Yearly Archives: 2007

Abducted by Aliens … and dropped off at the Grand Canyon

Palaeontology, Science,

I’m pretty sure Amanda and I were abducted by aliens this morning.

This is not the first time, for me. I was abducted with two others about 20 years ago in Southern Maine while looking for antiques, back when you could still get them cheap even in antique stores (inexpensive antiques, not aliens). You can tell about the abduction because one moment it is a certain time and the next moment is it much later in time and you have no memory whatsoever of he ensuing time. Since that is essentially impossible, alien abduction is pretty much the best possible explanation.

Back in Maine, it caused us to miss a critical turn just by the Big Red Barn antique store. This morning, it caused Amanda to go rushing out of the house only half-ready for a day of teaching Life Science, and me to sit here wondering, why did I just spend 20 minutes reading pages in the creationist web site “Answers in Genesis.”

Well, I’m not sure how Amanda’s day is going to go, but I’m going to make use of this abduction and talk about the Grand Canyon. Continue reading Abducted by Aliens … and dropped off at the Grand Canyon →

More Evo-Creo News from NCSE

Uncategorized

From the National Center for Science Education:

UPDATE ON EVOLUTION IN THE FLORIDA STATE SCIENCE STANDARDSSupport for the inclusion of evolution in Florida’s draft science standards continues to amass. Writing in the Orlando Sentinel (October 25, 2007), Mike Thomas quipped, “We are moving toward intelligently designed science curriculum in public schools. And by that I mean we are leaving intelligent design out of classrooms. By golly, Florida is evolving.” The standards are presently open for public comment for sixty days; Thomas reported, “Of 1,400 respondents to date, more than 80 percent support evolution.” A spokesperson for the Florida Department of Education told Thomas that the draft standards are based on “[w]hat research says should be in the standards” and that nothing would be deleted from the standards in the absence of a research-based argument for the deletion.Following previous editorials in Florida Today, the Tallahassee Democrat, and the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, the Orlando Sentinel (October 27, 2007) opined, “It’s taken seven years, but Florida is on its way to developing a science curriculum for the new millennium — one that requires teachers openly and vigorously to teach about evolution,” adding, “it’s important that the state Board of Education and Gov. Charlie Crist fully endorse these changes to ensure Florida’s children can compete in the increasingly technology-driven global marketplace.” Noting that evolution is one of the so-called Big Ideas of the science standards, the editorial concluded by proposing, “Let’s add one more big idea. In Florida, science should win out over politics when it comes to educating children.” …visit NCSE for the entire report.

… and …

THE ASSOCIATION FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION ADDS ITS VOICE FOR EVOLUTIONThe Association for Science Education — a professional association for teachers of science in Britain and around the world, with over 15,000 members — recently issued a statement on science education, “intelligent design,” and creationism, reading in part:***

it is clear to us that Intelligent Design has no grounds for sharing a platform as a scientific “theory”. It has no underpinning scientific principles or explanations to support it. Furthermore it is not accepted as a competing scientific theory by the international science community nor is it part of the science curriculum. It is not science at all.Intelligent Design belongs to a different domain and should not be presented to learners as a competing or alternative scientific idea. As such, Intelligent Design has no place in the science education of young people in school.

***The statement also cautions against presenting “intelligent design” as a case study of a controversy in science, commenting, “Intelligent Design …cannot be classed as science, not even bad or controversial science,” and recommends that “it should not be presented as an alternative scientific theory” if it is presented in religious education classes.

Judgement Day

Uncategorized

From the National Center for Science Education:

Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial, a special two-hour documentary about the Kitzmiller v. Dover case, in which teaching “intelligent design”in the public schools was ruled to be unconstitutional, is to air nationwide on PBS at 8:00 p.m. on November 13, 2007. “Judgment Day captures on film a landmark court case with a powerful scientific message at its core,” explains Paula Apsell, NOVA’s Senior Executive Producer. “Evolution is one of the most essential yet, for many people, least understood of all scientific theories, the foundation of biological science. We felt it was important for NOVA to do this program to heighten the public understanding of what constitutes science and what does not, and therefore, what is acceptable for inclusion in the science curriculum in our public schools.”

Read the rest at the NCSE. Also,The PBS Web SiteA PreviewEducator’s Briefing Package

Animal Rights and Animal Rights Wrongs

Uncategorized

Check out these two posts on animal rights issues.Discourse on Animal Experimentation Marred By ViolenceAnimal Rights Extremists Wreck Scientist’s HouseIn the first, Shelley Batts discusses this verbiage from the Animal Liberation Front:

A new era has dawned for those who fund the abusers and raise funds for them to murder animals with. You too are on the hit list: you have been warned. If you support or raise funds for any company connected with Huntingdon Life Sciences we will track you down, come for you and destroy your property with fire.

In the second, have a look at Mark Hoofnagle’s commentary on this issue, with this concept as central to what he is talking about:

The reason I consider animal rights extremists denialists is because like other ideologues with an anti-science agenda, they lie about science to accomplish their goals.

I’m all for animal rights, within reason, and in fact, I’m not against extreme actions under certain circumstances. The threat of violence is a right coopted by the state, and perhaps that is where it should stay. The problem, of course, arises when the state is out of control. But that is another topic.

ADDED: Shelley Batts has correctly pointed out to me that the above paragraph conveys the idea that I’m not against extreme actions by animal rights activists against, say, scientists. Very very bad writing on my part. I do not condone such actions in any way shape or form. The above paragraph should be parsed as follows:

Regarding the topic at hand:

I’m all for animal rights, within reason,

Regarding political action in general:

and in fact, I’m not against extreme actions under certain circumstances. The threat of violence is a right coopted by the state, and perhaps that is where it should stay. The problem, of course, arises when the state is out of control. But that is another topic.

Below, in the comments section, you will see Shelley’s comments and my response to them. Please have a look.

There was an attack by a cell of ALF here at the University of Minnesota several years ago. They broke into labs and “liberated” several lab animals. What was left of many of the animals were found later by police in various parks and other localities, the ones that were still alive freezing and staving to death and wandering around aimlessly.Lab materials related to research in process and equipment was destroyed as well, and a few graduate students had their work on cancer set back months or a year or so.I think scientists do have to take more responsibility as a group for better treatment of animals, or even to curtail unnecessary animal research. Especially on primates. Rodents, I don’t care so much about. I mean, I love rodents, but more as objects of wonder than political allies.Anyway, go check out these much more lucid sources of discussion pointed to above.

A 50-million-year-old fossilised spider has been brought back to life …

Uncategorized

… Oh, wait. brought back to life “in stunning 3D by a scientist at The University of Manchester.”I hate those press release writers…This is actually fairly cool despite the fact that no actual spiders were actually brought back to life. Very High Resolution X-Ray Computed Tomography (VHR-CT) was used to “digitally dissect” tiny fossils thus revealing very fine detail including internal organs. Here is an example:i-0f8e3dba2482fd3776615ea315eab345-spider_3d_490.jpgView larger imageThe same graphic in a different format can be seen here, and you can get a PDF of the paper here.___________________Penny et al. 2007, ‘First fossil Micropholcommatidae (Araneae), imaged in Eocene Paris amber using X-Ray Computed Tomography’ appears in the current edition of Zootaxa 1623: 47-53

Money Does Not Buy Happiness

Uncategorized

… Rather, they are alternative options. People like to have money and/or happiness, under certain conditions, which has led to the mapping of happiness across the globe to augment the usual mapping of wealth and poverty.Leicester University’s Adrian White mined and glommed data from the CIA, UNESCO, WHO, UNDHR, and several other sources to produce a global happiness map.Perhaps you’ve seen this before, but I certainly missed it.According to the study’s author:

The concept of happiness, or satisfaction with life, is currently a major area of research in economics and psychology, most closely associated with new developments in positive psychology. It has also become a feature in the current political discourse in the UK.There is increasing political interest in using measures of happiness as a national indicator in conjunction with measures of wealth. A recent BBC survey found that 81% of the population think the Government should focus on making us happier rather than wealthier.[source]

Here is the map, and the official list of the Nations of the World in order of Happiness: Continue reading Money Does Not Buy Happiness →

Artificial Life Has Been Created

Uncategorized

[Moved and adapted from gregladen.com]I’m guessing here. I think it has been created over the last few months but the announcement is delayed for obvious reasons … nobody wants the equivilant of “Cold Fusion” tacked to your resume. Especially if you are Craig Venter, who is already a bit controversial.According to reports, Venter is prepared to announce the animation of dead tissue, as it were, as early as some time in the next 48 hours, but possibly several days down the line.Venter, who worked on the Human Genome Project, is quoted as saying that creating artificial life would be: “a very important philosophical step in the history of our species. We are going from reading our genetic code to the ability to write it. That gives us the hypothetical ability to do things never contemplated before”What is known is that Venter assembled a team headed by Hamilton Smith (Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 1978), and including some 20 individuals. They have created a synthetic chromosome with 381 genes and 580,000 base pairs, entirely from basic laboratory chemicals. The genome of this chromosome is modeled after a bacterium (Mycoplasma genitalium). Conveniently, and intelligently, the team has marked the genes on this chromosome, presumably so we can find them later when we need to drive it into the swamp with torches and pitchforks, should things get out of hand.The team has also previously transplanted the chromosome of one bacterium into another, with the newly transplanted chromosome “taking over” as the genome for the recipient cell. Now, according to the report in The Guardian, all they need to do is to take the artificially created chromosome and do the same thing with that … put it in a bacterium, and presto, they’ve got artificial life.Or, in my view, if it works, they’ve got one very important step in the direction of creating artificial life. A chromosome is not alive. A cell is alive, and there are many very important parts of a cell that are not generated by the DNA, but rather, are copied directly during cell division. They are not making a cell from common laboratory chemicals, they are making a chromosome and getting a cell that is already alive to accept it at “Fearless Leader.”Also, they are using the genome of an existing bacterium. You can’t say “I’ve created a car from scratch” by getting the Chilton’s Guide for a 1977 Mustang, and then doing a really good job of building four fifths of a 1977 mustang from stuff laying around in your garage (assuming you are Jay Leno). (You should see Jay Leno’s garage. It’s the size of a medium size airplane hanger. It is full of old cars, parts, and tools, and he powers it with a restored electrical generator that runs on soybeans or something similar.) (The genome in their artificial chromosome has about four-fifths of the original “wild” bacterial genome. Why? I have no idea. I can’t imagine a limit on size of artificial genome that would require this. Maybe that is all their pen-drives would hold or something.) What you did with the Chilton’s Guide was to build a previously existing Mustang from scratch, and good for you, but someone else (a team of people, actually) created the Mustang. If you don’t believe me, try building a bunch of Mustangs from scratch, and then try selling them as “Mustang” and see what happens to you when you get sued. You will lose, because you did not “create it” … In addition, that design — the Mustang — was based on designs for other, previously existing cars, and thus the Mustang is the product of a combination of intelligent design that always goes into designing cars (except in the case of the Chevy Chevette) and Darwinian processes both in the machine shop and the market place. For the cell, of course, there is not an intelligent designer involved, so it took way longer and the design is, well, not as intelligent.So it is not that I’m not impressed with the concept of what this team may be announcing any time now. But they have not created life. What they’ve done is to mimic the process of DNA replication, which is one part of life. The rest of it … including cell division, organelle replication, (I quickly add: Organelle replication is a “eukaryotic” …if I may use that term… function. Bacteria do not really do this … unless you count a cell membrane and ER as organelles … but Eukaryotes do. But, bacteria are “alive” so we’ll not quibble too much about this side ofit.) and DNA expression, is being done by pre-existing structures that this team did not create.So, this is a little like getting a 1977 Mustang with several parts missing, and a Chilton’s manual for a 1977 Mustang, and replicating … using from stuff in Jay Leno’s garage … the necessary parts to turn the partial Mustang into a functioning Mustang … and then taking credit for “creating an artificial Mustang.”But, it will be interesting to see how this plays out.[Hat Tip: Joe. Source: The Guardian]

Got milk (alleles)?

Uncategorized, ,

As you probably know, everyone should drink milk. Lots and lots and lots of milk. All your life. Or so says the American Dairy Industry, often using those sexy posters of famous people with milk smeared on their faces.

The truly amazing thing about those posters is that the people in them more often than not seem to have an ethnic identity that I, as a trained Biological Anthropologist (and thus keeper of this sort of knowledge) can easily see contraindicates milk consumption. Most of these individuals would likely be unable to break down the lactose in the milk because they have the “wild type” or “normal” allele that facilitates the shutdown of lactase production some time in early life.

Now let’s be clear about this. We humans are mammals, and as mammals, we drink mother’s milk while young. This is facilitated by the production of lactase, an enzyme that breaks down the main energy bearing molecule in milk, the sugar lactose. But your basic well adapted mammals should not bother producing the enzyme lactase after weaning normally occurs … maybe a few years after in a long-lived mammal like humans … because it is inefficient and potentially risky to produce enzymes you don’t need.

Why is it inefficient? Well, there are thousands and thousands of enzymes and if we just produced all of them all the time in all our cells, that would be really costly of raw materials and energy, both of which are required to produce them. So, evolution has shaped, via the brilliant designer of Natural Selection, our multicellular bodies to produce enzymes only in the cells they are needed in (from which they may be exuded on occasion, as is the case with lactase, a digestive enzyme). This is much more efficient. By extension, the system should be (and usually is) selected to produce specific enzymes when they are needed instead of all the time from birth to death. By doing this we save a lot of raw materials and energy.

Continue reading Got milk (alleles)? →

Global Warming, the Blog Epic ~ 01 ~ Introduction

Uncategorized

The IPCC report is out, “An Inconvenient Truth” has been honored by the academy, a sea change is happening in the way that climate change news is being reported, and you can bet the Right Wing and the Ree-pubs are as we speak working up new Talking Points and Spins to deflate the urgency of the issue. It is an axiom that in reporting science, there are two (not one, not three or four, just two) sides to every issue, and one side is the plank nailed to the Democratic Party Platform, and the other side is the plank nailed to the Ree-pub Party Platform. This is a truth as stable and reliable as the fact that Home Depot will always sell 2” X 4” studs and plywood in 4′ X 8′ foot pieces. We are already seeing the dubious dichotomies forming up. For instance, yes, the Antarctic Ice Sheet is sloughing off the continent, but it is opening new and wonderful opportunities for both shrimp and scientists. Yes, global warming is real and is anthropogenic, but the Average American thinks, according to Polls, that it is only the third or fourth most important issue. And so on.

The global warming debate has been running continuously since the now very obscure publication of Moment in the Sun: 1968” by Dr. Robert Rienow and Leorna Train Rienow. Most people think of the literary beginning of the environmental movement has having been “Silent Spring” by Rachel Carson, and maybe so, but for me, it was Rienow. This is partly because “Moment…” was the first book I read on the topic, one of the first “adult” books I read at all, and on those early mornings before school I was able to watch Dr. Rienow on that crazy new fangled box … the black and white TV my parents had just acquired … on a thing called “Sunrise Semester” produced by SUNY-Albany. Rienow would lecture, and he and his wife and (I assume) the occasional student would put on skits lampooning industrialists and other polluters.

I remember one day, years after having last seen Sunrise Semester, having just acquired a car and a license (at a ripe old age of 18 or so) exploring the territory south of town, along the Hudson River. I encountered an old narrow road running down into the wooded valley from a minor highway, and took the turn thinking it would lead somewhere interesting. Soon enough there was another turn onto a narrow gravel way called “Holly Hock Hollow” … that name sounded familiar, but I could not place it. So I made that turn as well. A mile and a half or so later, the road leveled off to join the floodplain of a small creek, and I started to see little wooden signs in the forest, extolling in a few words here and there the virtues of nature, and imploring the reader to “leave no trace of your visit” and “respect the trees and animals” and such. Eventually I spied, along side the road where a stone wall opened to a gate, a sign: “Holly Hock Hollow Farm ~ Robert and Leorna Rienow.”
Continue reading Global Warming, the Blog Epic ~ 01 ~ Introduction →

Racism, Creationism, Darwinism

Race and Racism, ,

Racism and it’s various manifestations such as eugenics is a Janus faced monster of human society. One side speaks to people’s fear and hate, and is social and political. It speaks a sermon to the angry and downtrodden who love to hear that their “race” is superior, or to the social managers and engineers who benefit from a handy excuse to explain the results of repression and economic inequality as the natural outcome of history and circumstance beyond our control and thus not the fault of those self same social managers and engineers.

The other face is the biological one, the scientific description of “race” itself, and the scientific explanation for racial differences.

Each of these aspects of modern racism can act independently and to some extent have different histories, but by and large they are two parts of the same trend. Prior to Eugenics, the biological side of this monster was not scientific, and was in fact typically religious. When European Christians needed to explain the people of the New World (how the heck did they get there, and who were they, really?) or the “savages” of Africa, they turned to the bible, and there found the basis for Continue reading Racism, Creationism, Darwinism →

Home Schooling Creationist Science Fair 2007

Uncategorized,

Well, Amanda, Julia and I stopped by the 2007 Home Schooling Creationist Science Fair over at the unique Har Mar Mall in Roseville, Minnesota. Very few of the shoppers passing through the mall seemed to take much of an interest. There were a couple of moms showing each exhibit to their children, reading off the relevant parts … “Evolutionists think fossils take millions of years to form, but creationists have shown that this is not true…” and so on.

Science Lesson Plans

Science is probably one of the hardest subjects to teach. Many students just don’t see the connection between abstract science in textbooks and how it works and affects them in real life. That’s where a variety of science lesson plans can help teach science to your students more effectively.

The Social Studies Help Center

Help for 11th graders. There are class notes, numerous Supreme Court case summaries and information on how to write a research paper.

The 15 or so exhibits demonstrated a wide range of levels, from what must have been pre-school to at least one clearly done by the parents (that one, present yesterday during an earlier trip to the mall, but missing today) compared the affective behavior of childcare-kids vs. home school kids.) Most of the exhibits had a quote from “the scriptures” related in some way to the exhibit. For instance, my favorite: a very young child’s exhibit (I’m guessing) on bunnies. The Scripture: “God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be” (I Corinthians 2:1912:18). Of course, I Corinthians 12 is about the unity of the spirit and the body, and that bit about the arrangements of the body parts is part of a sort of mini parable in which each part of the body stupidly asks “If I am not an eye, I am not part of the body?” and so on. So note, fellow rationalists. As annoying as it is when creationists “Quote Mine” from the scientific literature, take heart. They don’t get in much trouble for doing that, but when the quote mine from The Bible, well, I assume they are going to Hell for that. What goes around comes around.

Anyway, the “Bunny” science fair entry was my favorite not because of the misquotation of scripture, but because of the hypothesis being tests:

Question: What do bunnies do?

Hypothesis: God made bunnies with many parts that work together so they can do lots of things.

We all had to laugh when, on the way home, Amanda slammed on the breaks to avoid flattening a bunny tearing across the street. “Well, praise the lord, all the parts seem to be working…”

Many, really the majority, of the exhibits were just regular (mostly half baked) science fair exhibits that had some scripture slapped onto them. In other words, despite the occasional exhibit clearly motived by pure creationist philosophy, most of the kids ended up doing some kind of science or another. Funny, I don’t remember ANY of the 200 exhibits or so at the Brimhall Fair (see this on Julia’s entry) held earlier in the year just down the street at a Real School addressing creationist ideas. But when the kids enter into a creationist fair, they can’t seem to help themselves from doing some actual science.

Nonetheless, the overall quality was unimpressive, as one would expect from the home school environment.

After my first visit to the fair, I swooped into Barnes and Noble and bought myself a copy of Dawkins “The God Delusion.” … I just needed to do something. After this trip, I think I’ll just take a shower.

Flock of Dodos Rocks

Uncategorized,

The new feature-length documentary by filmmaker and evolutionary biologist Randy Olson, “Flock of Dodos” was shown at the Bell Museum last night. Executive Producer Steven Miller, and the Minnesota Evolutionary Musketeers, Scott Lanyon, Mark Borrello and PZ Myers were in attendance to lead a discussion afterwards, moderated by the Phil Donahue Like Shanai Matteson.

Randy Olson left the world of science to pursue a career in Hollywood, and after about 10 years of not paying a lot of attention to his former career, learned that a new theory had emerged to explain the diversity of life: Intelligent Design. This film chronicles his quest to find out what Intelligent Design had to offer, and to explore the political and social conflict associated with the rise of this new idea.

It is an absolutely fair film in that both “sides” are given ample opportunity to demonstrate merit. As such, of course, the Intelligent Design side of the discussion appears significantly weaker and sometimes downright foolish, and occasionally nefarious.

This film has been well received. Many reviewers note a comparison with Michael Moore … I have to say, I’m a Michael Moore fan (not a nut over him, I just think he has talent and a sufficiently demented sense of humor to enjoy). Olson is NOT a Moore clone, despite the similarities. While Olson’s voice is clear in Flock, it is not “in your face” but rather a voice that is always there drawing out, sometimes cajoling, others to be heard.

Olson’s experience as an evolutionary biologist turned filmmaker placed him in a unique position. The evolutionary biologists he interviews are either people he knows or people who know people he knows .. in other words, members of his extended professional community. This allows him license to poke fun at them. It also allows him to treat their position in the film with a respectful rather than snide humor.

On the other side of it, it turns out that Olson is a native Kansan, and his mom (spiritualist “Muffy Moose”), one of the stars of the film, lives around the corner from one of the principle players in the Kansas ID movement. Olson’s family and community ties, and his being a Prairie Homeboy himself, gives him the ability to treat the ID representatives with simultaneous respect and humor.

While the Intelligent Design “movement/theory” (both in quotes, you will note) is trumped by the science in this film, the weakness of the scientists as a group … especially when it comes to making their case to the public … is clearly underscored. Olson replicates the famous “Harvard Poker Game” (which used to be played at my good friend Irv’s house back in the day) at which several scientists sit around talking about Intelligent Design. Each time one of the scientists comes up with a multisyllabic erudite utterance (a fancy word), the film stops and goes to a black screen on which a definition of the word is typed out. In this and other ways, the scientists are duly mocked.

But I must say the opportunities Olson was able to exploit for mocking the Intelligent Design proponents were myriad and wonderful.

So while the IDers in general were trumped, the BIG loser, losing poignantly, painfully, even Michael-Mooresquely, was ID Central itself, the Discovery Institute. They are shown to be deeply, darkly, impressively evil. I won’t give you the details …. and it is nothing like the main point of the film … just go see it. It is worth noting that while the Discovery Institute would not give Olson the time of day at the time he made the movie, they have since reacted strongly and very negatively to it (creating an entire web site about it “Hoax of Dodos”). I would give you the link to it but, well, they can go screw themselves.

The post viewing discussion was as expected: Informative and lively. Unlike the recent situation in Seattle, the filming was not infiltrated by the Discovery Institute, as far as I know. Excellent questions were asked, and points were made. The two creationists who spoke out were low key and were treated respectfully.

The film is currently available from DER, at institutional-use price and license. If you are with an institution, go buy it now on the company’s dime!!! It will be on Showtime a bit later, and around summer, available from all the usual sources as a home-use DVD.

I’d like to express a particular thanks for Steve Miller for coming to the Twin Cities in sub-zero weather to view the film with us (but I hastily add, I think Steve is a Minneapolitian, but since he currently lives in the Deep South, this could not have been easy).

Cafe Scientifique: Myers Causes Woman to Become Closer to Jesus

Uncategorized

Amanda and I just returned from the Bell Museum sponsored by Cafe Scientifique at the Varsity Theater in Dinkytown, Minneapolis, and it was a very interesting evening.

Panelists Scott Lanyon, director of the Bell Museum and ornithologist, Mark Borrello, Historian of Science, and PZ Myers, Fire Breathing EvoDevo Biologist, each gave 5 minute summaries (none of which lasted more than 10 or 11 minutes) of various aspects of the current social debate over evolution, then fielded questions from an audience that seemed much of the time all too compliant. Many thoughts came to my mind during the discussion (which I stayed tactfully away from) the first of which is that these three guys did a great job at driving home a variety of points. I won’t summarize their perspectives, but rather, I’d like to give a few gut reactions.

I think starting right now we have to substitute the term “Evolutionary Biology” for the often used “Evolutionary Theory” instead of constantly whining about how “people” misunderstand the use of the word “Theory.” It is the Theory of Relativity, but the physicists say just “Relativity.” The Periodic Table of the Elements is a theory, but the word “theory” is never used there either. We are just asking for trouble and should not be so surprised when we get trouble.

It was interesting to see the range of perspectives, running from left to right (on how the panelists were arranged on the couch) but from centrist to left with Lanyon advocating a truce between religion and science on one end and Myers saying of religion “It’s wrong all the way down” (a subtle reference, no doubt, to turtles).

The speakers represented a fairly typical range of biological fields and thinking, even in the way that the behavioral aspects of biology were not especially considered. For instance, Borrello extolled the virtues of The Origin together with The Selfish Gene as representing a kind of range of explanatory power in biology. This is OK, and not wrong, but biologists who study mainly genes or inverts or cells often forget that starting with Hamilton in 1964, and running through a pantheon of other fieldworkers, theorists, and experimental biologists, there is a lot of strong theory that relates almost entirely to organisms with brains (the field of behavioral biology). This missing area was also felt (by me anyway) when Borrello (or Lanyon, can’t remember) noted that there have been three major revolutions in biological science: Darwin (Natural Selection), Mendel (genetics) and EvoDevo. Clearly, Behavioral Biology and Behavioral Theory is one of the revolutions (a.k.a. sociobiology). Nonetheless, the speakers did a fine job fielding the one behavioral question they got, on homosexuality.

The point was made that we live in a science and technology based society, yet Americans disrespect science to a large degree. This is an interesting point. We are actually a Christian Nation, according to some, and this conflict is at the heart of the discord.

I was left with the very strong feeling that science is in need of strong cultural leadership. Instead of our society requiring that office seekers be good christians, we need credible politicians … and movie stars and recording artists and other cultural icons … sticking their noses up at creationism and promoting the premise that of course, we do live in a science and technology based society so we should give more respect to the scientists and the theoretical and empirical knowledge they work with.

This was a real Minnesota Experience for me, coming from “out east.” At one point an anti-religion/pro-atheistic remark was made (by an audience member) and it drew applause. That, I get. And had this event happened in Cambridge Mass, that would have happened. But then, just at the end, what was supposed to be the “last question” turned into a rant against PZ Myers by someone who claimed to be “non religious” and who’s hero was none other than Darwin Himself, but who believed that anti-religious sentiment underlying at least part of the above mentioned spectrum was even more arrogant than Myers had claimed creationists to be. THAT also received applause. THAT would not have happened in Cambridge.

The moderators, feeling that this was a bad “last question” handed the mike to another person. Big mistake. She took the discussion down several notches, explaining (to her credit) that she as a christian still supported science and believed in evolution, but then she did not stop talking, and went on for a while about how she loved Jesus and how this discussion did nothing more than to make her closer to Jesus and so on and so on. More applause.

I don’t think anyone was converted, but thirsts were slaked. The audience wanted more, and more, I think, they shall have at upcoming Cafe Scientifques here and elsewhere. I ended the evening with a discussion with Gordon Murdock that included the idea of doing a Cafe Scientifique sort of format for High School and Grade school kids (same format, minus the beer). And I hope all three of these panelists will be available for that.

The Big Bang and Stuff

Uncategorized, ,

Dialog from Annie Hall:

Doc: Why are you depressed, Alvy?
Mother: Tell the doctor … It’s something he read.
Doc: Something you read, heh?
Alvy: The universe is expanding.
Doc: The universe is expanding?
Alvy: Well, the universe is everything, and if it’s expanding, someday it will break apart and that would be the end of everything!
Mother(shouting): What is that your business? (to doctor) He stopped doing his homework.
Alvy: What’s the point?
Mother: What has the universe got to do with it? You’re here in Brooklyn! Brooklyn is not expanding!
Continue reading The Big Bang and Stuff →

PKU: An exploration of a metabolic disease

Uncategorized,

Phenylketonuria (fee-null-keet-o-noo-ria), mercifully also known as “PKU” (pee – kay – you) is a disorder in which phenylalanine, an essential amino acid, is not broken down as it normally would be by an enzyme (phenylalanine hydroxylase) and thus accumulates (in the form of phenylpyruvic acid) in the body. Normally, Phenylalanine hydroxylase coverts phenylalanine into tyrosine, another amino acid, which has a number of different functions.

This is bad because buildup of phenylpyruvic acid has several negative effects, the most important being to interfere with normal development of neural tissues. Continue reading PKU: An exploration of a metabolic disease →