You're the retarded offspring of five monkeys having buttsex with a fish-squirrel. Congratulations.
Change of address
2 months ago in Variety of Life
Field of Science
-
-
Change of address2 months ago in Catalogue of Organisms
-
-
Earth Day: Pogo and our responsibility4 months ago in Doc Madhattan
-
What I Read 20245 months ago in Angry by Choice
Interdisciplinary fumble
Interdisciplinary science is a great thing. Collaborations between researchers in different fields often result in stupendous findings, as well as when researchers move from one field to another. For example when they have a whole career behind them, and turn their focus elsewhere after late in life:
So what did Lueptow turn his attention to? catastrophic possibilities at particle colliders.
I mean, seriously. You cannot expect to understand the intricacies of particle physics without a serious amount of logged flight hours, so to speak. That's just the nature of the discipline. Physics is hard.
Had Lueptow written an article that Lawrence Krauss hadn't seen fit to rebut, then this would not be worth the read, but Lueptow has used his experience in social science to conclude that
In evolution such encroachment is very common: Software engineers, denstists, ophthalmologists, physicists, chemists, and, of course, professional creationists have seen fit to tell us how we're doing it wrong. Not to say that I am against contributions from anywhere, of course, but some level of understanding of the field is necessary when doing so. Please?
Dr. Lloyd B. Lueptow is an emeritus professor of Sociology, University of Akron. His research focused on gender differences, conducting two major longitudinal studies of 5600 and 4000 respondents over some 30 years, concluding that the persisting gender differences in the face of substantial social change were more likely due to evolutionary than to sociocultural factors. Since retirement he has continued to study the literature on evolution and human behavior. In the past year he has focused on web postings, articles and books on the issue of xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx, in an attempt to determine where the reality lay.However, some moves are just a tad insane. Yes, it is imaginable that some very, very bright person could switch fields to something entirely new and intellectually demanding late in life, after having worked in social science for half a lifetime.
So what did Lueptow turn his attention to? catastrophic possibilities at particle colliders.
I mean, seriously. You cannot expect to understand the intricacies of particle physics without a serious amount of logged flight hours, so to speak. That's just the nature of the discipline. Physics is hard.
Had Lueptow written an article that Lawrence Krauss hadn't seen fit to rebut, then this would not be worth the read, but Lueptow has used his experience in social science to conclude that
For now, it seems obvious that the LHC [Large Hadron Collider] experiments should be delayed or stopped while the risk/cost-benefit equation is sorted out in debates the public can comprehend. The only acceptable risk is zero when the cost is the possible destruction of planet Earth. As Ord, Hillerbrand and Sandberg note, “If these fears are justified, these experiments pose a risk to humanity that can be avoided by simply not turning on the experiment.” Similarly, as Leggett concluded, of the 15 potential catastrophes facing the Earth, this one is the easiest to prevent. Just say no.So Krauss had to respond to the nonsense:
LLOYD B. LUEPTOW’S ARTICLE on the “Large Hadron Collider and the Threats of Catastrophe” clearly illustrates how science is different than sociology. The author seems to think that by doing a literature search and quoting every possible source and every possible viewpoint that he will get closer to scientific truth. However, that is simply not how science works. One doesn’t do a democratic weighting of the literature. Rather, in science one applies logic (usually mathematical in form) to ideas that are constrained by experiment and observation. Nature, not a majority vote, determines what is false and what is not.I am fully ready to err on the side of caution, if there is reasonable suspicion that an experiment can wreck havoc. But in the case of the LHC there isn't.
(...)
Lueptow misrepresents misplaced concerns of a few individuals with real controversy within the scientific community … the same misconception that has clouded public understanding of evolutionary biology and global warming. To my knowledge, no credible expert has expressed concern about the LHC.
(...)
The Tevatron at Fermilab is already operating at energies within a factor of 5 of the LHC, and we are still around. This provides additional evidence that a catastrophe at the LHC is unlikely.
The discussion of strangelets is irrelevant. The scientific community examined this possibility before the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at Brookhaven turned on, and decided there was no danger, and years after it did turn on, we are still here.
In evolution such encroachment is very common: Software engineers, denstists, ophthalmologists, physicists, chemists, and, of course, professional creationists have seen fit to tell us how we're doing it wrong. Not to say that I am against contributions from anywhere, of course, but some level of understanding of the field is necessary when doing so. Please?
B:III evidence for evolution (which is just a theory)
Having trouble with your eyes? Well, then, let me have a look at it, because I have read stuff about eyes. I'll be prescribing glasses. Contact lenses don't work, because I don't understand how they can be made, so don't wear those. Got worms in your eyeball? Let me get a knife...Sounds preposterous? Well, not when it concerns evolution, apparently. In Archives of Ophthalmology an ophthalmologist from Florida, William Smiddy, thinks he has the expertise to do to evolutionary theory pretty much what I did above to ophthalmology.
Here's an outline of his letter:
- Darwin quote-mining.
- Probabilities, neglecting selection, assuming the eye is an accident.
- "Consider that the eye..." is really complex.
- "And where did X come from?" (Here, X = the chiasm.)
- Haeckel's drawings.
- An analysis of rhodopsin molecule’s homology
- The fruit fly is still a fruit fly.
- More Darwin quote-mining.
From the first paragraph:
It is appropriate to commemorate the Darwin anniversary; his life’s work merits recognition regardless of one’s ideology, and an ophthalmology theme makes for interesting copy. However, lost in the platitudes is the fact that evolution is still but a theory, not an experimentally verifiable fact. There is no more than B:III evidence for the theory of evolution (ie, there have been no clinical trials, randomized or not, confirming the theory; rather, respected authorities have concluded its parts and, at best, there are case-control series that have been extrapolated to its conclusion) despite pervasive, frequent, and dogmatic proclamations to the contrary.I didn't know what B:III evidence means, but I found out it is standard used in the medical literature for evaluating evidence:
Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT): A Patient-Centered Approach to Grading Evidence in the Medical Literature in American Family Physician
- A-level recommendation is based on consistent and good-quality patient-oriented evidence
- B-level recommendation is based on inconsistent or limited-quality patient-oriented evidence
- C-level recommendation is based on consensus, usual practice, opinion, disease-oriented evidence, or case series for studies of diagnosis, treatment, prevention, or screening
Here's your evidence:
E. coli and green algae, Croatian lizards, transitional fossils, HIV, biogeography, embryology, ...
That should make it level A:1, thank you very much. And there's lots more where that came from (i.e. evolutionary biologists, not ophthalmologists).
References:
William E. Smiddy (2009). Evolution: Theory, Not Fact ARCH OPHTHALMOL, 127 (11), 1552-1553
Ebell MH, Siwek J, Weiss BD, Woolf SH, Susman J, Ewigman B, & Bowman M (2004). Strength of recommendation taxonomy (SORT): a patient-centered approach to grading evidence in the medical literature. American family physician, 69 (3), 548-56 PMID: 14971837
"I shook the hand that fondled Ann Coulter!"
Oh my dog, this is too precious not to share: Jerry Coyne blogged about his visit to Puebla, and posted a ton of pictures of the invited luminaries. One of them is Coyne himself with detestable Dinesh D'Souza. D'Souza used to date Ann Coulter.
Fig. 11. The picture that will ruin me. With Dinesh d’Souza. I figured that since I chided P.Z. for posing with Michael Ruse, I should give him a chance to reciprocate. Unlike Ruse, however, Dinesh seemed like a nice guy. I shook the hand that fondled Ann Coulter!Eeeeeeew. Smitten for eternity! I wouldn't have done that. Reputation, career, sexlife... all are now in serious danger.
Hitchens Fry the Catholicks
Just in case you haven't already seen it on Pharyngula, I present the Intelligence Squared Debate - Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry vs. The Catholics. While it's a whole 45 minutes of your precious time (I hope your time is precious), it is well spent whether you're interested in debates on religion or not, just because both Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry are such eloquent and forceful speakers.
My own take on the question of whether the Catholic Church is a force for good in the World or not is that I don't know. I am not really religious (in fact, I make Dawkins look like a choirboy), but I have to say that in answering the question fairly, one must weigh the good things that the Catholic Church does against the bad things that it is responsible for. The bad things include both sponsoring and failing to properly punish clergy who rape children - when it is known that the raping happens again and again, the Church should know to do something radical to prevent it, which it has not done (e.g. shutting down those positions of authority altogether). But those unquestionably bad things must be weighed against the good things the Church works, and I don't know what those are, or what the magnitude of them would be. It could be that many a child's life and virginity is saved in the sanctity of churches and by clergymen around the globe. I don't know. It could also be that whole societies would fall into disarray should the Catholic Church suddenly cease to exist. I find that unlikely, but I admit I don't have the data to deny it.
If I had to venture an educated guess, I'd say that yes, the Catholic Church is a force for good in the World, but not nearly as much as it is a force of poverty, superstition, rape, murder, death, misery, and the propagation of falsehoods.
My own take on the question of whether the Catholic Church is a force for good in the World or not is that I don't know. I am not really religious (in fact, I make Dawkins look like a choirboy), but I have to say that in answering the question fairly, one must weigh the good things that the Catholic Church does against the bad things that it is responsible for. The bad things include both sponsoring and failing to properly punish clergy who rape children - when it is known that the raping happens again and again, the Church should know to do something radical to prevent it, which it has not done (e.g. shutting down those positions of authority altogether). But those unquestionably bad things must be weighed against the good things the Church works, and I don't know what those are, or what the magnitude of them would be. It could be that many a child's life and virginity is saved in the sanctity of churches and by clergymen around the globe. I don't know. It could also be that whole societies would fall into disarray should the Catholic Church suddenly cease to exist. I find that unlikely, but I admit I don't have the data to deny it.
If I had to venture an educated guess, I'd say that yes, the Catholic Church is a force for good in the World, but not nearly as much as it is a force of poverty, superstition, rape, murder, death, misery, and the propagation of falsehoods.
Steven Levitt takes a beating
Raymond T. Pierrehumbert, University of Chicago professor in geophysics, thoroughly dismantles Steven Levitt's claim* as presented in Superfreakonomics that "it [is] pointless to try to solve global warming by building solar cells, because they are black and absorb all the solar energy that hits them, but convert only some 12% to electricity while radiating the rest as heat, warming the planet."
In an open letter to Levitt, Pierrehumbert uses very simple math to make it clear how bogus that claim is. Along the way we learn how pathetically small an area of the globe would have to be covered with solar cell to meet the whole world's electricity demands. Placed in the middle of the Arabian Peninsula, I contend that the negative effects it would have on humans and wildlife there would be worth the benefit.
The question of Levitt's negligence is important for two reasons. 1) Global warming is a serious issue, and it would hurt us all if such bogus claims get a foothold, turning public opinion against ideas that can alleviate the problem. 2) After reading Freakonomics, I felt elated by Levitt's approach, and baffled by many of the facts that he unearths. I wish to be able to continue to trust his word, but with such negligence it gets harder.
Now I'll be eagerly waiting for a reply from Levitt. I'll applaud him if he apologizes...
* Actually, the claim was made by Nathan Myhrvold, but the whole point of Pierrehumbert's letter is that Levitt should have been more critical of this claim before reiterating it in his book.
Update 11/27/09:
Elizabeth Kolbert takes on Superfreakonomics in The New Yorker. She concludes like this.
In an open letter to Levitt, Pierrehumbert uses very simple math to make it clear how bogus that claim is. Along the way we learn how pathetically small an area of the globe would have to be covered with solar cell to meet the whole world's electricity demands. Placed in the middle of the Arabian Peninsula, I contend that the negative effects it would have on humans and wildlife there would be worth the benefit.
The question of Levitt's negligence is important for two reasons. 1) Global warming is a serious issue, and it would hurt us all if such bogus claims get a foothold, turning public opinion against ideas that can alleviate the problem. 2) After reading Freakonomics, I felt elated by Levitt's approach, and baffled by many of the facts that he unearths. I wish to be able to continue to trust his word, but with such negligence it gets harder.
Now I'll be eagerly waiting for a reply from Levitt. I'll applaud him if he apologizes...
* Actually, the claim was made by Nathan Myhrvold, but the whole point of Pierrehumbert's letter is that Levitt should have been more critical of this claim before reiterating it in his book.
Update 11/27/09:
Elizabeth Kolbert takes on Superfreakonomics in The New Yorker. She concludes like this.
To be skeptical of climate models and credulous about things like carbon-eating trees and cloudmaking machinery and hoses that shoot sulfur into the sky is to replace a faith in science with a belief in science fiction. This is the turn that “SuperFreakonomics” takes, even as its authors repeatedly extoll their hard-headedness. All of which goes to show that, while some forms of horseshit are no longer a problem, others will always be with us.
10 surprising facts about orgasm
When artificially inseminating sows Danish pig farmers simulate the copulatory action of the boar, and this is beautifully (dare I say romantically) demonstrated in a video shown during this talk by Mary Roach on TED: 10 things you didn't know about orgasm:
Do watch this video - it is throughly entertaining. For a quick overview, here are the ten facts about orgasm:
1. Unborn babies can have them.
2. You don't need genitals.
3. You can have them when you're dead.
4. Orgasm can cause bad breath.
5. And cure the hiccups.
6. Doctors once prescribed orgasm for fertility.
7. Pig farmers still do.
8. Female animals are having more fun than you think.
9. Studying human orgasm in a lab is not easy.
10. But it sure is entertaining.
Also tossed in: Week old human semen is of lower quality, so now men have an evolutionary excuse for masturbating.
There is a story going around that I have been unable to confirm, saying that more people named Ken move to Kentucky than expected on average. In the light of that it is no wonder that a pair of scientists by the names Masters and Johnson would be particularly interested in the science of orgasm, wouldn't you agree?
Do watch this video - it is throughly entertaining. For a quick overview, here are the ten facts about orgasm:
1. Unborn babies can have them.
2. You don't need genitals.
3. You can have them when you're dead.
4. Orgasm can cause bad breath.
5. And cure the hiccups.
6. Doctors once prescribed orgasm for fertility.
7. Pig farmers still do.
8. Female animals are having more fun than you think.
9. Studying human orgasm in a lab is not easy.
10. But it sure is entertaining.
Also tossed in: Week old human semen is of lower quality, so now men have an evolutionary excuse for masturbating.
There is a story going around that I have been unable to confirm, saying that more people named Ken move to Kentucky than expected on average. In the light of that it is no wonder that a pair of scientists by the names Masters and Johnson would be particularly interested in the science of orgasm, wouldn't you agree?
D'Souza has a weird concept of evidence (for life after death)
Dinesh D'Souza has a book out on the evidence for life after death, Life After Death: The Evidence. Should you be in doubt, this would be the place to go for any evidence there is for life after death. Right?
Well, D'Souza's kind of evidence is not the regular kind that you and I like to see. An example from a short article in SFGate (actually, it's the only one he presents here):
What a load of shoddy, fifth-rate, dimwitted nonsense. Completely void of substance, and... nothing to do with evidence.
That evidence from nature is, ironically (given that D'Souza is a creationist), evolution. He argues that because evolution progresses from chemistry though cells onto mind, so must our minds survive our dying bodies.
That of course just does not follow. On top of that, he builds his argument on the claim that ideas aren't material, but they are too. Ideas are located in the brain and exist only as long as the brain works. Ideas emerge from the chemical and physical properties of the brain, and cease to exist along with the brain. Emergence does not imply anything immaterial.
Along the way he manages to show how fundamentally he does not understand evolution:
But, I do agree with him about there being life after death: My life after your death. My children's life after mine.
* Got the pun?
Well, D'Souza's kind of evidence is not the regular kind that you and I like to see. An example from a short article in SFGate (actually, it's the only one he presents here):
Material things like bodies are perishable but immaterial things like ideas aren't. So we, like nature, might have a built-in progression from perishable matter to imperishable mind. The time will come when our bodies will irretrievably break down, but it is possible, indeed suggested within the script of nature, that a part of us might outlast these mortal coils."Bodies are made of matter, so they can die. Ideas are not made of matter, so they cannot die. Therefore it might be that out bodies can progress from matter to pure mind, and thus avoid death. The evidence from nature is that our minds will not die." Isn't that what he is saying?
What a load of shoddy, fifth-rate, dimwitted nonsense. Completely void of substance, and... nothing to do with evidence.
That evidence from nature is, ironically (given that D'Souza is a creationist), evolution. He argues that because evolution progresses from chemistry though cells onto mind, so must our minds survive our dying bodies.
That of course just does not follow. On top of that, he builds his argument on the claim that ideas aren't material, but they are too. Ideas are located in the brain and exist only as long as the brain works. Ideas emerge from the chemical and physical properties of the brain, and cease to exist along with the brain. Emergence does not imply anything immaterial.
Along the way he manages to show how fundamentally he does not understand evolution:
Most biologists emphatically deny that there is a plan. Evolution, they say, is based on chance and random accident.They so do not - evolution is much more than chance.
De Duve's "The Tree of Life" has eubacteria and archaebacteria at the root, then simple eukaryotes, then more complex multicellular organisms, then fungi and plants, then fishes, then reptiles, then mammals, and finally humans.Whatever de Duve meant, this quote satisfies D'Souza's fantasy that humans are the pinnacle of life (again, despite he is a conservative Christian who does not believe in evolution after all). However, it does not follow from evolutionary theory, or nature, or science, or PNAS* that humans are the apex of evolution.
But, I do agree with him about there being life after death: My life after your death. My children's life after mine.
* Got the pun?
Creationist accepts but rejects evolution?
Eugenie Scott gets the last word in an entertaining exchange with Ray Comfort (aka the bananaman) about his publication of Darwin's Origin with a long foreword by Comfort. Comfort is clueless or devious. Or both. Both.
Scott ends her rebuttal with a note about a young-earth creationist:
Scott ends her rebuttal with a note about a young-earth creationist:
I close with another quote. Todd C. Wood is a young-earth creationist—indeed, the director of the Center for Origins Research at Bryan University, founded in honor of the creationist hero William Jennings Bryan—who rejects evolution for biblical reasons, just like Comfort. Wood insists, "The Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution."This is baffling. Wood puts so well what evolutionary biologists want to scream at the top of their lungs. But then how on Earth can Wood be a creationist? It is a deep, deep mystery to me that he can reject evolution. How does he reconcile the evidence that he sees for evolution with his rejection of it? Just for once, I seriously do not understand the underlying reasoning. Please help!
But unlike Comfort, Wood is a trained scientist. And as such, he recognizes that the scientific basis of evolution is strong:Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.Anyone who honestly examines the data supporting evolution—even a young-earth creationist—concludes that the science is strong. If you reject evolution, you are doing it for religious reasons. You're entitled to your religious opinions—but not to your own scientific facts.
Acrostic Schwarzenegger
Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed some bill by sending this stern letter to the members of the California State Assembly:
a⋅cros⋅tic [uh-kraw-stik, uh-kros-tik]
–noun
1. a series of lines or verses in which the first, last, or other particular letters when taken in order spell out a word, phrase, etc.
Try first.
Enough hints. Mathematicians have apparently been all over it calculating the probability that this is pure chance. Not too high, however you go about it. Not unless the message went through many iterations with random mutations and selection for that particular acrostic message. I don't think that's how they write letters in Sacramento, but I could be wrong.
So good for him. Acrostics are fun, and if that's how he feels about the bill, then go for it, I say (without commenting on the politics).
I am returning Assembly Bill 1176 without my signature.Okay, so he didn't like it. What of it? Well, take a look at how it was printed:
For some time now I have lamented the fact that major issues are overlooked while many unnecessary bills come to me for consideration. Water reform, prison reform, and health care are major issues my Administration has brought to the table, but the Legislature just kicks the can down the alley.
Yet another legislative year has come and gone without the major reforms Californians overwhelmingly deserve. In light of this, and after careful consideration, I believe it is unnecessary to sign this measure at this time.
Sincerely,
Arnold Schwarzenegger
a⋅cros⋅tic [uh-kraw-stik, uh-kros-tik]
–noun
1. a series of lines or verses in which the first, last, or other particular letters when taken in order spell out a word, phrase, etc.
Try first.
Enough hints. Mathematicians have apparently been all over it calculating the probability that this is pure chance. Not too high, however you go about it. Not unless the message went through many iterations with random mutations and selection for that particular acrostic message. I don't think that's how they write letters in Sacramento, but I could be wrong.
So good for him. Acrostics are fun, and if that's how he feels about the bill, then go for it, I say (without commenting on the politics).
NASA applies evolutionary theory
Evolutionary theory is not the easiest of scientific theories to apply to "daily" phenomena, just because it (usually) takes place over long periods of time (but not always: lizards, viruses, bacteria). It is therefore always exciting when a new area of application is proposed.
A NASA scientist suggests that evolutionary theory will help find alien life.
However, in what seems to be an attempt to rub shoulders with Ray Kurzweil, he goes not just too far in his predictions, but lightyears past what seems reasonable:
But I wish NASA good luck with their endeavors, and hope to see extra-terrestrial life discovered any time now...
A NASA scientist suggests that evolutionary theory will help find alien life.
Dr John Baross, a researcher at the Nasa Astrobiology Institute, said: "I really feel that Darwinian evolution is a defining feature of all life.While I don't think evolution need be a defining trait of life, I do agree that it makes sense to expect it to happen to all life - at least it's a fair way to go about looking for it.
"And so the limits of Darwinian evolution will define the range of planets that can support life – at least Earth-like life."
However, in what seems to be an attempt to rub shoulders with Ray Kurzweil, he goes not just too far in his predictions, but lightyears past what seems reasonable:
He said: "I predict in the next five to ten years, we will make discoveries that will lead to theories and ideas at least as profound as Darwin's."Within ten years we will have new theories that match common descent and natural selection in scientific importance?!!1! I can understand when people are very, very, excited about their research, but this is waaaay over the top.
But I wish NASA good luck with their endeavors, and hope to see extra-terrestrial life discovered any time now...
The latest on the PNAS hybridization scandal
On August 28th, 2009, PNAS published a paper communicated by Lynn Margulis (i.e. it did not go through proper peer-review), by Donald I. Williamson, which began like this.
Then Michael W. Hart and Richard K. Grosberg write a paper in PNAS approved on October 13, 2009 that this is folly (also blogged by Coyne):
Also, you gotta love his delusions of grandeur: "they seem to be following in my footsteps, unwittingly, and some distance behind." Guffaw! It's not the first time I have seen ageing scientists worried sick over their legacy.
The last highlighted sentence about symbiogenesis and hybridogenesis makes it clear why Margulis would let this paper slip through (or pushed it through, rather). An honest comment from her on this whole episode seems warranted at this time.
I reject the Darwinian assumption that larvae and their adults evolved from a single common ancestor. Rather I posit that, in animals that metamorphose, the basic types of larvae originated as adults of different lineages, i.e., larvae were transferred when, through hybridization, their genomes were acquired by distantly related animals.It was described as the worst paper of the year by Jerry Coyne.
Then Michael W. Hart and Richard K. Grosberg write a paper in PNAS approved on October 13, 2009 that this is folly (also blogged by Coyne):
Williamson [(2009) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:15786–15790] has made the astonishing and unfounded claim that the ancestors of the velvet worms directly gave rise to insect caterpillars via hybridization and that evidence of this ancient “larval transfer” could be found in comparisons among the genomes of extant onychophorans, insects with larvae, and insects without larvae. Williamson has made a series of predictions arising from his hypothesis and urged genomicists to test them. Here, we use data already in the literature to show these predictions to be false. Hybridogenesis between distantly related animals does not explain patterns of morphological and life-history evolution in general, and the genes and genomes of animals provide strong evidence against hybridization or larval transfer between a velvet worm and an insect in particular. [Emphasis added.]This has led to a comment by Gonzalo Giribet in PNAS on October 30th, 2009:
What remains to test from Williamson’s phylogenetic speculation? Why did the author ignore the weight of phylogenetic evidence that utterly falsifies his claim?And this in turn prompted a reply from Williamson in the same edition (this is not the full reply):
Perhaps the most amazing thing from this article is not the bold proposal, but the fact that the author believes that there is a research program behind his claims: ‘‘As an initial trial, it should be possible to attach an onychophoran spermatophore to the genital pore of a female cockroach and see if fertilized eggs are laid’’ (1). I am not sure this can be taken seriously. [Emphasis added.]
This example is part of my much larger thesis that the basic forms of all larvae were transferred from other taxa, and they all originated as adults (4). Across the animal kingdom, I claim that larvae were acquired from animals at all levels of relationship: bilateral larvae of radial echinoderms originated in an animal in a different superphylum from echinoderms, but most crustacean larvae were acquired from other crustaceans. As yet, no geneticist has carried out tests for larval transfer along the lines that Giribet suggests, but I hope my PNAS article (3) will prompt some of them to do so.Wonderful reply, really. He expects researchers to take his idea seriously and actually perform experiments to test it (I am aware that creationist would have a field day with such a remark, thinking all ludicrous claims should of course be tested or else stand as a gaping hole in evolutionary theory), while many better hypotheses could be tested instead. It's not like coming up with hypotheses to test is much a a problem, you know.
Since 2000, several workers have suggested that many planktonic larvae were ‘‘secondarily acquired’’ and have been ‘‘intercalated’’ into the life histories of echinoderms, molluscs, and other phyla (ref. 5 and references therein). These authors do not discuss the sources of these intercalated larvae or mention my work, which does, but they seem to be following in my footsteps, unwittingly, and some distance behind.
(...)
I thank Giribet for drawing attention to my paper (6) that outlines the importance of hybridization in the Cambrian explosion, and in which I claim that there is no cladistic explanation of the origins of phyla. We are indebted to Darwin for his description of a gradual and continual type of evolution, but biologists should also recognize the importance of saltational and sporadic evolutionary processes like symbiogenesis and hybridogenesis. [Emphasis added.]
Also, you gotta love his delusions of grandeur: "they seem to be following in my footsteps, unwittingly, and some distance behind." Guffaw! It's not the first time I have seen ageing scientists worried sick over their legacy.
The last highlighted sentence about symbiogenesis and hybridogenesis makes it clear why Margulis would let this paper slip through (or pushed it through, rather). An honest comment from her on this whole episode seems warranted at this time.
Gonna be one epic Muhammad movie
Slap me thrice and hand me to me mamma. There are plans to produce a movie about the prophet Muhammad.
I can't wait to see it. The true meaning of Islam... When Muhammad was in Mecca, he was very friendly and accommodating, because he was not yet powerful. At Medina he had gained power, and was then unforgiving in his persecution of the infidels. Charming. Consummating a marriage with a nine-year old. Can't wait to see how they'll handle that.
American Barrie Osborne, who also produced The Matrix, told Reuters the film would be an "international epic" aimed at "bridging cultures".Isn't that just incredibly ironic? It is considered blasphemy to depict the prophet, so they're are planning to come up with clever way to avoid him actually being onscreen. No, really!
Osborne says the film, which is being financed by a Qatar-based company, would feature English-speaking Muslim actors, although in keeping with Islamic law, it wouldn't actually depict the prophet on screen (which has got to be bad news for Tony Shalhoub, who'd normally be a shoo-in for the part). Osborne hopes the story of Muhammad would "educate people about the true meaning of Islam."If they get away with making a film where the main character is never actually seen, they'll really have made an epic movie.
I can't wait to see it. The true meaning of Islam... When Muhammad was in Mecca, he was very friendly and accommodating, because he was not yet powerful. At Medina he had gained power, and was then unforgiving in his persecution of the infidels. Charming. Consummating a marriage with a nine-year old. Can't wait to see how they'll handle that.
Philip Clayton on a religion/science synthesis
Philip Clayton is a professor of religion at Claremont Graduate University (where I am enrolled in a joint Ph.D. program with Keck Graduate Institute). He writes today in 'religion dispatches - exhilarating breakfast since 2008' (?) about the religion wars under the title Evolution and Creation Fight to the Death: What Emerges from the Ashes. Funny title. It supposes some synthesis that will emerge after the fall of evolution (and religion. Whatever), but anyone who knows what science is about knows that this can never happen. 'Can never' as in 'is logically impossible.'
He writes, and I reply in red:
If you think that I don't think that "Christian theology" deserves a department devoted to it, and if you suspect that I think philosophizing about imaginary entities does not belong among academic endeavors at all, then you would have hit the nail on the head.
He writes, and I reply in red:
A moment’s reflection reveals multiple ways in which these two great products of the human spirit can be distinguished: religion asks about the why, science explains the how [Why what? It's not religion that asks, it's people. And religion has no answers that the non-believers can use for anything]; science researches matters of empirical fact, while religion is concerned with matters of ultimate values [don't need religion for that]; scientists use empirical techniques and theories to account for the physical and natural world, whereas religionists are concerned with the metaphysical and the supernatural [which they believe exists, but that's where it ends - such belief can be used for naught]; science studies how the heavens go, religion how to go to heaven.I implore you, Clayton or anyone else, please tell me what it is that religionists can bring to the table that people who aren't religious can benefit from in any way. In this article he says nothing in answer to this. It really is only huff and puff on his side.
One does not need to find all these formulations adequate (I, for one, do not) in order to doubt that science demands the death of religion or religion the death of science. Here’s the point: only when one affirms some sort of “live and let live” policy is it possible even to begin a serious discussion about evolutionary biology and (say) belief in God. [Or (say) belief in Xenu, or (say) in astrology, or (say) crystal healing, or (say) Allah, etc. etc. etc.]
When evolutionary and religious explanations are construed as fighting for the same territory, they will unleash their weapons upon each other—as today’s religion wars show. When we recognize and acknowledge their different strengths, a far more interesting discussion emerges. [All we are asking is that religionists get off our freakin' turf. You can go ahead and discuss what the two can do in symbiosis, and we'll be watching from the sidelines, during our lunch break, to see what progress you make. I trust it will be nothing tangible, as is always the case when religion is involved.]
This new debate is challenging because it requires both sides to give up certain hegemonic claims: scientists, the claim that science provides the answer to all metaphysical questions [No, that there is no metaphysics, or, equally good, that we cannot know anything about it]; and religionists, the claim that they know better than science how nature works. Yet a whole series of fascinating questions arises when hegemony is off the table: is there a directionality to evolution or is it, as Stephen Jay Gould thought, a “drunkard's walk”? [That's a question ssquarely within science, and one religionists can add nothing to.] Do the emergent worlds of culture, ideas, philosophy, art, and even religion make any irreducible contributions to explaining what it is to be human? [Is 'What it is to be human' a scientific question? If yes, then the answer is no. If no, then whatever.] How (if at all) could a divine influence on cosmic history be compatible with the scientific study of the cosmos? [Science can say nothing here. Religionists can say whatever they want, for it can never be refuted, nor will it make any difference whatsoever, unless people start banging each other on the head with it.] What kind of influence would it have it be? [sic] Will humans respond more appropriately to the global climate crisis when scientific data are combined with religious values and motivations for action? [Possibly, but only because they are already thoroughly entrenched in religion, and for no other reason.]
If you think that I don't think that "Christian theology" deserves a department devoted to it, and if you suspect that I think philosophizing about imaginary entities does not belong among academic endeavors at all, then you would have hit the nail on the head.
More on the appendix
A little while back I reported about two papers by authors that stated that Darwin was wrong about the vermiform appendix, but that it does have a function. One of the authors, Bill Parker, recently emailed me a reply to my post and that of the commenters, and I deliver it here in full with permission:
We are careful to state that we have not actuallyParker also let me know that they have recently sent another paper on the cecal appendix and its function for review. Stay tuned.
"directly demonstrated" the function of the appendix. However,
we have deduced what appears to be the function, and that
deduction is supported by a wide range of observations in
the fields of immunology, anatomy, medicine, and microbiology.
In fact, it is very difficult to imagine that the cecal
appendix is not a safe-house for bacteria. We know the
biofilms are the thickest there and the most secluded, and we
know the biofilms are protective, so we would need an
extraordinary explanation if we were to come to a different
conclusion. Sometimes a deduction is very strong. One of
your bloggers does not seem to appreciate that
"demonstration by deduction" is possible.
Nevertheless, we refer to "the apparent function" rather
than "the function" of the appendix when we are writing.
That being said, one of the main reasons we spent two years
working with evolutionary biologists at Arizona and
digging through the literature for that paper in the Journal
of Evolutionary Biology was to test the only "alternative"
to our deduction of the function of the appendix. As you
pointed out, that alternative was proposed by Darwin and
was still widely accepted, even in the scientific literature.
I noticed that one of your bloggers was hoping for a quick
and easy experiment to nail things down....
Unfortunately, we can't simply measure recovery from diarrhea
in people with and without an appendix for the answer. The
immune systems in people without an appendix are apparently
different than those in people without an appendix...as
indicated by the fact that one group got appendicitis and one
group did not. Perhaps more importantly, we don't know how
severe the diarrhea would have to be to necessitate the
apparent function of the appendix, and we have no idea if lab
animals would be suitable for a test, since we know they have
immune systems that are substantially modified by hygiene.
Roughgarden queer on homosexuality
Seed article about Joan Roughgarden's theory of homosexuality. In brief, she contends that homosexuality is adaptive, and that the advantage is that any "sex cements social bonds."
And there are plenty of hypotheses to explain homosexual behavior. And none of them challenge sexual selection. If I may quote from one of my own posts:
Do you know of any other examples?
“The more complex and sophisticated a social system is,” she writes, “the more likely it is to have homosexuality intermixed with heterosexuality.”It's an hypothesis, but I'll only go as far as treating it as one among many. Roughgarden is adamant, though:
“I’m convinced that in 50 years, the gay-straight dichotomy will dissolve. I think it just takes too much social energy to preserve. All this campy, flamboyant behavior: It’s just such hard work.”That'll be the day! The bet is on. I'll even go as far as ridicule: You must be joking!? In 50 years the continuum of sexual behavior is so ubiquitous that the extremes are the oddities? Not bloody likely.
And there are plenty of hypotheses to explain homosexual behavior. And none of them challenge sexual selection. If I may quote from one of my own posts:
Adaptive explanations: Social glue, Intrasexual conflict, Practice, Kin selection, Indirect insemination, Overdominance, Sexually antagonistic selectionPeacocks:
Non-adaptive explanations: Mistaken identity, Prison effect, Evolutionary byproduct, Maladaptation, Infection
Roughgarden’s cataloging of sexual diversity has challenged a fundamental biological theory. If Darwinian sexual selection—whatever its current variant—is to survive, it must adapt to this new data and come up with convincing explanations for why a host of animals just aren’t like peacocks.It's the classical example, and from personal observation, I think we've all gotten the peacock wrong, by the way. The story is that the male peacock's tail-feathers are so flamboyant in order to attract females, but that they increase the risk of getting taken by predators. The choice of the females drives sexual selection, and the males that get to mate are the ones with the biggest feathers. However, for me to be convinced that this is true, two things must be shown to me. 1) That predators really have an easier time catching the sexiest males, and 2) that the male peacocks I have seen showing off their feathers to admiring humans who get very close are actually sexually interested in mating with the humans (I'm not being ironic - this is totally possible). I will venture a guess that the first isn't really true, because the second phenomenon occurs because the male is trying to scare off the humans/predators. And perhaps scaring predators works best when you have huge feathers. There are other species who try to scare off predators by faking size:
Do you know of any other examples?
Carnival of Evolution 17
Carnival of Evolution 17 has been published on Adaptive Complexity.A sample from The evolving mind:
Equipped with the Intelligent Design hypothesis (calling a spade a spade) what are we to make of mad cow disease and Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease? How are we to explain the existence of transmissible diseases caused by misfolded proteins triggering other proteins to misfold, resulting in degeneration and a truly horrible death? That the Intelligent Designer has a mean streak?It's a common argument. One that I have not seen satisfactorily grappled.
That science progressively abandons religion is not a reflection of scientific prejudice but of the real-world value of religion. [Put one and one together here.]2.
Perry vs. Willingham
Governor Rick Perry (R-TX) is feeling the heat over the 2004 execution of Cameron Willingham. Basically, evidence had amounted in due time before the execution that Willingham was innocent, and yet Perry refused granting a 30-day deferment of the execution. Now criticism is amounting, I am guessing based on the New Yorker article from earlier this year detailing the circumstances of the case, and Perry's response is to cement his opinion that Willingham was a beast, obviously because he cares more about his future career than he does about the truth.
Last week Mr. Perry defended his decision and struck back at his critics. “Willingham was a monster,” he said. “Here’s a guy who murdered his three children, who tried to beat his wife into an abortion so he wouldn’t have those kids. Person after person has stood up and testified to the facts in this case.”Fuck you, Perry.
Evolution highlights VI
PZ Myers is reporting from the Darwin/Chicago 2009 conference (schedule) organized by Jerry Coyne. Talks by Richard Lewontin on bad metaphors in evolution, and by Ron Numbers on the history of creationism.
Tomorrow Douglas Futuyma, Jerry Coyne, and Daniel Dennett, among others.
On his blog, Coyne has a post about the refutation of the worst paper of the year in PNAS: Caterpillars evolved from onychophorans by hybridogenesis. Complete dismissal of that zany paper.
Update: There's now even more good summaries from Darwin/Chicago 2009 by PZ:
Marc Hauser— where do morals come from? NOT religion
Douglas Futuyma—Evolutionary Ecology and the Question of Constraints
Peter & Rosemary Grant—Natural Selection, Speciation, and Darwin's Finches
Douglas Schemske—Ecological Factors in the Origin of Species
Paul Sereno— Dinosaurs: Phylogenetic reconstruction from Darwin to the present
Frederick Cohan—the Origins of Ecological Diversity in Prokaryotes
Jerry Coyne—Speciation: Problems and Prospects
Eric Lander—Genomics and Darwin in the 21st Century
Philip Ward—What do phylogenies tell us about evolution?
Like diarrhea from a babycalf.
Tomorrow Douglas Futuyma, Jerry Coyne, and Daniel Dennett, among others.
On his blog, Coyne has a post about the refutation of the worst paper of the year in PNAS: Caterpillars evolved from onychophorans by hybridogenesis. Complete dismissal of that zany paper.
Update: There's now even more good summaries from Darwin/Chicago 2009 by PZ:
Marc Hauser— where do morals come from? NOT religion
Douglas Futuyma—Evolutionary Ecology and the Question of Constraints
Peter & Rosemary Grant—Natural Selection, Speciation, and Darwin's Finches
Douglas Schemske—Ecological Factors in the Origin of Species
Paul Sereno— Dinosaurs: Phylogenetic reconstruction from Darwin to the present
Frederick Cohan—the Origins of Ecological Diversity in Prokaryotes
Jerry Coyne—Speciation: Problems and Prospects
Eric Lander—Genomics and Darwin in the 21st Century
Philip Ward—What do phylogenies tell us about evolution?
Like diarrhea from a babycalf.
Coyotes kill human hiker
A young woman was killed by two coyotes.
And then the authorities go out and shoot an innocent coyote, I am sad to say.
A young Canadian folk singer who had just set off on a solo tour to boost a promising musical career died Wednesday after being mauled by two coyotes in what is believed to be one of the country's first fatal attacks by the animals.I am surprised. I live in Suthern California, and there are coyotes all around. A family of six lives close to where I work, in a suburban neighborhood. I see one on my way to work once in a while. They're cute. It does not for a second raise any alarms in me, despite stories of cats and small dogs being taken by them.
And then the authorities go out and shoot an innocent coyote, I am sad to say.
Officials shot a coyote late Tuesday, but Robichaud doubted that it was one of the two involved in the attack.Let's just hope no influenza is named the coyote flu, prompting Canadians to kill all their coyotes, Egyptian style.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)