Earthquakes and boobs (the religious kind)

There’s nothing I like better than taking the pseudoscientific claims of a religious cleric and proving them to be wholly divorced from reality. I have a bad feeling about this particular effort, though. This one’s going to backfire, it’s only a question of how severely.

Don’t get me wrong. I like breasts (being a heteronormative male); I like women owning their sexuality; I like sex-positive feminism; and I don’t feel that women dressing immodestly objectifies them any more than, say, my wearing my new jeans objectifies me just because I apparently have an attractive ass in them. (Or at least so I’m told.) And I fully support this Boobquake effort, as well as any effort to make any dogmatist eat his words. My problem with this particular endeavour is entirely statistical.
Continue reading “Earthquakes and boobs (the religious kind)”

Earthquakes and boobs (the religious kind)
{advertisement}

Homosexuality’s deep biological roots

In the court battles over Proposition 8, the underlying question was whether homosexuality was a choice or biological. Critics often say “you can’t find a single gay gene”, but humans are squishy — they are resultant of about thirty thousand genes which build and detract and modify one another like ripples in a pond. Saying there’s no single gay gene is as accurate as that there is no single hair color gene, but both have every appearance of being genetic, and geneticists are quite convinced this is the case. And honestly, so am I. Nobody would intentionally choose to grossly limit the number of people they can choose partners from, while simultaneously opening themselves to hate crimes from complete assholes.

Most geneticists consider sexual orientation a phenotype — namely, an observable set of properties that varies among individuals. Although physical phenotypes like height and weight are easier to quantify, behavioral phenotypes are intensely studied in animals and humans. Research from many directions leads to a strong conclusion: Human sexual orientation has deep biological roots.
[…]
Gay genes appear paradoxical at first blush. From the perspective of natural selection, how could they persist in the population if they lead to fewer offspring? Recent research has uncovered several plausible explanations. For example, one set of studies found that the same inherited factors that favor male homosexuality actually increase the fecundity of female maternal relatives. By balancing the number of offspring, they would contribute to maintaining these genes over the course of evolution. This explanation may not be exclusive but serves to illustrate that the Darwinian problem is not necessarily overwhelming.

The article also talks about epigenetics, which I really don’t understand outside of the dictionary definition. I should probably go toddle off to Scicurious’ place and see if she’s talked about it in her archives.

Update 29 Aug 2011: So this is one of those blog posts I keep going and linking back to, but the article I originally linked has disappeared. Sigh. Here’s an alternate report discussing a study of gay brothers’ genetics. While genes might not be the only factor, while epigenetics might still play a role, it’s fairly obvious at this point that just like there’s no single gene that controls how tall you’ll be, sexuality might be an emergent property of a number of unrelated (and advantageous for other reasons) genes coupled with some epigenetic factors.

Homosexuality’s deep biological roots

Bacterial light show

This is awesome. Absolutely beautiful.

Bacteria genetically altered to bioluminesce at a regular interval, and yet they exhibit emergent properties not specifically designed for in their synchronization. It gives you an idea about all these properties we biological entities have that SEEM designed, but are much more probably emergent properties of the existing and not-quite-random effect of natural selection.

Hat tip to Christina Agapakis at Oscillator.

Bacterial light show

Happy Darwin Day 2010!

As I’m sure you all know, February 12th is Darwin Day, a day to celebrate science and the insight into humanity that the scientific method in general, and Darwin’s studies in particular, have brought about.

In honor of the day, check out this article on dog evolution — scientists have sequenced the DNA of ten different dog breeds and are discovering exactly what mutations our selective breeding has brought about, including what puts the wrinkles on Shar-peis.

Dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) were first domesticated around 14,000 years ago, long before the field of genetics even existed, though most dog breeds were developed in the last few centuries. As humans bred dogs for features such as shorter legs or a docile temperament, they were actually tinkering with genes, while influencing the selection and expression of dog genes.
[…]
Previous studies of dog genes have paired genes to their resulting phenotype — for example, the stumpy legs of Dachshunds — but these studies started with the physical trait and looked for the corresponding gene or genes that coded for it. Akey’s study instead compared gene regions that showed signs of change between breeds and looked for physical traits that might correspond to those changes.

The team found 155 distinct genetic locations that showed evidence of tampering from breeding.

Artificial selection directly proves evolution. The fact that we can artificially select for traits just like nature can naturally select for them in what amounts to an environmental arms race, and that these traits build upon themselves over time, is self-evident. If we keep selecting chihuahuas away from great danes, we could speciate them. In fact, they’re pretty close to speciated already, with the size differential making for mating to be terribly difficult. And they all come from wild dogs, which humans once domesticated.

Darwin suspected all of this and wrote it all out in book form before anyone else was able to articulate it, short of Wallace who barely managed a few pages. But the idea had been around for some time before, and those people actively engaged in artificial selection actually figured out a lot of the mechanisms behind it. It’s been staring us in the face for as long as we’ve existed, and we only figured it out 150 years ago. It boggles the mind.

Happy Darwin Day 2010!

Some interesting newsbites on evolution

This is just a small link round-up on some interesting stuff that I’ve read about evolution in recent weeks.

Researchers at UNC Chapel Hill have discovered that some bacteria’s motility is entirely controlled by a single calcium atom, insofar as when a single spot on Pseudomonas aeruginosa (a soil, water and skin flora bacterium that is an opportunistic pathogen in humans) is blocked, it becomes completely immobile. Without this ability, it could not infect its host — so this discovery could lead to new forms of treatment. That a bacterium’s proteins involved in motility can be stopped up by a single atom gives us the ability to infer that these properties are emergent properties from simple genetic variation. While these bacteria are every bit as evolved as us (having the benefit of the same length of time to be subjected to natural selection), in bacteria, it seems as though the simpler the emergent property, the better, since their small size means they use less energy to carry on living.

An endogenous retrovirus (ERV) that still exists today, Bornavirus, has apparently been piggybacking in mammalian DNA for about 40 million years. This includes our own DNA. In other words, every species that has this specific DNA marker shares a common ancestor who, while in gamete form, was originally infected by this virus, which then managed to stably insert itself into its DNA. These ERV markers (and this is by far Edit: far from the only one!) are among the stronger proofs of common descent. There’s more over at Wired, including a sweet 3D rendering of a Bornavirus.

Also, speciation has been directly observed in our lifetime a number of times, but since that requires accepting new bacteria species as something other than “microevolution” by those with a vested interest in denying the mountain of evidence before them, this is another excellent example: in the White Sands of New Mexico, where gypsum dunes formed a scant 6000 years ago, white lizards have evolved to camouflage themselves against the background to avoid predators. Not only that, but other lizards in the area have selected for those same adaptations to the point where they’ve speciated in an absurdly short (geological) time frame. Now, I understand these lizards didn’t evolve suddenly into dogs or elephants or crocoducks, but honestly, if they had, you’d have evidence for a creator, not common descent.

And finally, studies have shown that while acceptance of evolution has some weak correlation with intelligence (e.g. more intelligent = higher likelihood of understanding that it is well-evidenced science, as opposed to accepting it dogmatically), there’s actually a higher correlation with political ideology. The more-intelligent right-wingers’ views skew closer to the middle-intelligence left-wingers, so they’re more likely to accept evolution even if they don’t outright reject the religious dogma. There’s also indicators that it depends heavily on trust — e.g. whether you trust scientists and the scientific method, or whether you trust certain charismatic politicians and/or clergymen who tell you that evolution can’t possibly be true because it conflicts with their own teachings.

Some interesting newsbites on evolution

Happy 2010! Have some science!

It’s a new year, and there are a few interesting scientific news bits and posts with which to celebrate the decade’s rollover. What better way to start the year than to soak in some science!

Ginkgo Biloba has no effect at all in improving memory or mediating effects of dementia or mental decline due to age, sayeth rigorous tests performed by the NCCAM. I’ve only been told to take it a dozen times in the past dozen years, and while this does say that I should probably work on my swiss-cheese-like medium-term memory, at least I have something to tell those folks. That is, if I can remember the contents of the post.

Scientists have also discovered specific patterns in the brains of patients with generalized anxiety disorder. This is excellent news, both for testing and detecting, and for possibly treating the disorder.

Apparently prions, mere proteins devoid of life, are subject to natural selection and evolution. This doesn’t really surprise me, though it does impress me that scientists have proved as much — that pressures applied by the environment might lead to selecting certain prions over others, and that prions can cause proteins to fold like themselves (the entire basis for Creutzfeld-Jakob Disease), it’s kind of self-evident. Not that I would have come up with the idea myself of course — but it has the ring of truth. This is great news.

What isn’t great news, on the other hand — the UK libel laws are being used as cover for a drug company and their apparent attempt at retribution regarding some criticism being leveled against them by a Danish radiologist.

And finally, ERV discusses scientists having pigs’ retroviruses “optimized out”, so their cells can be used to treat diabetes. She being ERV, the post is titled PERVs and MANIMALS. If that doesn’t get you to click, I have no idea what will.

Hooray for science! And hooray for an arbitrarily selected division of the solar orbit!

Happy 2010! Have some science!

Oh no, the Terror Alert has been raised to “Con-Job” Orange!

Did you ever have any doubts that the Terror Alert system was just a ploy to ratchet up fear so as to win elections? Well, you should have, because it also turns out the CIA was conned into a lot of those fear-eliciting alert incrementings.

A self-styled Nevada codebreaker convinced the CIA he could decode secret terrorist targeting information sent through Al Jazeera broadcasts, prompting the Bush White House to raise the terror alert level to Orange (high) in December 2003, with Tom Ridge warning of “near-term attacks that could either rival or exceed what we experience on September 11,” according to a new report in Playboy.

The report deals another blow to the credibility of the Department of Homeland Security’s color-coded terror alert system, and comes after Ridge’s claim that the system was used as a political tool when he was DHS secretary.

Okay, so it WAS used as a political tool, acording to Tom Ridge. But it was ALSO manipulated by con-men for money (and I don’t just mean Darth Cheney).

Read more at TPM Muckraker.

Oh no, the Terror Alert has been raised to “Con-Job” Orange!

Climate conspiracy

I’ve been putting off working on this, but it’s been humming in the back of my mind for a while now, not the least reason being that everyone in the blogosphere seems to be talking about it.

The core of the issue at hand is climate change, and the ground that denialists have been gaining over the past 18 months. And the problem I have is, people are far too willing to suggest that every scientist in every country in the world that agrees that anthropogenic climate change is in the process of attempting to perpetrate the greatest conspiracy hoax ever, and has somehow been able to keep hundreds of thousands of people who are “in on it” quiet about the fact that it’s all a hoax, and all this supposedly for “money”.

And yet, there’s far more money in preventing humankind from moving off of petroleum while the oil companies have 99% of the Earths’ oil reserves under their control presently, and have tapped hardly any of it at all. So, conspirators at the top of the oil heap spread anti-science, and those with vested interests in defeating science (e.g., conservatives and religious leaders), as well as those that stand to make a lot of money off the perpetuation of current technology, become the “true believers” of the denialist movement and fight tooth and nail against the general scientific consensus that exists. And many, maybe most, of these people honestly believe that it is more likely that scientists are just trying to destroy the gravy train they’re riding on, than that scientists are presenting the facts in an unbiased manner and it just so happens to threaten said gravy train.
Continue reading “Climate conspiracy”

Climate conspiracy

Wishful thinking

I’ve gotten a reasonably thoughtful and articulate response to my recent blog post about morality — and I’m not merely calling this response articulate as a prelude to ripping the piece to shreds, as we see so often in the blogosphere. Granted, I think the majority of the post is wrong, resting as it does on chapter-and-verse of an unverifiable collection of stories that were put together in 325CE, but that doesn’t mean it’s not internally consistent and well-spoken. Believe me, it’s a welcome change from our usual semi-literate evangelical blog-stalker.

As an attempt to be civil I will sheathe the sarcasm, per a request for civility and dialog from @roofwoofer, the author of this response, on his month-old blog Faith, Reason & Good Sense. Many of these arguments were floating about in the back of my mind while I wrote the original post, but it’s rather difficult to bullet-proof your work against every possible line of argumentation without writing a novel-length post as a result, so I opted to stay on topic as much as possible instead of going on the wild tangents that would have been necessary to insulate against these charges. This will be lengthy, though. Fair warning.
Continue reading “Wishful thinking”

Wishful thinking

We know the Origin of Species

… but what’s the Origin of Stupidity?

Ray “Bananaman” Comfort and That-Other-Guy-You-Know-The-One-From-Growing-Pains, have teamed up once more to put together a 150th Anniversary edition of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. They did so in order to include a 54-page “rebuttal” to smear Darwin as being Hitler’s BFF, and a racist and misogynist, as though even if any of that were true, it would somehow lessen the impact that his work had on the course of scientific research. Their initial attempt at this intro was so horrid that after the hue and cry about how many inaccuracies there were about Darwin’s history, Comfort rewrote it. Their initial attempt at their edition of the original work, as well, excluded Charlie’s original intro and chapters 11, 12 and 13, three of the probably strongest chapters with regard to evidence for Darwin’s original form of the now-much-evolved (heh) theory of evolution. Again, after much excoriation by historians, science-buffs, atheists, and anti-idiots, Comfort had the printing press reduce the font significantly and reproduced the Origin in its entirety.

Not only are they giving away the book for free at university campuses (where, it seems, the only people taking it are people that “believe” in evolution to begin with), but they’re also giving away the intro at their own website. That, coupled with the Full Charlie over at Talk Origins, means those of us that aren’t near one of the chosen universities can get in on the facepalm fun of ripping apart Comfort’s illogic and then cleanse the palate with Darwin’s original work too. We just don’t get to do it with a physical book, sadly.

As soon as I’m back in fighting form, expect a rebuttal to the Origin of Bananaman intro.

We know the Origin of Species