Here’s the open thread for comments about the Evolve episode on the History Channel-or anything else you’d like to chat about.
And here’s a classic post by PZ on the subject of vertebrate jaw evolution, just to get you warmed up. Enjoy!
~Danio
Guest Blogger Danio:
Orac has posted a directive from the Seed Overlords regarding a survey they’d like us to conduct. As my distinctiveness has been temporarily added to the collective (I’ll be implanting the “sleep” command into their subroutines next week though, oh yes…) I am dutifully passing it on. It takes less than 10 minutes to complete and you can enter to win stuff at the end of it.
_______________________________________________________________________
Whoops! The survey has been closed already. Sorry about that. Here’s a pointless poll instead.
Guest Blogger Danio:
Stand up and cheer for the academic standards at UC, and the LA Federal Judge whose ruling on accrediting courses taught in Christian schools upholds these standards.
A federal judge in Los Angeles has thrown out the remaining claims of Calvary Chapel Christian School, which sued the University of California alleging university officials rejected some courses for credit because of their Christian viewpoint.
What a bunch of sticklers those UC guys are! In order to qualify as an accepted college preparatory course, the UC standards require the course content to be largely reality based:
a UC professor who reviewed Calvary’s proposed Christianity’s Influence on America class said the course used a textbook that “instructs that the Bible is the unerring source for analysis of historical events,” “attributes historical events to divine providence rather than analyzing human action,” and “contains inadequate treatment of several major ethnic groups, women and non-Christian religious groups.”
Oh, the uppity secular progressivness of it all! Surely indoctrination into batshit insane bigotry shouldn’t affect one’s admission into a state university, right? Right?
That, apparently, was the basis of the lawsuit filed on behalf of Calvary by the Advocates for Faith and Freedom. The lead counsel for the plaintiffs, of course, plans to appeal, and is playing up the discrimination angle for this poor, embattled majority faith for all it’s worth:
Tyler…fears schools will become afraid to teach from a Christian perspective. “We’re worried in the long term, Christian education is going to be continually watered down in order to satisfy the UC school system,” he said.
That’s right, you tool. Churches and church-sponsored schools are free to teach all the nonsense they want to willing, tuition-paying participants, but they must not be free of the consequences of setting their egregiously misinformed students loose in the real world.
Posted by LisaJ
I find it astounding in this day and age, with the many grand scientific discoveries and advances we’ve seen and in our increasingly technologically dependent world, that a large proportion of our population (at least in Canada and the US, with which I have more personal experience) seems uninterested in understanding and learning about science. We have a wealth of information available at our fingertips and an educational system with the potential to accommodate any type of scientific mind, but yet we science-minded individuals are not in the majority. We are a culture that largely breeds an aversion to science. Now I know that I’m generalizing here, and that some individuals living in North America aren’t able to access these opportunities so easily, but that of course is part of the problem.
Now I’m not saying that I think everyone should become a Scientist, I just think it’s sad that more people aren’t embracing the wonders of science into their daily lives. Science is everywhere. It has the power to explain anything you want to know about the world, and it opens our minds up to bigger and bigger possibilities everyday. Science is beautiful, and to embrace it is to enrich your life dramatically. But so many people aren’t doing this, and they are really missing out in life. I see it myself everyday with many of my friends and family members who choose to tune out whenever science is brought up or who quickly cut me off with the ‘oh, you’re so smart, that’s too hard for me’ line. And they’re entirely comfortable to just walk away, carry on, and not understand.
I’m a little brain-dead this morning, but at least I’m remembering to note that it’s MAJeff writing this. I’ll be better once I have my coffee, I hope.
I spent all day yesterday immersed in job hunting materials. Prepping files for submission, organizing application materials, creating individual files on disk and hard copy for every school. You know, that nasty ol’ administrative side of job hunting, the kind of work you just have to grind through all at once, rather than waiting, but that has to get done in order to avoid complete chaos.
This weekend a friend was over for my dinner. I was actually lamenting that I had not yet, in several years of teaching, had the opportunity to teach Introductory Sociology. (It’s not just because schools want someone who can teach it, but I think it would be a fun class.) He was looking at my vitae and saying I hadn’t yet taught any general ed classes. I listed off several, and got to “Social Problems.”
“That’s not on here,” he said.
“I’ve taught it at two schools. Oh crap, what else did I screw up?!”
Thankfully, that’s the only class I omitted. I think I caught all the typos, and I haven’t omitted any schools. I did have to remind myself of a few of the “professional service” activities I’d done so I could include those when I was editing it last month.
Omitting a class or two on the list of courses I’ve taught is actually pretty minor, especially with the list of classes already on my vitae.
At the ASA conference last weekend, a friend was was telling me about her job. She does a lot of the administrative side of things, including hiring, at a community college. Her favorite letter was one declaring how excited the applicant was to have the opportunity to work with graduate students at the college. At the community college without graduate programs. That’s pretty much a circular file application, I would guess. Others told stories of applicants sending cover letters to a completely different school than the one they were applying for.
Let’s hear your job-hunting horror stories. I don’t have any big one’s yet. (I can’t think of any from previous job hunting experiences, but I’m sure I screwed something up.)
They say misery loves company. What stupid things have y’all done or seen that just made you laugh?
And now, I’m back to job hunting (and dissertating).
PZ has been live-blogging the new “Evolve” series on the History Channel since it began a few weeks ago. This week’s episode is on the evolution of jaws, and should be a good one. Alas, none of the Minions will be able to live-blog the program, but I will post an ‘Evolve’ open thread in time for the East Coast airing at 10 PM Tuesday night, in case anyone is interested in commenting as they watch.
Danio, for the collective.
Monday morning, PST: time for some science with a side of controversy, Danio-style
There’s a Department of Health and Human Services document circulating that’s got the pro-choice lobby up in arms. Afarensis and The Questionable Authority weighed in on the sociopolitical impact of such a policy last week, but in addition to the significant threat to reproductive rights that it presents, this proposal is yet another example of the complete lack of scientific expertise informing decisions about public health.
At issue is the determination of a time point that marks the beginning of pregnancy. The consensus of the medical community is that an established pregnancy occurs at the point when the blastocyst successfully implants into the uterine wall. This time point makes a lot of sense in considering early events in the reproductive process. Pre-implantation embryos have a vast distance to travel, complex chemical cues to navigate, and a ticking biological clock to contend with within the bounds of the female reproductive cycle. Roughly 40% of all embryos don’t survive the ordeal. These odds are one good reason to hold off on crying ‘pregnant’ until a successful implantation is achieved; another is that implantation signifies the beginning of the physiological impact of a pregnancy on a woman’s body. Developmental events prior to implantation have essentially no impact on maternal tissues, which are just marking time until the beginning of the next menstrual cycle. The massive signaling between embryonic and uterine tissues that occur during implantation, the establishment of maternal and embryonic connections and boundaries, delineating the difference between ‘self’ and ‘not self’, are all medically relevant occurrences in terms of the physiology of the female patient, hence the general accord within the medical community in marking this time point, and none before it, as the point at which a pregnancy is established.
[Read more…]
Fellow minion Sastra checking in…
You know, whenever things get dull among atheists, there are a few surefire topics to spark some conversation. You can always do the atheism vs. agnosticism debate, of course. That’s usually good for hours. Free Will perks at least some people up. But bring up a symbol for atheism …
And here it is!
(Forgive me if the image is not quite clean, I’m still figuring this blogging thing out.)
Some of you may remember that last year I was thrown out of several print shops and refused service for ordering a poster which had to do with voting for an atheist symbol. They were “Christians” (ie true Christians), and therefore couldn’t deal with atheism or atheists. Ah, well. The prerogative of a free society and private business. The poster was eventually made, however, and at the Atheist Alliance International convention in Washington DC, the attendees (which included Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett) cast their votes between 6 candidates.
I am only showing the ‘winner.’ Because I know what many of you are doing. You’re going to tell the rest of us about this other symbol. A different one. Which you like better.
Unless, of course, you are preparing to explain why atheists should not have a symbol at all.
Frankly, I’ve probably already seen the symbol (or something very like it), or heard the reasoned rationale for none at all. The committee looked at hundreds, from sources all over the internet, as well as submissions.
We also considered the arguments against a symbol. Though I’m somewhat sympathetic, I think the problem is moot. Bottom line, a designated symbol of some sort is eventually going to come up from grass roots and become popular, because there is need to identify a group which no longer wishes to remain ignored or marginalized. Yes, the “group” is diverse and technically defined only by a negative – but, contra Sam Harris, the word ‘atheist’ is pragmatically useful, and used, and words themselves are symbols for things.
And if there is going to be a symbol anyway, all things considered, it should be one that offends and bothers the LEAST number of atheists possible. That’s a very tough standard indeed.
This particular symbol was designed and released to public domain by Michigan graphic artist and retired schoolteacher Diane Reed. It’s simple, positive, unique, and attractive. The circle represents the natural universe, the point is the inquiring mind, and the resemblance to the Latin “A” is both a nod to the language of science, and to the necessity of having some easily graspable connection to “atheism.” It doesn’t imply that atheists believe in nothing; it doesn’t confuse the issue with evolution; and it doesn’t stick a gratuitous finger in any religion’s eye. You could tattoo it on your arm, dangle it from a necklace, and draw it in the sand with a stick. It’s identifiable in any color, and identified with no specific person. And it gets along nicely with whatever other symbol you prefer, because you either like it, or you don’t.
And that’s that.
[MAJeff here. I’ll remember this one of these times.]
Apparently, John Edwards had an affair. I’ve been out of the news loop and haven’t been following it other than what I see in a few blog comment sections. I’m honestly not all that interested in the sex lives of the powerful; I’m more interested in the social reaction. So, I’m going to talk about a few things that I’ve seen, and tie those into issues of marriage and sex regulation by the state.
One thing I’ve heard is, “at least he didn’t break the law.” Well, depending upon where his trysts took place, Edwards may have broken the law. Here in Massachusetts, for example, adultery is a crime that carries a penalty of incarceration in state prison for up to 3 years, jail up to 2, or a fine of up to $500. As of 2004, 24 states criminalized adultery. (Cossman, 2007: 209. fn6). Admittedly, such laws are rarely enforced, and the no-fault system means that even if cheating takes place, it’s less likely to be the legal “reason” for the divorce [“Irreconcilable differences” or its equivalent is the norm].
Marriage is a regulatory system. When folks stand in front of their witnesses, and take their vows (the state won’t allow you to marry without a public ceremony), they are entering a three-way contract, with conditions set by the state. One of those conditions is sexual monogamy. Mess around, and you’ve violated the terms of the contract. You’ve sinned against the state, and have committed a criminal offense.
Adultery itself has changed. At the founding of the Republic it wasn’t sex outside of marriage, but involved a married woman having sex with a man not her husband. Adultery laws were put in place to establish men’s property rights over their wives, and particularly to ensure that the children born into such relationships were theirs and not some other man’s. It wasn’t about violations of intimacy or trust, as we take it to be today. It was about stealing another woman’s womb. [Ed. Oops. Big difference]
Indeed, the comment of Edwards’s, that he “didn’t love” the woman with whom he had the affair is a sign of that. In contemporary society, marriage has become about companionship and intimacy [see, for example, Giddens or Seidman]. One of the things that makes same-sex marriage imaginable to many people is the fact that marriage itself has changed in such ways as to make it imaginable. We no longer have the explicit gender-based marital roles established in law. (Everyone say, “Thank you” to the feminist legal activists who brought about a lot of those changes.) Marriage isn’t gender-role based, at least legally, in the rigid ways that it once was.
Additionally, marriage has become more focused on intimate life. It has, over the course of the past couple centuries, become a space in which emotional and affective life is more and more important. Indeed, a romantic friendship at work–devoid of sexual activity–or flirtatious talk in an online chat-room are now examples of infidelity, reasons worthy of filing for divorce. The contract has not been violated, but the intimacy and trust held as the contemporary bases of marriage have been. Marriage has become less about procreation and more about intimacy (Griswold severed the procreative imperative from marital conjugality). That has changed both what counts as cheating and which relationships count as marriages.
Even though, in some places, same-sex couples have been included in marriage, another comment I saw yesterday reminded me how homosexuality is still to be excluded from “legitimate” domestic and intimate spaces. Someone wrote: “I’m happy Edwards’s affair was with a woman, unlike those Republicans who have affairs with the same sex.” Adultery can be forgiven, homosexuality can’t.
Well, in Vermont, if that affair had been with a man, it would not have been adultery. Recall above the definition of adultery. I wasn’t only sex with a married woman, but vaginal intercourse. It was the sex that would make babies, and only that sex. And, in the 2003 Blanchflower decision, the Vermont Supreme Court held that same-sex activity there did not fall under the definition of adultery. It might be cheating, but it isn’t cheating against the contract or the state. What is even more interesting about this is that Vermont’s Civil Union statutes are basically the same as their marriage statutes. If the adultery statute is to apply to same-sex couples, it’s going to take some special kinds of cheating to make it adultery. [Cossman, linked above, has a discussion of the changing status of adultery in law and popular culture.]
Marriage and the family are constantly changing. “Traditional marriage” is a moving target. A century ago, the statement “I didn’t love her” wouldn’t have mattered in the least. Marriage was a different beastie then, far less organized around the intimate and emotional than it is today. These news moments provide us an opportunity–not to talk about the individual relationship, but instead the public issues surrounding it, like how the institution and its regulation are changing. Those are, I think, far more important.
Posted by LisaJ
Now this is a super cool new Science story. Have you ever wanted to make yourself invisible? Ever said “man, I wish I could just run away or hide and make everyone go away”? Maybe as a young 8 year old, trying to hide from those bullies on the playground. Or perhaps you’d like to saunter into mass inconspicuously one Sunday morning to grab one of those delicious wafers without starting a riot. Well, if this sounds like you, then your lucky day is (almost) here. Dr. Xiang Zhang and his group from the University of California have reportedly “created a material that could render people and objects invisible”. They are announcing this week, in a pair of articles to be published in Nature and Science, their generation of a 3D metamaterial that exhibits a negative refractive index (thanks negentropyeater). ‘Metamaterials’ are apparently a manmade mixture of metal and ceramic or Teflon like materials (anyone who knows anything about this field is welcome to clarify this!) that function to bend visible light waves quite aptly. These researchers have harnessed this unusual property of the metamaterial they have created to redirect light around 3D objects to effectively disguise or ‘cloak’ them.
This new study represents a major progression in the field, as previously this technology could only be used to cloak very thin 2D objects. Now I’m assuming that the 3D objects they effectively made invisible in these studies were probably pretty small too, we’ll have to wait until the end of the week to find out, but this is a big step closer to allowing humans to obtain their own invisibility cloaks.
This article explains that this ‘new work moves scientists a step closer to hiding people and objects from visible light, which could have broad applications, including military ones. ‘ Which is a pretty cool application, I guess (but also a very frightening one when you think about it). I think it’s pretty obvious what the greatest potential of this new technology really is: to make millions of Harry Potter fans very, very happy. You make a real invisibility cloak and you’ve hit a goldmine with that fanbase.
Now I am by no means a mechanical engineer, materials scientist, or an expert in this particular field. So if anyone would like to add any additional info on how this technology works it would be much appreciated. It sounds very cool, and I’d like to learn more.
