line of machines each built on principles of the former. James Watts is often given the credit, but he didn't invent the steam engine any more than Fender invented string instruments. Ridley quoted a Francois (last name?): "To create is to recombine," driving home the point familiar to evolutionary biologists that recombination (a genetics term) generates variation on which novelty is built, and that this is true in cultural evolution as well. He argued that the invention (of appearance) of bipedalism, use of tools, use of fire, and language is not enough to increase cranial capacity to the point where it is today. Instead, he contends, what really required such an astounding, and otherwise disadvantageous increase in cranial volume, was the emergence of exchanges, or trade (yes, several disadvantages to having such a large brain must be overcome: high energetic cost, large skulls leading to high rates of death during birth, high costs of caring for what is basically premature infants). As evidence for this he notes that no animals exchange food. Tests have been made with monkeys, but no matter how hard they try to induce them to trade with each other, they never do. This lead him to the formula that the difference between us and them is one of kind, rather than degree. In humans this in turn led to the sexual division of labor, which is also not observed among other animals. There is not even evidence to suggest that Neandertals divided tasks differently between male and female, while there is evidence that they had language, tools, fire, and walked on two feet. Of course, one could object that Ridley's hypothesis doesn't square so well with the fact that Neandertals had larger brains that humans, though it could be hypothesized (but not tested) that the human brain is different in kind, while not larger than that of Neandertals.
What can be invented and produced further depends on the size of society. The more people can exchange ideas and items, the more technology (i.e. novel products) is created. People who have been isolated from contacts with foreigners, for example on the island of Tasmania with only 4,000 individuals, never developed new tools, but in fact their technology simplified over time. It is the differentiation of professions within society that enables large-scale constructs, like airplanes and electric guitars, none of which could ever be produced if everyone carried out all the same tasks.
Technologies evolve building on top of previous ones, but on top of that similarity to evolutionary biology, technologies may also speciate, as when a subpopulation of E. coli evolves the ability to metabolize citrate, or when dog breeds become so different that they cannot interbreed anymore, as with chihuahuas and great danes (this is at least true if all other dog breeds of intermediate size went extinct). As an example of that Ridley mentioned the internet, which he proposed is about to split into two different things: "What my daughter do [on the internet] is vastly different from what I do." If that's the only example, then I would say that this speciation hypothesis was contentious at best, but if I think about it, computers are so diverse in forms now as to compare with dog breeds, so perhaps I cannot reject the comparison.
Matt Ridley is the author of four books on human nature, and one biography of Francis Crick. His newest book will be on evolutionary economics.
Previous posts on the 74th Symposium at CSHL:
Second day at CSHL
First day at CSHL
74th Symposium at CSHL
The Darwin Myth myth
Another fucked-up book by a crazy, Christian, conservative, creationist: The Darwin Myth: The Life and Lies of Charles Darwin, by Benjamin Wiker, Ph.D. (There's always that Ph.D., but does he have a relevant Ph.D.? Let me look that up... Aha! First google-hit reveals that he is a senior fellow at the Discotute, and that his Ph.D. is in Theological Ethics, of all things odious).
Why Aren't Scientists Allowed to Believe in God? [Huh? Allowed?]
There was a time when most scientists were also deeply religious men. When scientists were not forced to choose between belief in God and the rigorous pursuit of scientific knowledge. [Ask Ken Miller if scientists today are "forced" to be atheist.] But that all ended with Charles Darwin.
(...)
Taking a "warts and all" approach, Wiker not only offers a critical, scientific analysis of Darwin's life and his history-changing theory, but exposes Darwin's ultimate goal: the elimination of God from all science—not just evolution. [A "scientific" analysis of Darwin's writings that resulted in...]
Casting aside Darwinism's politically correct veneer, The Darwin Myth reveals:
The Darwin Myth: Darwin insisted that evolution must be godless to be scientific [Straw-man!!! Who ever said that Darwin insisted this? I'm at an evolution meeting right now, everyone mentioning Darwin's contribution all over the place, and no one ever mentioned anything about a godlessness-requirement.]
Charles Darwin didn't "discover" evolution—he just put his name on it. (It was explored in the 17th Century, long before his time.) [He didn't discover evolution, no. He postulated (and described evidence to support) common descent and natural selection. What of it?]
Although not Darwin's intention, Darwinism provides an open rationale for eugenics, genocide and racism [So does the Bible. So does agriculture. And genocide and racism existed long before Darwin. (But true, it lead to eugenics, which is a disgrace, and which no respectable scientist supports today.)]
Darwin's own theory supported natural slavery—an institution he detested [Evolution does not "support" slavery. It's a scientific theory, not a treatise on ethics (but I fear that someone with a Ph.D. in Theological Ethics sees everything in the light of values).]
Many of his best friends and allies criticized Darwin's theory, and he never definitively refuted their objections [But on the points where Darwin was correct, the criticism have been refuted since, and that's all that matters.]
From Darwin's obsession with making evolution his own to his belief that progress meant the advance of secularized science against religion ["secularized" science equals science - anything that isn't secular is biased by dogma. "Secular science" is a pleonasm], Wiker shows how Darwin's legacy set atheism as the default position of the scientific community and irrevocably divorced God from science. [But atheism wasn't Darwin's concern. That so many scientists, and notably evolutionary biologists, are atheist is not out of a requirement, but because biology can now explain everything the Bible says on the matter in a plausible and testable way. And because those stories in the Bible are insane.]
Current on Darwinius
I'm still at the Cold Spring harbor symposium. Tim White spoke today in part about the Darwinius fossil, and is of the opinion that that wasn't handled too well. Edward Current of course must comment as well.
"Faith is about seeing only the evidence that you wanna see." Priceless. Edward Current always is.
And so is the appearance of Christ on a dogs ass:
"Faith is about seeing only the evidence that you wanna see." Priceless. Edward Current always is.
And so is the appearance of Christ on a dogs ass:
Second day at Cold Spring Harbor
Friday at the symposium had many great talks, For example, Hopi Hoekstra from Harvard told us about the experiments with wild mice that have recently expanded their range to include white sand beaches, favoring mice with a lighter fur color. The mice living in habitats with brown soil have brown fur, and are predated by birds of prey, so the question was if coat color actually matters for camouflage. To test this she and her colleagues painted clay figures of mice white and brown and put them out on the beach ("to the field, where few molecular biologists have gone before"). More molested brown clay mice confirmed that there is indeed strong selection for a lighter fur coat on the beach. Mutations in three genes are observed to have an effect on coat color:
Mc1r: single amino acid change reduces receptor signaling
Agouti: no amino acid changes, but increases mRNA expression
Corin: increase in expression
They investigated the effects in the mice of the order of these mutations, and found epistatic interactions; the order in which the mutations occur matters.
Whenever the mutation in Corin happens last, each mutation has a significant effect on color, but if Corin is first (or second, then that mutation does not result in a significant change in color:
In other words, Corin and Agouti (or Mc1r) interacts to produce a higher effect on color (and thus fitness) than each one has on its own. Epistasis.
However, then Hopi made a strange assumption. She then assumed that each mutation must have an effect on fitness, and that in the order of mutations, Corin must necessarily come last. I still haven't caught at the meeting, but when I do I'm going to ask why she makes this assumption. Since the effect of Corin alone is effectively neutral, there is nothing wrong with it coming first in the ancestral line that includes all three mutations.
Update 5/31: At the picnic I spoke to Hopi about the matter (btw, she's of Dutch ancestry, so her name is unpronounceable to Americans, but instead goes by Hoe-sktra, as in "that ho(e) is extra good"), and she told me that she agrees that the mutations could indeed come with Corin first (or second), but that the emphasis is not on the order of mutations, but on the order of selection pressures. Additionally, the story is more complicated than what she could present in 20 minutes (that undoubtedly goes for all 75 (or so) talks). There are subpopulations with only two of the three mutations. Which ones were they? Sorry, I don't recall. There were five different populations. Check out her publications.
Mc1r: single amino acid change reduces receptor signaling
Agouti: no amino acid changes, but increases mRNA expression
Corin: increase in expression
They investigated the effects in the mice of the order of these mutations, and found epistatic interactions; the order in which the mutations occur matters.
Whenever the mutation in Corin happens last, each mutation has a significant effect on color, but if Corin is first (or second, then that mutation does not result in a significant change in color:
In other words, Corin and Agouti (or Mc1r) interacts to produce a higher effect on color (and thus fitness) than each one has on its own. Epistasis.
However, then Hopi made a strange assumption. She then assumed that each mutation must have an effect on fitness, and that in the order of mutations, Corin must necessarily come last. I still haven't caught at the meeting, but when I do I'm going to ask why she makes this assumption. Since the effect of Corin alone is effectively neutral, there is nothing wrong with it coming first in the ancestral line that includes all three mutations.
Update 5/31: At the picnic I spoke to Hopi about the matter (btw, she's of Dutch ancestry, so her name is unpronounceable to Americans, but instead goes by Hoe-sktra, as in "that ho(e) is extra good"), and she told me that she agrees that the mutations could indeed come with Corin first (or second), but that the emphasis is not on the order of mutations, but on the order of selection pressures. Additionally, the story is more complicated than what she could present in 20 minutes (that undoubtedly goes for all 75 (or so) talks). There are subpopulations with only two of the three mutations. Which ones were they? Sorry, I don't recall. There were five different populations. Check out her publications.
First day a Cold Spring Harbor
My first real day at the 74th Cold Spring Harbor Symposium on Quantitative Biology, Evolution: The Molecular Landscape was a huge disappointment. My flight was supposed to arrive at La Guardia at 6:35pm, but it didn't get in until an hour after that. My luggage, however, was not on the flight, and not on the following flight from the same airline also coming from Dallas. It was on the third flight from the Dallas, and this delay resulted in me arriving at the meeting after 10pm, as Marc Hauser was just finishing his talk. I had missed E. O. Wilson's talk on the evolution of sociality in ants, and that really pisses me off.
Today has been very exciting, even though I have had some reservations about the talks. Usually I like shorter than one hour talks, but the length here is limited to 20 minutes, and speakers are really rushing through things. Given that, I had a really hard time following the morning lectures, which were on the interesting but (for me) difficult subject of RNA and proteins, with a lot of focus on elements of abiogenesis (origin of life). For example, Gerald Joyce talked about his recently published work on self-replicating and evolving RNA. I read the paper, which was very technical, and so I was looking forward to the talk to get a better understanding of the experiment. Not much luck with that, and on top of that I didn't get to ask him about, what I think is, his very strange definition of life. He argues that his replicating RNA has many of the traits of life, but not two that makes it non-life. The list is
However, the poster session was amazing. Michael Behe is here, and on his poster he argued from experiments with bacteria that, contrary to the observation that organisms increase in complexity (defined as number of promoters and genes), evolutionary theory predicts that it should decrease, because by far the most beneficial mutations result in loss of promoters and/or genes. I wholeheartedly disagree, because gene duplication, by his definition, increases complexity without having any effect on fitness (mostly). He countered that the rate of duplication is too low (1e-8 - 1e-9), but I don't see why that should be too low - it has to be compared to the rate of beneficial mutations, which is also very low (and perhaps comparable to that of gene duplications).
Another good poster was by Paul Bingham, Stony Brook, who argued that there is a causal correlation between human brain size and village size, as he put it. And the link... is throwing. Have you ever seen a chimp throw? It doesn't even throw like a girl. It simply isn't built for it. But humans are, and the advantages are clear: aggressive scavenging and low cost to ostracize. There is evidence of correlation from 1.8 million year old artifacts, but I was not alone about wishing for a testable hypothesis and some quantitative data.
Susan Lindquist from Cambridge, MA gave a an excellent talk in the evening on the influence of protein folding on evolutionary change. Chaperones (e.g. Hsp90) can facilities the evolution of new traits by three mechanisms, one of is by buffering the effect of small mutations, allowing the storage of cryptic genetic variation that is released by stress.
Check back tomorrow for words about Hopi Hoekstra (molecular phenotypic optima), Nick Barton (sex and recombination), Daniel Dennett (cultural evolution of words), and Matt Ridley also on some cultural evolution thing. And, the posters look even better again tomorrow. There's a great looking one on peaks in artificial fitness landscapes.
Here's a list of abstracts.
Today has been very exciting, even though I have had some reservations about the talks. Usually I like shorter than one hour talks, but the length here is limited to 20 minutes, and speakers are really rushing through things. Given that, I had a really hard time following the morning lectures, which were on the interesting but (for me) difficult subject of RNA and proteins, with a lot of focus on elements of abiogenesis (origin of life). For example, Gerald Joyce talked about his recently published work on self-replicating and evolving RNA. I read the paper, which was very technical, and so I was looking forward to the talk to get a better understanding of the experiment. Not much luck with that, and on top of that I didn't get to ask him about, what I think is, his very strange definition of life. He argues that his replicating RNA has many of the traits of life, but not two that makes it non-life. The list is
- Replication (yes)
- Heritability (yes)
- Mutation through recombination (yes)
- Selection (yes)
- Evolution of pre-existing function (yes)
- Replication contingent on other functions (yes)
- Capability for invention of novel function (no)
- Open-ended evolution (no)
However, the poster session was amazing. Michael Behe is here, and on his poster he argued from experiments with bacteria that, contrary to the observation that organisms increase in complexity (defined as number of promoters and genes), evolutionary theory predicts that it should decrease, because by far the most beneficial mutations result in loss of promoters and/or genes. I wholeheartedly disagree, because gene duplication, by his definition, increases complexity without having any effect on fitness (mostly). He countered that the rate of duplication is too low (1e-8 - 1e-9), but I don't see why that should be too low - it has to be compared to the rate of beneficial mutations, which is also very low (and perhaps comparable to that of gene duplications).
Another good poster was by Paul Bingham, Stony Brook, who argued that there is a causal correlation between human brain size and village size, as he put it. And the link... is throwing. Have you ever seen a chimp throw? It doesn't even throw like a girl. It simply isn't built for it. But humans are, and the advantages are clear: aggressive scavenging and low cost to ostracize. There is evidence of correlation from 1.8 million year old artifacts, but I was not alone about wishing for a testable hypothesis and some quantitative data.
Susan Lindquist from Cambridge, MA gave a an excellent talk in the evening on the influence of protein folding on evolutionary change. Chaperones (e.g. Hsp90) can facilities the evolution of new traits by three mechanisms, one of is by buffering the effect of small mutations, allowing the storage of cryptic genetic variation that is released by stress.
Check back tomorrow for words about Hopi Hoekstra (molecular phenotypic optima), Nick Barton (sex and recombination), Daniel Dennett (cultural evolution of words), and Matt Ridley also on some cultural evolution thing. And, the posters look even better again tomorrow. There's a great looking one on peaks in artificial fitness landscapes.
Here's a list of abstracts.
Self-help book for the ultimate man
Aha! So this is what is constantly bugging me. Finally, here's a book describing what I need to become a real man.
I wonder how learning from a book how to be the ultimate man squares with being the ultimate man. Seems kind of sissy ass liberal to me.
In a time when everyone is looking for a bailout, headlines highlight John Edwards' affair, and books detail A-Rod's steroid use, what has happened to men of honor and integrity? Once upon a time, a real man fought for his country, treated women with respect, and was a hero to his children.Dare I say that one of them recently became president?
The Ultimate Man's Survival Guide explains how to fight off alligators, identify poisonous spiders, mix a perfect martini, and more. From tying a tourniquet to tying a bowtie—Miniter teaches men the skills, attitudes, and philosophies they need to be the Ultimate Man.It should come as no surprise that I got this ad in an email from a conservative group - the ideals of a real man fighting off alligators and tying a bowtie fit right in with that, while I myself have other ideals. Not that I disagree that those are nice things to be able to do (especially mixing the perfect Martini), but I fear that the philosophies that this ultimate man must adhere to are of the conservative kind.
I wonder how learning from a book how to be the ultimate man squares with being the ultimate man. Seems kind of sissy ass liberal to me.
Encourage the use of condoms
Sex is repugnant. Animalistic. Unhygienic. Wrong. Can be tolerated between husband and wife only, exposing only a minimum of bare skin, under cover, lights off. And only as a means of procreation. No oral, no anal, no hand, no boobs. Keep pleasurability to a minimum.
Thus, no need for condoms. Condoms are contrary to the proper use of genitalia. Condoms encourage sex for other purposes than impregnation. Using a condom results in five million lost souls instead of just 4,999,999.
Is Condom Distribution Smart Health Policy?
Go vote, so that our views may dominate the interwebs.
Answers in Genesis goes to a Darwin exhibition
The irony is raining men. Someone with Answers in Genesis (Ken Ham, Kentucky creation museum) went to a Darwin exhibition in London, and predictably found it to be a clever form of mind-control.
The writer then lists the ways in which the Darwin exhibition performs mind-control:
I wonder how this person sees AiG's Creation Museum in Kentucty. Totally free of straw-men? Are they not trying to convince visitors that evolution is a lie, and it is foolish to believe in it? Reality is that both scientists and creationists attempt to educate children, but that the scientists are the only ones with actual evidence to support their beliefs. You may consider this my attempt at mind-controlling readers of this blog, if you like.
On a related note, a long lost 400,000 year old axe has just been recovered at a museum, after having been lost for 150 years. The axe's old age shatters Ussher's calculation that the Earth is 6,000 years old. I realize that AiG won't accept this age, thereby denying the science not only of biology, but also of physics.
In fact, before Darwin came along, people were breeding different sorts of dogs, cats, pigeons, and so on. Even in the Darwin exhibit, it is stated that “he [Darwin] was aware that people often bred animals with desirable traits and that over time such breeding exaggerated small differences. . . . Dogs were dogs but a tiny lap dog and a large lean greyhound look nothing alike.” I just wonder how many visitors noticed this gross inconsistency.There is no inconsistency. The small differences that are exaggerated accumulate to create very large differences, as in the dog example, and this is precisely what many creationist will say they do not believe. They can accept microevolution, but not macroevolution. As for the case of dogs, which everyone unanimously continue to call one species no matter how great the differences, I beg to differ. Why continue to call them one species? There are so many breeds that differ enormously, and in some cases so much that for example two birds differing that much are routinely named different species. Would we continue to do so with dogs if we only knew of chihuahuas and great danes? Surely not. And who knows, perhaps there really is a reproductive barrier between those two breeds, designating them different species by the most pervasive definition (the Biological Species Concept). Not that I adhere strongly to that definition. I regard it as a proxy that can be used successfully in some situations, but far from all (asexual organisms is an obvious area where it clearly doesn't work).
The writer then lists the ways in which the Darwin exhibition performs mind-control:
1) Setting up straw-men arguments that totally misrepresent what Bible-believing Christians accept. 2) Showing how wrong Christians are for believing the things they supposedly believe (which they don’t believe in the first place!). 3) Convincing visitors that Darwinian evolution is true, and that one is a fool to believe otherwise (and certainly foolish to believe the Bible). Actually, this kind of mind control is already being used constantly on America’s children through the public education system, the secular media, and science museums (even in many Christian schools and colleges, sadly).This is the stuff of crazies. The alleged straw-man is that Christians believe in an unchanging world, but that that is clearly not the case, because just look at Genesis: the entrance of sin, the event of Noah’s Flood, and its account of the Tower of Babel. So there, things change, Christians all know it, and the Darwin exhibition thus attempts to control minds. Trying to convince visitors of the fact of evolution is the business of such a museum. Explain the science, show the evidence. By this standard any education can be labeled mind-control. And the point is that if ample evidence leads to evolution being true, then it is foolish to believe otherwise.
I wonder how this person sees AiG's Creation Museum in Kentucty. Totally free of straw-men? Are they not trying to convince visitors that evolution is a lie, and it is foolish to believe in it? Reality is that both scientists and creationists attempt to educate children, but that the scientists are the only ones with actual evidence to support their beliefs. You may consider this my attempt at mind-controlling readers of this blog, if you like.
On a related note, a long lost 400,000 year old axe has just been recovered at a museum, after having been lost for 150 years. The axe's old age shatters Ussher's calculation that the Earth is 6,000 years old. I realize that AiG won't accept this age, thereby denying the science not only of biology, but also of physics.
Bad, bad Tripp
From the cover of People magazine:
However, I think that I will not trust you anyway, Bristol. Lust is a very strong force, and despite your insight into motherhood, I feel fairly certain that early motherhood horror stories are not enough to keep folks your age from giving in to their desires. Rather, complete sex education is required so that unwanted pregnancies can be avoided, and free access to condoms. Preferably those with strawberry taste.
Gov. Sarah Palin's daughter talks about her life with baby Tripp. "If girls realized the consequences of sex, nobody would be having sex," says Bristol. "Trust me. Nobody"Wow! I hope Tripp never finds a copy of that magazine when she gets older. What a bummer. That really sounds like an awful experience you're having with your baby, Bristol. I know babies are a lot of work, but surely your smiling face holding that baby is not a complete mock-up, or? Having babies, even at your very, very young age, must have at least some of the blessings that I myself have felt, even though I had children at a wee bit older age than you did.
However, I think that I will not trust you anyway, Bristol. Lust is a very strong force, and despite your insight into motherhood, I feel fairly certain that early motherhood horror stories are not enough to keep folks your age from giving in to their desires. Rather, complete sex education is required so that unwanted pregnancies can be avoided, and free access to condoms. Preferably those with strawberry taste.
Creationist erudition 101
Ouch, my God, that burns! Of all the attempts to attack evolution and defend creationism, this article on rightsidenews.com is one of the most pitiful I have ever read. It's a collection of misunderstandings, logical errors, semantic mistakes all rolled into one, and then coated with an air of erudition (which to creationists largely means quoting someone with a Ph.D. in whatever). Nothing is said that hasn't been said a hundred times over in letters to the editors of American local newspapers across the nation. This article is such a piece of junk that I just can't get over it. Hopefully blogging about it will be the cure of that plague.
But first, who are these people?
Damning Christian bias:
But first, who are these people?
The subjects and thrust were selected and developed by Greene Hollowell, the research and composition by Evan Moore.I googled their names, but all it got was this article. Hollowell supplied the Christian bias and selected which misconceptions to reiterate, and Moore did the hard work of copying and pasting from conservapedia or some such conservative Christian source of Truth.
Damning Christian bias:
In light of today's growing focus on science, it is essential to address the issue [of the conflicting views of evolution and creationism]. Through this treatise, we hope to show that God is the true creator of all life on earth and that evolution is a biased and illogical explanation for the creation and sustaining of life. [Setting yourself up for failure.]Misrepresenting scientists:
What Scientists Say...Getting some core concepts wrong:
Evolution is derived from Naturalism, which assumes that things made themselves. [Wrong.] Naturalism suggests God had no part in the creation of life and assumes He has not attempted to share with humanity any information about the past.[1] At its core, evolution is the belief that "nothing" became "something." [Is not!] Non-living matter developed into living matter. It assumes that "single-celled organisms gave rise to many-celled organisms." It goes on to propose that "invertebrates gave rise to vertebrates, ape-like creatures gave rise to man, non-intelligent and amoral matter gave rise to intelligence and morality, and man's yearnings gave rise to religions."[2] Evolution is one of the major cornerstones of modern biological theory, taught in most school around the world. In Refuting Evolution, Jonathan Sarfati states, "The whole secular education system in America (and most other countries around the world) is underpinned by evolution."[3] Many scientists believe in evolution because it is the most practical alternative to believing in Creation [that's mostly not the reason - it is the only model supported by evidence], which they consider too incredible.[4] [Here I agree.] Most scientists will also admit evolution is not a proven fact, yet they treat it as fact and teach it as fact. [It is not proven with mathematical rigor (because that is never possible in science), but is so well supported by evidence that the occurrence of evolution is considered a scientific fact. Careful of the semantics!] Ironically, evolution is just as faith-based as Christianity. [Many people will confuse the blind faith in scripture of religions with the "faith" that seeing the same event a thousand times will make it likely that it will occur again. It is called induction, and contrary to religious faith, it actually works.]
It is important to understand several key principles [Then try a little harder next time.]:Fossil record inadequacies:
First, "the scientific method is limited to the study of processes as they occur at present." [Nonsense!] Science cannot speculate about past occurrences. [Sure it can. And does. As do everyone else all the time. In courts of law, and returning from the movies: "The house is a total mess, the kids are not in their beds, and the babysitter is nowhere to be seen. I must conclude that she took the money and ran without doing her job."] It can only deal with "how," "what," and "where" questions. "When" and "why" are out of bounds.[5] ["Judging from the body temperature and the fact that his broken wristwatch shows 4:03 AM, I estimate that he has been dead for about 3 hours."] Therefore, it is impossible to apply the scientific method to a concept like the Creation because it occurred so long ago. [No, historical sciences are very solidly based in evidence.]
Second, the word "science" means "knowledge." Since evolution is rooted in science - or so scientists say - it would seem essential to "know" with all certainty that evolution is true. [You are just making up stuff, now. Since we know that nothing about nature can be known with absolute certainty, the goal of knowing this about evolution (or any other scientific theory) is futile. No one in science would accept such a statement.] But no one has actually seen evolution occur. [I have. Many other scientists have.] There is no actual "knowledge" of evolution. [...!] In The Modern Creation Trilogy, Morris and Morris write, "The changes we do see in living species are either "horizontal" changes, at the same level of organized complexity [or] "downward" changes (e.g., mutations and extinctions)."[6] [And Henry Morris is just the person to ask about these things?] There is no scientific evidence for evolution. [There is plenty.] Believing in evolution requires faith.[7] [No, just induction.] Ultimately, neither creation nor evolution can be proved or disproved through evidence. ["Rabbit fossils in the Cambrian" would disprove a large part of evolutionary theory. Go look or shut up!] Both concepts occurred in the past, which the realm of science cannot touch. But creationism can be deemed the more logical faith. [With your interpretation of logic I trust you can deem anything you like.]
Third, one must understand evolution is not a fact. There is a strong difference between the terms "hypothesis," "theory," "law," and "fact." A hypothesis is "a statement that can be tested scientifically by some kind of experiment that could refute it if it is wrong."[8] A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested many times but hasn't been refuted yet. And a law of science is "a theory that has been tested, with positive results, so often and in so many different ways that it is almost certainly a confirmed fact of science."[9] However, many scientists are careful to confess that even a law could eventually be refuted. It is impossible to officially deem a law as absolute fact. Evolution should be called a theory rather than a law or fact of science. [This is one of the most tired semantic fallacies around. The relationship between hypothesis law, etc. is just not as described here. Evolution has occurred, that is the fact. The knowledge we have about how it occurs, and what did occur, is the theory. Within the theory various laws describe, for example, how evolution occurs (e.g. Dollo's law), and hypotheses are continually generated by scientists to be tested in order to increase our knowledge. That really isn't so hard to grasp, though I realize it is much easier to deliberately misconstrue.]
One of the strongest [unsubstantiated] arguments against evolution is lack of evidence in the fossil record. Many evolutionists claim the fossil records prove evolution, but they do not [sic! There is only one fossil record.]. If evolution was the true process of creation and all living things developed [no, evolved] from something else over time, there should be fossils that indicate their transitions. [And many have been found (Tiktaalik is a favorite of mine.)] There should be fossils that depict creatures with "incipient eyes, [half-way wings, half-scales turning into feathers, and partially-evolved forelimbs]."[10] [You say there should be, but evolutionary theory does not predict your ridiculous half-eyes.] Morris and Morris make a valid [no, uninformed] point: "It seems very strange that the fossilization process selected only those individuals for preservation that already had completed particular stages of evolutionary progress, and yet preserved these in great abundance and variety."[11] Billions of fossils have been preserved around the world, but none depicting transitional forms have been found. [I don't know about billions, but either way, many transitional fossils have been found. You can keep saying it all you want, but doing so will not constitute evidence. Read Prothero's Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters for a long list of transitional fossils.]Funny conclusion:
While this discourse has only taken a cursory look at the information and research surrounding the debate between creationism and evolution, it has hopefully shed a little light on some modern misconceptions about evolution and its place in the world as "scientific fact." [Blinding light.] Ultimately, Darwinian Evolution is merely a theory, and, although it seems rooted in science, it is actually rooted in faith. [In science, "theory" is the highest attainable attribute.]
It is crucial for Christians to understand the Creation and to accept it as truth, because the Creation story is the keystone of Christianity. If one does not believe in the Genesis account, why should they believe anything else the Bible says? [Indeed!] The Creation is the foundation of the Bible, and it is imperative to the Christian's walk with God that they believe in His role as the Creator. [Vaya con Dios, then, ignoranimuses.]
Biblical destruction
An email from Human Events - Headquarters of the Conservative Underground (*chuckle*) - expresses outrage over the destruction of Bibles in Afghanistan:
A Pentagon spokesman under the Obama Administration has just acknowledged seizing and burning the privately owned Bibles of American soldiers serving in Afghanistan. The Bibles had been printed in the local Pashto and Dari languages, and sent by private donors last year to American Christian soldiers and chaplains, for distribution to American troops on overseas military bases during optionally-attended Christian worship services. Had the Bibles not been recently seized and destroyed, they could have legally been given as gifts during off-duty time to Afghani citizens who welcome our troops in their homes, as an expression of American gratitude for Afghani hospitality, promoting the democratic ideals of freedom of religion and freedom of the press.It is against regulations for troops to proselytize. Imagine what image it creates if soldiers go around distributing Bibles (conveniently translated into local languages). And I must admit I have a hard time seeing troops and locals fraternizing, Bibles being passed out, and the Muslim hosts being ever so grateful. Rather, it would create resentment and be seen as another act in a fourth crusade.
The homeschooling trap
Only conservative Christians can publish an article in which this opening paragraph is actually meant as an endorsement:
Opting out of any lessons is opting out of education. Most likely Susan Lockhart has trouble with letting her children learn about evolution.
Lastly, I would very much like to see some statistics comparing the education of homeschooled vs. properly schooled children in the US. I predict that homeschoolers will choose science in college less often, will do worse in science, and those that do well in science start doubting their homeschooled ways. I predict that homeschoolers stay closer to home when they grow up, are more unhappy in their relationships, and have lower incomes. I predict that homeschoolers are more likely to accept the religious beliefs of their parents (which is not an endorsement, though I suspect that this is the main reason why some prefer to homeschool their kids), and I predict that homeschoolers are more ignorant as well as less tolerant of different cultures and ways of living.
Please, please do not homeschool your children. Give them the best chances in life by sending them to a real school. If the schools in your city are all bad, move or pay for a private school. When they get home, tell them that YOU don't believe in evolution, but let them make up their own minds. Anything else is indoctrination.
One flustered parent who was disillusioned with public school systems and what she believed to be lack of personal attention and creeping propaganda has chosen an alternative, where she may opt out of lessons on evolution, sex education and teaching that goes against her Christian beliefs – and her tax dollars pay for it all.But then, the WorldNetDaily is a bastion of inanity. Notice that when conservatives agree with some use of taxes, they will say "her tax dollars pay for it all," but when they condemn it (as is most often the case - in fact this is a first that I see in print such a an endorsement of spending), they will say "my tax dollars pay for it all."
Opting out of any lessons is opting out of education. Most likely Susan Lockhart has trouble with letting her children learn about evolution.
"We had reached a point where the indoctrination in the schools was just untenable," said Susan Lockhart, a homeschooling mother. "I was going down there and complaining on a nearly daily basis about things. It got to the point where I had to do something. I had to get them out of there."I wonder what things she felt she had to complain about all the time. They don't teach evolution every day of school. What else is did she find so disagreeable? The article does not say.
When the subject of evolution was addressed in Kristin Lockhart's marine science course, she was given an assignment to create a marine life that would evolve and adapt to its environment over time.They've got to be kidding! That's an awesome assignment. I wonder how any teachers expect school children to do what professional researchers have a hard time doing. If she could really shown marine organisms adapting, she could publish in Nature overnight. But, appallingly, it is possible to reject the assignment and make another based of ideology rather then evidence.
"I spoke to the teacher and told her we don't believe in evolution. We believe in creation," Lockhart explained. "I told her my daughter was going to do this assignment in terms of creationism, which she did. The teacher had no problem with it, and she got an 'A.'"
"My kids don't have to put up with bullying. They don't have to put up with indoctrination. They don't have to have sex education. We're allowed to pray all we want at home," she said. "It's really a lifesaver for Christian parents."Bullying is bad, but if you avoid it by staying home then the children are missing out on what I consider to be very important social lessons with other kids. I seriously have doubts that children who don't go to school with other kids are as capable socially as the rest of them, and that would be a real handicap. As for indoctrination, that's apparently also dependent on your point of view. I don't actually know what kind of it Susan Lockhart is referring to, but in my book indoctrinate means to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., esp. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view (my book is a dictionary). Christianity is of course a doctrine, and barring your children from arguments against it is indoctrination. Why, why, why would any parents prevent their children from getting sex education? Studies have shown that the better educated children are about sex, the better they know how to prevent unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. Besides, learning about something does not necessarily mean that you condone it. I have learned about ideas and theories that I dislike and that have been proven wrong (Maoism, Intelligent Design), but learning about them is still a good thing. It's like refusing to learn about the Holocaust. It was a bad thing, and exactly because of that it is so important that we all learn about it.
Lastly, I would very much like to see some statistics comparing the education of homeschooled vs. properly schooled children in the US. I predict that homeschoolers will choose science in college less often, will do worse in science, and those that do well in science start doubting their homeschooled ways. I predict that homeschoolers stay closer to home when they grow up, are more unhappy in their relationships, and have lower incomes. I predict that homeschoolers are more likely to accept the religious beliefs of their parents (which is not an endorsement, though I suspect that this is the main reason why some prefer to homeschool their kids), and I predict that homeschoolers are more ignorant as well as less tolerant of different cultures and ways of living.
Please, please do not homeschool your children. Give them the best chances in life by sending them to a real school. If the schools in your city are all bad, move or pay for a private school. When they get home, tell them that YOU don't believe in evolution, but let them make up their own minds. Anything else is indoctrination.
Darwinius has landed
I give in to the pressure:
Details all around: National Geographic, Pharyngula, Ed Yong, Laelaps, Carl Zimmer, and, of course, the actual paper in PLoS ONE.
Details all around: National Geographic, Pharyngula, Ed Yong, Laelaps, Carl Zimmer, and, of course, the actual paper in PLoS ONE.
Placebo works
Placebo is funny! Harriet Hall, MD, in the newest edition of eSkeptic, explain that placebo treatments actually work, and suggest a few way in which they do. For example:
- Placebo surgery works better than placebo injections
- Placebo injections work better than placebo pills
- Sham acupuncture treatment works better than a placebo pill
- Capsules work better than tablets
- Big pills work better than small
- The more doses a day, the better
- The more expensive, the better
- The color of the pill makes a difference
- Telling the patient, “This will relieve your pain” works better than saying “This might help.”
We can’t isolate placebo effect from conventional medicine — it gets us thinking the wrong way. As the neurologist Robert Burton says, “Even given our advanced state of medical knowledge, much of routine medical care — from treating backaches to the common cold — relies primarily upon reassurance and hope, not disease- specific treatments … we need to reconsider how to facilitate the placebo effect with minimal risk and cost, and without deception.”Humans work in mysterious ways. One of the most important lessons of science, in mind mind, is that we are not in control of ourselves by far - lots and lots of things go on in our minds that "we" are not in control of, or even aware of. We are masters at deluding ourselves, and placebo treatments is a testament to that.
Jared Diamond sued by tribesmen
Jared Diamond is being sued for $10 million (email me for a free pdf). He wrote an article for The New Yorker last year, telling a story of revenge warfare in Papua New Guinea. The two tribesmen who waged war on each other, Wemp and Mandingo, have joined forces with each other and none other than Stephen Jay Gould's widow, Rhonda Roland Shearer, to sue Diamond and Advance Publications Inc. over alleged errors concerning the events that Diamond reported on.
Diamond explains that he interviewed Wemp in 2006 and took detailed notes on which the article is based. Part of the story is that Diamond was reporting not as a scientist, but as a journalist, and that for those two spheres very different rules apply. In science one would report in a neutral fashion, not naming names. But in journalism including names is the default practice, in part so that people can check what is written.
This lawsuit should be thrown out immediately, in my opinion. Wemp et al. charge that some of the events reported on are erroneous, such that the war started when a pig destroyed a garden and lasted three years. Instead they say that the cause was a gambling dispute and lasted only a few months. So... demand $10 million in damages? Kick me if that makes any sense! But still, Diamond contends this is all irrelevant, because he took careful notes during the interview with Wemp. So Wemp exaggerated, gloated, and lied, and Diamond got some facts wrong. What of it?
Imagine the negative consequences if Wemp, Mandingo, and Shearer wins the suit. Every time an interview is made, the journalist has to fear that he is being lied to, and that the interviewee will later demand retributions for defamation. If the article is factually wrong, it should be retracted (in fact that did happen to the free online version), but anything more than that makes little sense to me. And consider the consequences of filling the pockets of the likes of Wemp who kill people in tribal wars:
Diamond explains that he interviewed Wemp in 2006 and took detailed notes on which the article is based. Part of the story is that Diamond was reporting not as a scientist, but as a journalist, and that for those two spheres very different rules apply. In science one would report in a neutral fashion, not naming names. But in journalism including names is the default practice, in part so that people can check what is written.
This lawsuit should be thrown out immediately, in my opinion. Wemp et al. charge that some of the events reported on are erroneous, such that the war started when a pig destroyed a garden and lasted three years. Instead they say that the cause was a gambling dispute and lasted only a few months. So... demand $10 million in damages? Kick me if that makes any sense! But still, Diamond contends this is all irrelevant, because he took careful notes during the interview with Wemp. So Wemp exaggerated, gloated, and lied, and Diamond got some facts wrong. What of it?
Imagine the negative consequences if Wemp, Mandingo, and Shearer wins the suit. Every time an interview is made, the journalist has to fear that he is being lied to, and that the interviewee will later demand retributions for defamation. If the article is factually wrong, it should be retracted (in fact that did happen to the free online version), but anything more than that makes little sense to me. And consider the consequences of filling the pockets of the likes of Wemp who kill people in tribal wars:
Whether or not Diamond got the facts of Wemp’s case right, it is true that the tribes of PNG do practice revenge warfare, says [anthropologist Pauline] Wiessner, who has studied war in PNG’s Enga Province, just north of the region where Wemp and Mandingo live. In Enga, more than 300 tribal wars have taken the lives of nearly 4000 people since 1991. That’s one reason Wiessner, who is active in local efforts to bring peace to PNG clans, is worried about the outcome of the case if it results in a large monetary award: She fears that the money could eventually go to buy weapons that would make the wars even more deadly. “When these wars first started, they were fought with bows and arrows, but now they have M-16s,” she says.
Hard evidence for allopatric speciation
A question was posed to me, and I have been thinking about it on and off for a couple of days. Peter and Rosemary Grant has been studying Darwin's Finches (Geospiza) for decades, and at the talk they gave at Caltech last Thursday, he presented this map.
It details how the finches originally arrived at San Cristóbal from the mainland, and then radiated from there to Española, Santa Maria, Santa Cruz, and back to San Cristóbal, during which time they had speciated, resulting in two different species on San Cristóbal. The inference from the observations of living birds is that the finches speciated allopatrically. That is to say, that the genetic differences resulting from mutations took place in two different populations of finches, between which there was no gene flow (i.e. no mating between the two populations). This is the mode of speciation that is most easy to comprehend: two pupolations of the same species are reproductively isolated from each other by some physical barrier (such as a large body of water between San Cristóbal and Española), and as mutation and natural selection (or genetic drift) cause the two populations to diverge from each other, they eventually become different species.
Different species of Darwin's Finches have different beaks adapted to different types of foods.
My question to Peter Grant was what hard evidence there is that the mode of speciation was allopatric, and if sympatric speciation could be ruled out. Peter's reply was to ask me what I thought would constitute "hard evidence", and that is a good question indeed.
Sympatric speciation is a mode of speciation where there is no cessation of gene flow between any individuals - everyone continues to be able to mate with everyone else (of the opposite sex). Recent work on computer simulations have shown that this mode of speciation is possible with one or more of limited dispersal, assortative mating, and competition for resources. Since Darwin's Finches have specialized feeding on different foods, by changing the depth of their beak to match the seeds etc., it is at least possible to imagine that sympatric speciation occurred. Can that be ruled out given the evidence available? Is there any hard evidence for allopatric speciation in this case, or is that a conclusion arrived at because it is so much easier to understand allopatric speciation?
With that I am left pondering what evidence would satisfy me that this is a case of allopatric speciation.
My answer so far is to say that if among remnants of dead birds on San Cristóbal from the time that they are thought to have speciated, only finches morphologically similar to the birds that lived there at that time are found, but the remnants of birds on Española show signs that they changed there, then I would say that's pretty solid evidence of allopatric speciation. On the other hand, if it is found that among remnants of the first population if birds on San Cristóbal there is a continuous change in morphology, then I would consider that as evidence for sympatric speciation.
My question to you, dear reader, is whether you can think of anything else that would provide evidence either way?
It details how the finches originally arrived at San Cristóbal from the mainland, and then radiated from there to Española, Santa Maria, Santa Cruz, and back to San Cristóbal, during which time they had speciated, resulting in two different species on San Cristóbal. The inference from the observations of living birds is that the finches speciated allopatrically. That is to say, that the genetic differences resulting from mutations took place in two different populations of finches, between which there was no gene flow (i.e. no mating between the two populations). This is the mode of speciation that is most easy to comprehend: two pupolations of the same species are reproductively isolated from each other by some physical barrier (such as a large body of water between San Cristóbal and Española), and as mutation and natural selection (or genetic drift) cause the two populations to diverge from each other, they eventually become different species.
Different species of Darwin's Finches have different beaks adapted to different types of foods.
My question to Peter Grant was what hard evidence there is that the mode of speciation was allopatric, and if sympatric speciation could be ruled out. Peter's reply was to ask me what I thought would constitute "hard evidence", and that is a good question indeed.
Sympatric speciation is a mode of speciation where there is no cessation of gene flow between any individuals - everyone continues to be able to mate with everyone else (of the opposite sex). Recent work on computer simulations have shown that this mode of speciation is possible with one or more of limited dispersal, assortative mating, and competition for resources. Since Darwin's Finches have specialized feeding on different foods, by changing the depth of their beak to match the seeds etc., it is at least possible to imagine that sympatric speciation occurred. Can that be ruled out given the evidence available? Is there any hard evidence for allopatric speciation in this case, or is that a conclusion arrived at because it is so much easier to understand allopatric speciation?
With that I am left pondering what evidence would satisfy me that this is a case of allopatric speciation.
My answer so far is to say that if among remnants of dead birds on San Cristóbal from the time that they are thought to have speciated, only finches morphologically similar to the birds that lived there at that time are found, but the remnants of birds on Española show signs that they changed there, then I would say that's pretty solid evidence of allopatric speciation. On the other hand, if it is found that among remnants of the first population if birds on San Cristóbal there is a continuous change in morphology, then I would consider that as evidence for sympatric speciation.
My question to you, dear reader, is whether you can think of anything else that would provide evidence either way?
Scientia Pro Publica #4
Scientia Pro Publica - the best science blog carnival around - has a new edition at The Primate Diaries.
Venemous Komodo dragons
I wonder why Kurt Schwenk, evolutionary biologist, thinks the evidence that Komodo dragons are venomous is not convincing. Bryan Fry dissected jaw tissue from a terminally ill lizard, and found venomlike proteins that keep blood from clotting and others that lowers blood pressure. This seems like fairly indicative evidence to me, but Schwenk calls it “meaningless, irrelevant, incorrect or falsely misleading.” Strong words indeed.
Even if the lizards have venomlike proteins in their mouths, Dr. Schwenk argues, they may be using them for a different function.Sure, but the simplest hypothesis seems to be that they are used for attack.
Dr. Schwenk also doubts that venom is necessary to explain the effect of a Komodo dragon bite. “I guarantee that if you had a 10-foot lizard jump out of the bushes and rip your guts out, you’d be somewhat still and quiet for a bit,” he said, “at least until you keeled over from shock and blood loss owing to the fact that your intestines were spread out on the ground in front of you.”Look, the effect of the proteins found in a gland in the mouth of the Komodo dragon are known to have the effect that its bite has on its prey. That's not conclusive evidence - finding those proteins in prey would help - but I am curious why Schwenk is so dismissive.
A personal case of swine flu
Last week, after my wife and two kids had just returned from a vacation in Japan, we all got sick with influenza-like symptoms. We went to the hospital, and there they downplayed the risk that this had anything to do with swine flu. Yet, they tested our oldest son and my wife, who had the most severe symptoms, and the results showed that my son was positive for Influenza A, while my wife was not. A second test confirmed that my wife did not have Influenza A. The test for Swine Flu takes ten days, and we expect to hear from them this coming week. In the meantime we have all had fever etc., but are now symptom-free and feel well.
At the hospital we were given prescriptions for TamiFlu, and instructions to stay home for a while. Now, what I am wondering is why more care wasn't given, considering the scare swine flu is causing, and the potential pandemic that it might cause? First, we were given the option to have a test done. They didn't advise it, but just agreed to do it when we asked for it. Second, we had to get the prescriptions filled at a local pharmacy ourselves. This is a far cry from the precautions of, say, the authorities of Hong Kong, which quarantined a whole hotel for a week. I believe that was over the top, but somewhere between that and sending people off to the pharmacist on their own feels like a better approach to me.
No one has offered us any explanation for how one of my sons could have Influenza A, while the rest of us apparently did not. My wife was the first to show any symptoms, with my oldest son following shortly after. Then myself and then my youngest son, who luckily had the fewest symptoms. So, how could the virus strains be different? If he really had Influenza A, how come the rest of us didn't catch it? How could we get two different viruses, and not all contaminate each other?
I fear that no one will ever be able to tell us.
At the hospital we were given prescriptions for TamiFlu, and instructions to stay home for a while. Now, what I am wondering is why more care wasn't given, considering the scare swine flu is causing, and the potential pandemic that it might cause? First, we were given the option to have a test done. They didn't advise it, but just agreed to do it when we asked for it. Second, we had to get the prescriptions filled at a local pharmacy ourselves. This is a far cry from the precautions of, say, the authorities of Hong Kong, which quarantined a whole hotel for a week. I believe that was over the top, but somewhere between that and sending people off to the pharmacist on their own feels like a better approach to me.
No one has offered us any explanation for how one of my sons could have Influenza A, while the rest of us apparently did not. My wife was the first to show any symptoms, with my oldest son following shortly after. Then myself and then my youngest son, who luckily had the fewest symptoms. So, how could the virus strains be different? If he really had Influenza A, how come the rest of us didn't catch it? How could we get two different viruses, and not all contaminate each other?
I fear that no one will ever be able to tell us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)