Hey, you want some science? My latest Seed column on battling beetle balls is online.
(And I’ve just arrived in Ann Arbor after a long travel day!)
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
Hey, you want some science? My latest Seed column on battling beetle balls is online.
(And I’ve just arrived in Ann Arbor after a long travel day!)
Seed is doing a Good Thing and hosting a site and forum for the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair (when I was growing up, this was better known as the Westinghouse science fair, and it is very prestigious). Some of the projects that come out of that science fair are just plain intimidating—teachers and students might want to browse the fair for ideas, but don’t be discouraged if some of them are a little overwhelming. It probably helps maintain your perspective to notice that Seed has sponsored an amusing gimmick, too, the world’s largest baking soda and vinegar volcano. (I don’t care how big it is, though, it’s not going to win.)
This is a beautifully done movie, although it does get a bit silly in the end.
One point this brought to mind: have you ever looked at sperm? They’re amazing. We humans do go through a single-celled haploid stage which is the focus of some very intense selection pressure, and humans in their haploid phase possess some impressive abilities. No brains, but the sperm are motile and exhibit seeking behavior. Eggs are also wonderful — they are precisely balanced on the edge of criticality, ready to erupt into a cascade of changes with a single stimulus. It’s easy to dismiss gametes as blobs and slime, but they have all the charm and complexity of bacteria … and I say that completely non-ironically.
(via Street Anatomy)
James Kakalios gets to use the latest Spider-Man movie as an excuse to explain the physics of granular materials in the New York Times. Good thing they didn’t ask a biologist about Sandman … all I could think about was that there was no way a loose aggregate of coarse sand would be able to mimic the function of the human brain, which is built upon the sub-micron-scale specific organization of diverse molecules. I would be such a wet blanket.
No, wait, I did think of another thing: could you incapacitate Sandman by dumping your cat’s litterbox on him? I’d think he’d go running off to do some emergency particle segregation right away.
I will say that the Sandman special effects were the best part of the movie. The rest — plot, acting, dialogue — eh, not so much.
I wish I could be more enthusiastic about the Encyclopedia of Life project. It’s to be an online encyclopedia with a substantive page dedicated each species on the planet, and it’s endorsed by E.O. Wilson, with sponsorship from some of the most prestigious museums around. It’s a fantastic idea that would be incredibly useful.
But then …
The demonstration pages are beautiful, maybe too beautiful. There’s the promise of a colossal amount of information in each one, although at this point all they’ve got are very pretty but nonfunctional images of what the page will look like — but you can see that the content is not trivial and the organization is detailed. I browsed the FAQ to see how they’re going to do it, and it’s awfully vague. “Mashups” of existing databases? Recruiting sources from existing online collections? They were inspired by Wikipedia? (No, please no…if it’s wikified it will be useless as a source of technical information.) I look at the money they’ve got — $12 million — and the number of species they aim to catalog — 1.8 million — and it just doesn’t add up to me. Aren’t they going to burn through that much money in just paying for the emergency room visits for the brawling systematists fighting over the ontological issues?
I don’t mean to sound so negative, since I think it’s an eminently laudable goal, but I get very, very suspicious when I see all the initial efforts loaded towards building a pretty front end while the complicated core of the project is kept out of focus. I’d be more impressed with something like NCBI Entrez, which, while not as attractive as the EOL mockups, at least starts with the complicated business of integrating multiple databases. I want to see unlovely functionality first, before they try to entice me with a pretty face.
(via John Logsdon)
My previous contributions to the basic concepts in science collection were on gastrulation and neurulation, so let’s add the next stage, and the one I named the blog after: the pharyngula.
This afternoon, I’m traveling to the Twin Cities again. Ricardo Azevedo is giving a talk at 4:00 in 150 Ecology at UMTC on “Sex, robustness and epistasis”. The title has one of those buzzwords that always makes me perk up and pay attention. You know the one I mean. Mmmmmmm, “epistasis”.
If you’re trying to come up with names for an exotic element with amazing properties for that comic book, fantasy novel, or role-playing game you’re writing, here’s a list of apocryphal elements (there’s also a similar list with more details). These are all genuine false alarms from the world of science, guaranteed to have been generated from the twisted minds of actual chemists and physicists.
We really need elements called Ultimium and Extremium. Neokosmium isn’t bad, either.
It’s strange (but typical) how creationists will simply make up an answer to that question that trivializes the number of discovered fossils — the latest is DaveScot, who claims they “wouldn’t fill a single coffin.” Afarensis tallies them up. Would you be surprised to learn that DaveScot was making it all up?
Way back in the early 19th century, Geoffroy St. Hilaire argued for a radical idea, that vertebrates and most invertebrates were inverted copies of each other. Vertebrates have a dorsal nerve cord and ventral heart, while an insect has a ventral nerve cord and dorsal heart. Could it be that there was a common plan, and that one difference is simply that one is upside down relative to the other? It was an interesting idea, but it didn’t hold up at the time; critics could just enumerate the multitude of differences observable between arthropods and vertebrates and drown out an apparent similarity in a flood of documented differences. Picking out a few superficial similarities and proposing that something just looks like it ought to be so is not a persuasive argument in science.
Something has changed in the almost 200 years since Geoffroy made his suggestion, though: there has been a new flood of molecular data that shows that Geoffroy was right. We’re finding that all animals seem to use the same early molecular signals to define the orientation of the body axis, and that the dorsal-ventral axis is defined by a molecule in the Bmp (Bone Morphogenetic Protein) family. In vertebrates, Bmp is high in concentration along the ventral side of the embryo, opposite the developing nervous system. In arthropods, Bmp (the homolog in insects is called decapentaplegic, or dpp) is high on the dorsal side, which is still opposite the nervous system. At this point, the question of whether the dorsal-ventral axis of the vertebrate and invertebrate body plans have a common origin and whether one is inverted relative to the other has been settled, and the answer is yes.
