I like the cartoon, except for the abuse of the word “species”: “specie” is not the singular of “species”! Put some ‘s’s in there!
Straight-pimpin’ Darwin
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
I like the cartoon, except for the abuse of the word “species”: “specie” is not the singular of “species”! Put some ‘s’s in there!
Obviously, I did it all wrong. I have a digital video microscope in my lab, but what I did was spend about $20,000 on a nice microscope, $1000 on a digital still camera and about $500 on a digital video camera, and $200 on a pair of custom adapters to link them together. The principle is simple enough, though; you’re just mounting a camera on the scope where your eye would be and grabbing images with a standard computer interface. So here’s New Scientist bragging about building a video microscope for £15.
I’ve done something similar in the past, but I can one-up Lewis Sykes: I made my adapter with cardboard and duct tape, instead of going all out and fabricating fancy-pants acrylic rings.
I should confess that there is a little bit of a quality difference between the images I get on my lab scope and the ones you can get out of $30 microscope. As long as you’re not trying to resolve sub-micron details, though, you can probably get by.
As I feared it would, the thread on sexist atheists has bloated up remarkably, and yet more clueless angry men have shown up to tell the women what they can do to be appreciated more, so I’m shutting it down and allowing it to continue here.
Carry on, mansplainers!
This guest post from James Kakalios got me thinking — if anyone wants to take advantage of this prominent platform I’ve lucked into for the purpose of publishing their views, I’d be willing to give them an occasional opportunity. I wouldn’t want to turn the place into wall-to-wall other people (it’s mine, dangit!), but something from some other voice now and then would be OK.
I’m going to set a few rules, though.
No commercials, and this isn’t Craigslist. Don’t send me press releases, either. Opinion pieces and entertaining summaries of your exciting research are fine.
Don’t expect to get paid. You’ll still own your own work, but it will be posted here under the same terms with Seed that my articles are — they can also freely use them, if Seed chooses. You’re doing it for the few hundred thousand page views you’ll get.
Links are OK. Maybe your plan is to write something provocative that will include a link to your blog and drive up your traffic — and that’s fine with me as long as what you send me stands on its own and isn’t too blatantly spammy.
I’m the editor, and I have complete and arbitrary dictatorial power in what I’ll post. You should be familiar enough with the site that you know what kinds of things fit in. If you want to write something that disagrees with me, that’s fine, as long as it’s interesting — but no, your screed in defense of creationism or why Jesus is your Lord won’t get posted, except maybe under “I get email”.
I am also a lazy editor. I won’t fix your typos (sending me something loaded with typos means I simply won’t use it), but on the good side, that also means I won’t change anything you write. It goes up as you send it, with only minimal changes to put it in html format.
Details: Email your article to me, with a request to consider it as a guest post. If it’s already formatted for html, I’ll blow you a kiss, if not, just make sure it’s easily read and not reliant on intricate formatting. Don’t send a book, a few thousand words is the upper limit for a blog article. Tell me exactly how you want it attributed; anonymity is fine, it’s also fine to ask me to include a brief biography with links to your CV or whatever, as long as you write it.
It’ll either appear or it won’t. You’re just taking a chance that it will appeal to me and that I feel like posting it. Don’t pester me with questions about when it’s coming out.
For everyone else: if I do regular guest posts, don’t worry, they won’t be frequent enough to dominate the site; I’m not aiming to change the character of Pharyngula. I’ll probably also take a moment to get into the css file and create a custom format for guest posts so that you’ll be able to easily spot them by their hot pink background and purple text, or something (all right, I’ll try to be tasteful).
And of course, maybe no one at all will be interested. No worries either way.
My parents never got me nice things. Sure, there was that one Tony the Tiger cereal bowl we kids all fought over back in the 1960s, but they never got us one of these.
See? If I’d been born just a little earlier, 14,000 years ago instead of in the 1950s, Dad might have given me the skull of one of his enemies from which to dine on my Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bombs. I was deprived.
This cool paper by Bello, Parfitt, and Stringer describes finds from a cave in Somerset, England which, among many other relics of Upper Paleolithic habitation, included several human skull caps with clear signs of post-mortem modification. My father’s lineage descended from people in that part of the world, so now I’m really miffed — it was an old family tradition, and they just didn’t keep it up.
Anyway, the authors analyzed these curious crania and found cut marks where they’d been defleshed, and percussion marks where the bone had been shaped. They’re fairly thorough in describing the process — it’s almost a how-to — so maybe we’ll get something on Etsy or Make magazine sometime.
The distribution of the cut-marks and percussion damage on the Gough’s Cave cranial sample indicates the skilled post-mortem processing of the head. This included careful removal of soft tissues and controlled percussion. Cut-marks on the areas of insertion of neck muscles and the presence of cut-marks in proximity to the foramen magnum indicate that the head was detached from the body at the base of the skull. This is confirmed by the distribution of cut-marks on the axis and atlas vertebrae, which indicate dismemberment of the neck and head. It is likely that this took place shortly after death, before desiccation of the soft tissues or decomposition and natural disarticulation had occurred. The presence of cut-marks on the areas of insertions of the medial pterygoid muscle (both on the sphenoid and the mandible) indicate subsequent detachment of the mandible from the skull. In the case of the two maxillae, the front teeth showed post-mortem scratches and percussion fractures on the inferior border of their labial surfaces. Although non-masticatory scratches on front teeth are well documented, descriptions of percussion modifications are rare in the literature, making it difficult to interpret their significance. Because of the taphonomic and sedimentological characteristics of the site, it is very unlikely that these modifications were naturally produced by sediment pressure or trampling. Neither can these marks be attributed to post-excavation cleaning or instrument damage. If associated with the processing of the head, it is possible that scratches and breakages were induced by a lever inserted between the occlusal plane of the front teeth, in order to disjoint and separate upper and lower jaws. The distribution of cut-marks on the temporal, sphenoid, parietal and zygomatic bones indicate removal of the major muscles of the skull (masseter and temporalis). The location of cut-marks in discrete areas such as the lingual surface of the mandible, the alveolar process of the maxilla, the root of the zygomatic process on the temporal bone and along the fronto-nasal suture, indicates that the tongue, lips, ears, and nose were also removed. Cut-marks around and inside the eye sockets and on the malar fossae of the maxilla suggest extraction of the eyes and cheeks. Finally, the high incidence of oblique para-sagittal cut-marks on the vault, in areas far from the attachment of muscles, on the squama of the frontal and on the parietals on both sides of the sagittal suture, suggests scalp removal. All these modifications are indicative of meticulous removal of the soft tissues covering the skull. The final stage in the sequence of alterations involved controlled percussion resulting in a systematic pattern of removal of the facial bones and the cranial base with minimum breakage of the vault. The distribution of impact damage and flaking is indicative of carefully controlled chipping of the broken edges in order to make them more regular.
Well, I’m going to go have my breakfast now. In a plain old boring ceramic bowl. You know, this heart-healthy diet I’m on would have a little more pizazz if it were served properly…just a hint.
So I guess they can’t be all bad. Yesterday, I chastised Michio Kaku severely for stepping out of his expertise as a physicist to say something stupid about biology. James Kakalios agreed with me, and sent along a little essay about the subject that also makes the point that expertise is important.
In Defense of Elites
James KakaliosFollowing the recent mid-term elections, the consensus of many pundits is that this past November the American public sent a strong message of “anti-elitism.” The good news is that nothing could be further from the truth.
Americans are certainly not anti-elite, nor are they anti-intellectual. Everyone, after all, wants their doctor, lawyer, or auto-mechanic to be an expert in their field. Few would willingly choose a brain surgeon who was at the bottom of their graduating class, no matter how much fun they may be to share a beer with.
However, Americans are anti-snobbery and have no patience for those whose insecurity compels them to tell us why we’re “wrong” to like what we do, whether it’s NASCAR, fantasy baseball, comic books or Star Wars (OK, the critics may have a point about Episode II: Attack of the Clones). Given the demands of the ever-expanding modern work-week (forget about the jetpack, what I want to know is where’s my four hour work week that was similarly promised to be here in the 21st century!), it is no wonder that that many Americans might devote their limited free time to learning the starting nine players of their local baseball team rather than the nine justices on the Supreme Court.
But there is a real issue that goes beyond a lack of free time. Nearly every week brings another news story of the low regard in which the general public holds intellectuals and scientists. From doubting claims of climatologists concerning the source of changes in the Earth’s average temperature, to persistent attempts by some local school boards to sabotage their children’s education of the principles of Darwinian evolution, the view of many seems to be that “science is just another opinion.”
As a physics professor who is also an avid reader of comic books, I know that it was not always so. Back in the 1950’s and 1960’s, superhero comic books reflected the popular zeitgist and, whether the planet was threatened by invaders from planet X or superpowered master villains, it was typically a scientist that saved the day. Science fiction comic books whose stories took place in the future (sometimes all the way in the year 2000!) often promised that we would live in a gleaming utopia brought to us by scientific advancements.
And in many ways the comic books have been proven correct. Diseases and ailments that were fatal just a few generations ago can now be easily treated, we can peer into the body without the cut of a knife using Magnetic Resonance Imaging, there are few points on the globe that can not be reached by wireless communication, and the computing power of a laptop exceeds that of room-size calculating machines that represented the state of the art in 1950. All brought to us through the efforts of elites.
And this is where the current distrust of scientists becomes a major concern. For there are real problems that need to be addressed, but we can’t handle them without the advice of experts, which are often not respected by both the general public and the scientific community.
The findings and conclusions of scientists and engineers who have devoted years and years to the mastery of their fields of inquiry should be accorded the respect they deserve, and not dismissed for ideological reasons. Few people second-guess the political motivations of their dentist when informed that they have a cavity – why would they do the same with atmospheric scientists when they discuss a hole in the ozone layer? Strong science, elaborated by experts, is the foundation for sound policy.
What happens when experts disagree? More good news — this happens much less than one might think, at least concerning questions of fact (interpretations are another matter). Of course, it is important to realize that not every scientist is an expert in every branch of science (I am concerned here with scientific communication, and not interdisciplinary research). If my cardiologist tells me that I need open heart surgery, I may seek a second opinion before having a difficult and expensive operation — but I won’t consult a dermatologist.
It pains me to say this, but — physics professors are not experts in all fields of science. While we may be able to address, for example, the quantum mechanical mechanisms by which carbon dioxide ignores visible light but absorbs and re—emits infra—red radiation, and can discuss the application of the scientific method, we are not climatologists, and should respect the conclusions of those who have devoted the same time and effort to their field as we have to ours. As the science fiction author Robert Heinlein wrote: “Expertise in one field does not carry over into other fields. But experts often think so. The narrower their field of knowledge the more likely they are to think so.”
Most couples therapists will tell you — miscommunication is a two-way street. Scientists and the general public need to stop talking past each other, so that we can all benefit from the counsel of elite experts. For the problems that we as a nation face are as serious as a heart attack!
James Kakalios is the Taylor Distinguished Professor in the School of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Minnesota, and the author of The Amazing Story of Quantum Mechanics (Gotham, 2010).
The latest furious argument going on in the atheist community is over this panel at an American Atheists meeting in Huntsville, Alabama. The subject was what atheist groups can do to attract more women, which is a good and important question. Kudos for asking it.
Here, go watch the video before you read further. Try to see the problem that got some people rather irate.
Done? OK. Now go read what Sharon Moss and Lyz Liddell had to say about it, their subsequent clarification, and Ophelia Benson’s comments.
Listen. To. The. Women.
I’ve got a simple suggestion for my fellow men. Learn to shut up and listen. Seriously. You want women to find your organization pleasant and interesting and worth contributing to? Then don’t form panels full of men trying to figure out what women want, talking over women who try to get a word in edgewise, belittling women’s suggestions with jokes, and trying to determine how We Well-Meaning Men can give Those Women what we think they want. You are assuming an authority and presuming that it is in your power to give it to the minority, when what you should be doing is deferring to that minority and giving them your attention, letting them speak and shape your organization.
We men have the benefit of a culture that has put us in a position of default social dominance, whether we deserve it or not. There is this bias that colors our interactions with women (and vice versa), and we are perpetuating it when we patronizingly try to explain to the ladies that we want to be more attentive to their needs.
You have to surrender your attitudes. You have to SHUT UP AND LISTEN. You have to be willing to listen to a woman disagreeing with you, without dismissing her complaints as unimportant.
I don’t know why that’s so hard to get across to people. But fellows, just imagine this: a community meeting in your town is held in which a group of liberal, well-intentioned people are trying to figure out how to deal with the burgeoning population of godless folk. They have a meeting: on the panel in the front of the room is one quiet atheist and five Christians of various denominations. And then the Christians proceed to preach about the fraternity of Christ and loving their neighbor and how important it is to find these lost souls a welcoming place in the community, and they get positive affirmations from all the religious attendees, while the atheists sit, surrounded by the condescending godly.
How would you feel? Would you have any confidence at all that this group was even interested in making you a full and equal social partner?
I know what comes next. You’ll say the atheists in that group need to be assertive and aggressive and take some authority, and that women need to do that too, so it’s not your fault. And it’s true that women could assert themselves more, except look what happens when they do: they’re too sensitive, their concerns are trivialized, they are made light of, they are mocked, in the worst cases they are called “bitches” and “man-haters”…and it quickly becomes obvious that the men in this group don’t really want women to have any authority at all, and the women quickly realize that they don’t want to be part of this community.
So we’ll convene another panel in which a bunch of men will wonder what they can do to encourage women to participate more. Round and round it goes.
So let’s get specific. You’re organizing an atheist meeting. You want more minority participation. Don’t decide that after you’ve recruited the top ten white atheist males you wanted for your roster of speakers: do it first, make a commitment to bring in women and people of color.
You’ve got Richard Dawkins signed up? Great, he’s a fantastic speaker, he’ll bring in a lot of attention. Now go after a woman of equal assertiveness, and don’t give her second billing (if you try to say that there are no women that potent, I’m going to have to slap you hard, and tell you you have no business organizing this conference, then. And then I’ll give you a list.) Design your ads to give equal or greater attention to her, and send the message that this is important.
Do you want to consciously discuss the matter of minority participation? Whatever you do, don’t put it in the hands of a speaker or panel dominated by the majority, do not give the people who already have amplified voices a megaphone and tell them to pontificate. Tell them to shut up. That panel in Huntsville should have been all women. If the subject of women was only part of the range of topics under discussion then when it came to that question, the men should have a) shut up and let the woman speak, or better yet, b) left their chairs and invited women from the audience to sit up front for a while.
This really isn’t hard. Unless you’re incapable of shutting up.
Now I predict that the comments here will fill up with people explaining that there really wasn’t a problem at that panel, there was no raging sexism on display, etc., etc., etc., all demonstrating that it really is hard for some guys to shut up and swallow it.
This week’s Nature has a substantial and fairly even-handed article on the unease Templeton funding causes. Jerry Coyne is prominently featured, so you know it isn’t an entirely friendly review.
Religion is based on dogma and belief, whereas science is based on doubt and questioning,” says Coyne, echoing an argument made by many others. “In religion, faith is a virtue. In science, faith is a vice.” The purpose of the Templeton Foundation is to break down that wall, he says — to reconcile the irreconcilable and give religion scholarly legitimacy.
They also quote scientists who found the Templeton Foundation fairly open and tolerant of results that were not supportive of their prejudices…but I still don’t trust them. They’re busy putting on a show of open-mindedness, and they are staffed by some competent and politically savvy people, and they know that a few Potemkin scientists with contrary results will help in their overall goal of counterfeiting scientific credibility for their religious cause.
This is especially pressing now as Republicans strain to cut science funding — do we really want American science to become increasingly reliant on funding from organizations with an agenda?
If you asked me about cosmology, I’d defer to physicists — I’ve read Stenger & Hawking & Krauss & Carroll, and I might be willing to say a few generalities about what I’ve learned about the process, but I’d always say you should look to the original sources for more information.
There seem to be a lot of physicists, however, who believe they know everything there is to know about biology (it’s a minor subdivision of physics, don’t you know), and will blithely say the most awesomely stupid things about it. Here, for instance, is Michio Kaku simply babbling in reply to a question about evolution, and getting everything wrong. It’s painful to watch. This guy isn’t really an idiot, is he?
Man, he doesn’t have a clue and is just making it up as he goes along.
Fundamental error: he confuses evolution with natural selection, and thinks that if we aren’t being hunted down by sabre-toothed cats, evolution has stopped. This is wrong. We currently have reduced mortality compared to our ancestors, which suggests that we are less strongly selected in specific ways, but we are still experiencing selection — some of us have been selected for lactose tolerance in the last 10-15,000 years, for instance, and sexual selection is ongoing, and in case you hadn’t noticed, there are still diseases around that kill people.
But most importantly, reducing mortality and selection allows variants to survive, increasing the diversity of forms present in the population. You could even argue that reducing selection increases the rate of evolution. Selection is a conservative force that retains only a subset of the population for propagation into the next generation, you know.
And the rest: “gross” evolution? What the hell is that? Creationists already mangle the distinction between micro- and macro-evolution, now all I need is some half-assed third category getting peddled by the ignorant. And where does he get this idea that Australia is the product of accelerated evolution? That makes no sense at all; isolation meant the populations there evolved relatively independently of forms elsewhere, not that something goosed their mutation rates.
Oh, look: somebody in the comments asks Kaku about why we only use 20% of our brains. Let’s hope the next time he answers a reader question, he’ll tell us at length what we can do with the sleeping 80% of our brains. (I use mine for fulminating at morons, how about you?)
Actually, I’d rather he tried to answer the question in the title of this post.
It’s a triumph of hope over reason, and that means the residents of the Kiribati Islands, an archipelago of tiny islands with an average altitude of 6.5 feet, are doomed. They’ve got faith, you know, but one thing they haven’t got is any reason. NPR reports on their dire situation as the waters slowly rise and the climate changes:
“I’m not easily taken by global scientists prophesizing the future,” says Teburoro Tito, the country’s former president and now a member of Parliament.
Tito says he believes in the Biblical account of Noah’s ark. In that story, after God devastates the world with a flood, he makes a covenant with Noah that he will never send another.
So while Tito does acknowledge that global warming is affecting the planet and that he has noticed some impacts, he says rising sea levels are not as serious a threat as Tong and others are making them out to be.
“Saying we’re going to be under the water, that I don’t believe,” Tito says. “Because people belong to God, and God is not so silly to allow people to perish just like that.”
Tito is not alone in his views. Of the more than 90,000 people counted in Kiribati’s last census, a mere 23 said they did not belong to a church. According to the most recent census, some 55 percent of citizens are Roman Catholic, 36 percent are Protestant and 3 percent are Mormon.
As a result, many are torn between what they hear from scientists and what they read in the Bible.
That’s just sad. They’re sure they’re safe because God doesn’t allow people to die for stupid reasons…but people do die for stupid reasons all the time.
