Lots of people have been sending me this bad article from the Daily Mail, “Human race will ‘split into two different species'”. I don’t quite get it. This is the very same utter nonsense from Oliver Curry that came out at this same time last year.
Is this to be a yearly occurrence now? Every Halloween some newspaper will dredge up this bilge from the London School of Economics and try to horrify us with abominable pseudoscience masquerading as evolutionary biology?
Hi guys and gals, it’s been awhile since my last entry. Last week kept me very busy. In the midst of my late nights typing, I learned some fun things about chloride channels (for one of PZ’s exams.) I learned about their job of regulating cell volume and an appropriate cell-membrane charge.
One thing piqued my curiosity. The cell exterior has roughly 5 milliMolar [chloride – ], while the interior has 125 Molar [chloride – ]. The interior also has a negative charge. Despite all of those factors, the articles I read seemed to say that chloride would diffuse inward if the channels were to open. That is very weird, unless I’m missing something. Is there some very high concentration of a similar ion on the outside that is high enough to send chloride scurrying inward? If anyone has experience in this area, please chime in.
I’ve been tagged with a HalloMeme, and am expected to describe an ocan-themed scary movie. At least this one is easy. I immediately thought of one movie that traumatized me deeply as a child. It was…
What an amusing find: a grad level course taught by creationists that claims it is impossible to write out 10262 in decimal notation, which prompts Tiny Frog to immediately commit heresy by writing it out. You’ll burn in hell for that, Tiny Frog!
That’s not the only lunacy on the creationist page. Try these:
Probability experts point out that if the chances are greater than 1 in 1050, it will never happen.
There is absolutely no chance that the creation could have happened by chance (as you point out in your mathematical computations). Although, if there is theoretically a one in 10262 chance that the world could have happened this way, then in the everlasting eternity of time this (the current universe) could be that one in 10262 chance. In order for probability to be put in effect, there needs to be an actor. E.g., in order for a set of dice to come up snake eyes, someone needs to shake and throw them. If I place the dice on a table, what are the chances that I will get snake eyes? None. That is, none until someone acts on the dice. God needed to be present as an actor in the beginning or nothing could have happened.
The truth is that God made you and me. One day we will all give an account to Him of our lives. Why is it important to believe in the Creator and not in evolution? What impact will that have on our eternity?
Evaluation: Students will be monitored by teacher observation during the classroom discussion, group work and answering the appropriate questions. Reflection paragraphs will be collected. The teacher will try to determine the students’ new courage and ability to defend their belief in the Creator.
Right. This is what creationists consider to be good science.
Stop me if you’ve heard this one before! Here is the setup:
Police say the 58-year-old Tester was wearing a denim miniskirt and offered to have sex with arresting officers.
Investigators say they found a half-empty bottle of vodka and an empty vial that had held prescription painkillers in Tester’s car.
And here’s the punchline.
Tester served as pastor of a Bristol area church and had worked for a local Christian radio station.
Yeah, I know, it’s getting so predictable it’s not even funny anymore.
Hello again, it’s been a while so I thought I’d drop in a comment or two about what I’ve found recently in the news about neurobio. I’ve lately been reading about neurotransmitters and how they bind to sites in specific neurons, instigating depolarization across the membrane of the neuron and allowing for an action potential to communicate to hundreds of thousands of other neurons. This communication between neurons in the central nervous system is relayed into actions in the peripheral nervous system resulting in behavior. But how is this synchronized? What neuron does what? What must be connected to what and why? These are all questions that may take a while to be answered, but we are finding new developments everyday.
In an article from Cornell News, I read about an experiment by James Goodson and Andrew Bass (2000) in which neurotransmitters’ role in the display of sex characteristics in plainfin midshipman fish were examined. In this particular fish, males will make vocal calls through the water that attract females who will come to the site to lay eggs for the vocalizing male to fertilize. However, a second type of male that is unable to make vocal calls waits nearby so that once the eggs are laid, he can get some free-fertilization-action.
Goodson and Bass anesthetized and stimulated the anterior portion of the hypothalamus in each fish to stimulate either a vocal call, or the female’s short grunt (a response to the male’s call). After stimulating normal calls in each fish, the neurotransmitters isotocin and vasotocin (identical to the mammalian oxytocin and vasopressin) were administered to the anterior hypothalamus of each fish. When administered, fish that normally could make calls lost the ability to do so and developed female like grunts, similar to the type II males that could not call but rather grunted like females. This meant that a trait that was typically thought to be controlled by sex (controlled or linked by the gonads) was actually independent, and regulated completely by the brain.
Who knows how many of our traits are linked to gonad development, probably much fewer than we might originally think. If I was given a good dose of estrogen would I not want to play football or wrestle with my best friends?…doubtful (it might just turn into flag football with the Vikes or a pillow fight). At any rate, we shouldn’t be so quick to make judgment calls on biology’s effects in gender behavior.
The Bronze Dog got to be a “pirate chick with panache and a heart of gold”, but my past life analysis isn’t quite as interesting.
Your past life diagnosis:
I don’t know how you feel about it, but you were male in your last earthly incarnation.You were born somewhere in the territory of modern South China around the year 1000. Your profession was that of a builder of roads, bridges and docks.
Your brief psychological profile in your past life:
Revolutionary type. You inspired changes in any sphere – politics, business, religion, housekeeping. You could have been a leader.
The lesson that your last past life brought to your present incarnation:
You are bound to solve problems of pollution of environment, recycling, misuse of raw materials, elimination of radioactivity by all means including psychological methods.
Do you remember now?
Wait…so I was a Chinese laborer with dreams of revolution, and therefore I now have the power to eliminate radioactivity with psychology?
Last night, Jeffrey Shallit debated a creationist. We must now shun him for violating the code of the evilutionist.
No, not really. But it’s another case where the best tactics aren’t clear and simple. On the one hand, we do want to engage the public in a discussion of the ideas, and sometimes a debate is a good way to do that; but on the other, it’s giving the anti-science opponent a platform and a good deal more credibility than he deserves. I’m confident that Shallit mopped the floor with the twerp, but that’s not the point — it’s that a creationist was given equal standing with science, which is not a good result.
Another concern is that if Shallit had a bad day and did not clobber his opponent, the creationist will have much to crow about. This is a game where the science has nothing to gain and everything to lose.
Mark Hoofnagle has a very good discusion of the to-debate/not-to-debate dilemma. I’ve had a few requests to do this sort of thing, and I turn them down and suggest alternatives. If they’re going to give the stage to a creationist some evening, give it to me or another biologist the next evening; let us discuss the science without have to trudge through the drivel a creationist will yammer about. It also has the advantage of drawing in an audience that is willing to think and learn; creationist debates are typically stocked with committed yahoos from the local church, and the last thing they want to do is actually think.
Another reasonable alternative, if the creationist is going to be up there on stage whether you like it or not, is to propose that he give a short talk in which he gives his dreckspiel, and then bring a panel of experts on stage to handle questions from the audience…real experts in geology and biology and physics, who don’t give talks of their own, but are available to address any issues the audience wants to bring up. Turn the creationist talk into an oral defense of his thesis, followed by the kind of grilling to which scientists are accustomed. Remember, they are the ones with the very weak case, and they should be expected to work to defend their argument.
But these debates do happen, we can learn from them, and good for Jeff for taking a creationist head-on. I’m also going to be in a debate of my own in February (not on creationism, though, but on religion), so I can’t be too much of a purist on these matters. But we should be thinking of different ways of handling these public arguments with creationists other than accepting the format they choose to impose on us.
You want a useful, practical, obvious example of evolution in action? Try this summary of corn evolution.
(via ERV)
What’s so good about religion?
