Monthly Archives: February 2009
Darwin Day on Quiche Moraine
There are a few items related to Darwin’s Birthday on QM. Please have a look here, where you will find links.
How diverse were early hominoids?
And hominids.
We know the fossil record underestimates diversity at least a little, and we know that forested environments in Africa tend to be underrepresented. Given this, the diversity of Miocene apes may have been rather impressive, because there is a fairly high diversity in what we can assume is a biased record.
But I’d like to make the argument from another angle, that of modern ecological analogues. Let us assume that the greater apparent diversity of apes in the middle and late Miocene compared today can be accurately translated as a modern reduction in ape diversity. Not counting the relatively diverse lesser apes, there are five species (2 chimps, gorilla, human, orang) which can be further divided into 10 subspecies, across the entire old world.
Now look at the size range of all of the living apes. Gibbons are the smallest and gorillas the largest. When a family or subfamily of land mammal is diverse in a particular region (a biome or something larger than a biome) we tend to see that diversity played out along a spectrum of size, and against size we can find additional diversity derived from dietary or subhabitat differences and geography. It seems to me that there is room in the size spectrum between gibbons and chimps, and orangs and gorillas, and there is certainly room above the gorilla size as indicated by the existence in the fossil record of very large Asian forms.
We know that some of the later Miocene apes were bipedal, and it is starting to look like bipedalism or something like bipedalism is showing up among other apes in the Miocene as well. So perhaps there is a spectrum of locomotory pattern along which diversity may be spread.
This gives us a the following size classes: gibbon, siamang, [something in between], chimp, orang, [something in between], goriilla, [something bigger], or at total (a minimum?) of eight size classes across which apes might exist in a world in which apes are divers. Like the Miocene. If we add to this a more arboral form and a more bipedal form, perhaps we double the number, or perhaps we add about five new classes (I’m guessing that a Mighty Joe Young size ape would not have been bipedal!). This gives us about a dozen, conservatively estimated, niches when we divvy up size and so-called positional behavior.
To this we can add geography. It is probably reasonable to assume that a wetter, more forested middle and late Miocene Africa could be divided into at least four or regions, between the West/Central divide that modern biogeogrpahy tells us was effective at least in the Late Miocene, the Congo River divide, North/Central Africa, East Africa and Southern Africa. Let’s conservatively assume four, and let’s assume that only half (six) of the hypothesized ape species are divided among these areas. That means that 24 species are endemic to varoius regions, and six additional species are more widely spread for a conservative estimate of 30 species.
Among these species there may have been several bipedal forms, but only one of them (plus or minus a little hybridization hanky panky here and there) would have been the human ancestor. Of course, no one at the time suspected that …. (Or they probably would have done something about it.)
This is not an outrageous suggestion. The idea that if you went back in time to a more ape-rich time (and we know it was more ape-rich) and got a current copy of the Guide to the Mammals of Africa, the ape section would have a few dozen species, just like the monkey section or the antelope section today has a few dozen species.
Go apes!
Dawkins Makes an Eye
Some Maths
Classic TV on CBS Dot Com
Star Trek, the old Twilight Zone, and more. Here.
The technology is not perfect. But it will evolve.
The Bible as Ethnography ~ 01 ~ Introduction
As a child in Catholic school, and later in public school and being sent off to “release time” religious instruction, I had the opportunity to read most of the Old and New Testaments of the standard bible. Later, in junior high school, I became interested in comparative religion, and read it all again, together with some other texts that are not normally considered part of the Bible. Then all that fell to the wayside as I went off to do different things.
Continue reading The Bible as Ethnography ~ 01 ~ Introduction
Yer in big trouble if you buy this woo
A Bolivian woman has died from an injection of urine allegedly administered by her friend as a form of health therapy, a prosecutor said Tuesday. Investigating prosecutor Oscar Flores told The Associated Press that 35-year-old Gabriela Ascarrunz died Saturday of an “infection caused by urine that was injected by fashion designer Monica Schultz.”
Local newspapers reported that Schultz, who is known across Bolivia for her clothing lines, is a practitioner of urine therapy — a form of alternative medicine using human urine for cosmetic purposes or to treat various diseases. Some people rub it on their skin, while others inject or drink it.
Skeptical scientists and physicians say there is no evidence urine treatment works and that chemicals it contains could potentially be toxic.
Open Access: The Time to Act is Now
CALL TO ACTION: Ask your Representative to oppose the H.R. 801 – The Fair Copyright in Research Works Act
(from the Alliance for Taxpayer Access)
February 11, 2009
Last week, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (Rep. John Conyers, D-MI) re-introduced a bill that would reverse the NIH Public Access Policy and make it impossible for other federal agencies to put similar policies into place. The legislation is H.R. 801: the “Fair Copyright in Research Works Act” (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.801:).
Please contact your Representative no later than February 28, 2009 to express your support for public access to taxpayer-funded research and ask that he or she oppose H.R.801. Contact your Representative directly using the contact information and draft letter below, or via the ALA legislative action center [link forthcoming 2/11]. As always, kindly let us know what action you’re able to take, via email to stacie [at] arl [dot] org.
H.R. 801 is designed to amend current copyright law and create a new category of copyrighted works (Section 201, Title 17). In effect, it would:
- Prohibit all U.S. federal agencies from conditioning funding agreements to require that works resulting from federal support be made publicly available if those works are either: a) funded in part by sources other than a U.S. agency, or b) the result of “meaningful added value” to the work from an entity that is not party to the agreement.
-
Prohibit U.S. agencies from obtaining a license to publicly distribute, perform, or display such work by, for example, placing it on the Internet.
-
Stifle access to a broad range of federally funded works, overturning the crucially important NIH Public Access Policy and preventing other agencies from implementing similar policies.
-
Because it is so broadly framed, the proposed bill would require an overhaul of the well-established procurement rules in effect for all federal agencies, and could disrupt day-to-day procurement practices across the federal government.
-
Repeal the longstanding “federal purpose” doctrine, under which all federal agencies that fund the creation of a copyrighted work reserve the “royalty-free, nonexclusive right to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use the work” for any federal purpose. This will severely limit the ability of U.S. federal agencies to use works that they have funded to support and fulfill agency missions and to communicate with and educate the public.
Because of the NIH Public Access Policy, millions of Americans now have access to vital health care information through the PubMed Central database. Under the current policy, nearly 3,000 new biomedical manuscripts are deposited for public accessibility each month. H.R.801 would prohibit the deposit of these manuscripts, seriously impeding the ability of researchers, physicians, health care professionals, and families to access and use this critical health-related information in a timely manner.
All supporters of public access — researchers, libraries, campus administrators, patient advocates, publishers, and others — are asked to contact their Representatives to let them know you support public access to federally funded research and oppose H.R. 801. Again, the proposed legislation would effectively reverse the NIH Public Access Policy, as well as make it impossible for other federal agencies to put similar policies into place.
Thank you for your support and continued persistence in supporting this policy. You know the difference constituent voices can make on Capitol Hill.
If you have any questions, don’t hesitate to contact Heather or myself anytime.
All best,
Jennifer
Jennifer McLennan
Director of Communications
SPARC
(The Scholarly Publishing & Academic Resources Coalition)
http://www.arl.org/sparc
(202) 296-2296 ext 121
jennifer [at] arl [dot] org
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
Draft letter text:
Dear Representative;
On behalf of [your organization], I strongly urge you to oppose H.R. 801, “the Fair Copyright in Research Works Act,” introduced to the House Judiciary Committee on February 3, 2009. This bill would amend the U.S. Copyright Code, prohibiting federal agencies from requiring as a condition of funding agreements public access to the products of the research they fund. This will significantly inhibit our ability to advance scientific discovery and to stimulate innovation in all scientific disciplines.
Most critically, H.R. 810 would reverse the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Public Access Policy, prohibit American taxpayers from accessing the results of the crucial biomedical research funded by their taxpayer dollars, and stifle critical advancements in life-saving research and scientific discovery.
Because of the NIH Public Access Policy, millions of Americans now have access to vital health care information from the NIH’s PubMed Central database. Under the current policy, nearly 3,000 new biomedical manuscripts are deposited for public accessibility each month. H.R.801 would prohibit the deposit of these manuscripts, seriously impeding the ability of researchers, physicians, health care professionals, and families to access and use this critical health-related information in a timely manner.
H.R. 801 affects not only the results of biomedical research produced by the NIH, but also scientific research coming from all other federal agencies. Access to critical information on energy, the environment, climate change, and hundreds of other areas that directly impact the lives and well being of the public would be unfairly limited by this proposed legislation.
[Why you support taxpayer access and the NIH policy].
The NIH and other agencies must be allowed to ensure timely, public access to the results of research funded with taxpayer dollars. Please oppose H.R.801.
Sincerely,
(name)
[END LETTER TEXT]
Contact information
Members of the House Committee on the Judiciary
(For other Members of Congress, please see www.house.gov or use the ALA legislative action center [link forthcoming 2/11]).
Name Fax number State
Rep. Trent Franks 202-225-6328 AZ
Rep. Howard Berman 202-225-3196 CA
Rep. Zoe Lofgren 202-225-3336 CA
Rep. Maxine Waters 202-225-7854 CA
Rep. Brad Sherman 202-225-5879 CA
Rep. Adam Schiff 202-225-5828 CA
Rep. Linda Sánchez 202-226-1012 CA
Rep. Elton Gallegly 202-225-1100 CA
Rep. Dan Lungren 202-226-1298 CA
Rep. Darrell Issa 202-225-3303 CA
Rep. Robert Wexler 202-225-5974 FL
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz 202-226-2052 FL
Rep. Tom Rooney 202-225-3132 FL
Rep. Hank Johnson 202-226-0691 GA
Rep. Steve King 202-225-3193 IA
Rep. Luis Gutierrez 202-225-7810 IL
Rep. William D. Delahunt 202-225-5658 MA
Rep. John Conyers, Jr. 202-225-0072 MI
Rep. Gregg Harper 202-225-5797 MS
Rep. Melvin Watt 202-225-1512 NC
Rep. Howard Coble 202-225-8611 NC
Rep. Jerrold Nadler 202-225-6923 NY
Rep. Anthony Weiner 202-226-7253 NY
Rep. Dan Maffei 202-225-4042 NY
Rep. Jim Jordan 202-226-0577 OH
Res. Comm. Pedro Pierluisi 202-225-2154 PR – At large
Rep. Steve Cohen 202-225-5663 TN
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee 202-225-3317 TX
Rep. Charles A. Gonzalez 202-225-1915 TX
Rep. Lamar Smith 202-225-8628 TX
Rep. Louie Gohmert 202-226-1230 TX
Rep. Ted Poe 202-225-5547 TX
Rep. Jason Chaffetz 202-225-5629 UT
Rep. Rick Boucher 202-225-0442 VA
Rep. Robert Scott 202-225-8354 VA
Rep. Bob Goodlatte 202-225-9681 VA
Rep. J. Randy Forbes 202-226-1170 VA
Rep. Tammy Baldwin 202-225-6942 WI
Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. 202-225-3190 WI
Rheas and the Birth of Evolutionary Theory
Everyone knows about Darwin’s Finches, of the Galapagos Islands. But of course, Darwin made observations of birds throughout his travels on The Beagle. Here, I present a number of passages from The Voyage that include some of these observations.
Music and Me: The Early Years
I am the least musical person I’ve ever met who is still alive. Of course, most nonmusical people don’t go around talking about it, so I probably actually know more tone deaf, talentless people than that. It is strange, though. I should be musical. My mother sang semiprofessionally, doing radio in the pre-WWII days before they had things on tape (commercials and stuff). My oldest sister is known as Lightning Fingers Liz, owing to her prowess with the mandolin. My brother had a rock band from something like 1968 through 1990-something and is quite talented with the lead guitar. My other sister takes the cake, though. She has a couple of PhD’s in music or related topics, is an accomplished composer, and has learned–to at least a reasonable level of competence–one instrument in each known and extant class of musical instrument. (This required her to learn the bagpipes and the didgeridoo, because they are almost exclusive in their own classes.)
… read the rest here.
Science and Stimulus: Action still needed
The following is the latest missive from Shawn Otto:
Last Friday you and others in the science community took action and helped to restore $3.1 billion in cuts to science that had been planned in the Senate compromise version of the stimulus bill. That was a good victory for U.S. Science, but it was just the warm-up act. Now we all need to come together as a community for the real show.
Even after the $3.1 billion restoration, the final approved Senate version of the stimulus bill falls far short of the House version when it comes to science and technology. You can look at the differences between the two here.
As you can see, DOE/OOS, NSF, and NIH all get much less in the Senate version than they do in the House.
We believe this is a mistake, and we want your help in doing something about it.
WHAT IS HAPPENING NOW:
The House and Senate have each appointed members to a conference committee. The conference committee is charged with bringing these two versions of the bill into conformity. Then the final, unified bill will be presented to both bodies for a vote, and if it passes, to President Obama for his signature. Acknowledging those among us who question whether research should be included in a stimulus package to begin with, now is the time that you can have a major impact on the future of science in this country. Rep. Rush Holt, one of the two bipartisan co-chairs of Science Debate 2008, gave this speech on the House floor on Tuesday.
HERE’S WHAT TO DO:
Contact the 10 members of the conference committee. A personal telephone call is by far the most powerful, followed by a personal email or fax. Here is their contact information. Click the name to go to an on line email form:
David Obey (D-WI)
Phone: (202) 225-3365
Harry Reid (D-NV)
Phone: (202) 224-3542
Fax: (202) 224-7327
Charles Rangel (D-NY)
Phone: (202) 225-4365
Fax: (202) 225-0816
Max Baucus (D-MT)
Phone: (202) 224-2651
Fax: (202) 224-9412
Henry Waxman (D-CA)
Phone: (202) 225-3976
Fax: (202) 225-4099
Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
Phone: (202) 224-3934
Fax: (202) 224-6747
Dave Camp (R-MI)
Phone: (202) 225-3561
Fax: (202) 225-9679
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Phone: (202) 224-5054
What goes around comes around
As I grow older and experience more and more of life, I increasingly think that this is a lesson individuals either get early or simply never get at all.
Some people tell me I have the mentality of a 13 year old…
But according to this scientific diagnostic tool, I have the brain of a 25 year old. How old is your brain?????
You’ll have to know how to read Japanese to make this work, or you can just follow these instructions:
1) Click on start. The diagnostic tool will count down from 3 and show you some numbers.
2) Remember where the numbers are. The diagnostic tool will make the numbers go away and replace them with empty circles.
3) Now click each circle in turn, in order from smallest to largest. Zero is smallest (that’s what screwed me up … for some reason my brain would not remember that zero is the smallest).
Then, the game will give you your brain age, in Arabic Numerals. Report your brain age below…
Hat Tip Ana. Who’s brain is the same age as mine, it turns out.
Earthquake Triggering of Mud Volcanoes
A quick note for those of you interested in mud volcanoes (and I know there are many of you). From an article titled “Earthquake Triggering of Mud Volcanoes” by Magna et al we learn that …
Mud volcanoes sometimes erupt within days after nearby earthquakes. The number of such nearly coincident events is larger than would be expected by chance and the eruptions are thus assumed to be triggered by earthquakes. Here we compile observations of the response of mud volcanoes and other geologic systems (earthquakes, volcanoes, liquefaction, ground water, and geysers) to earthquakes. The compilation shows a clear magnitude-distance threshold for triggering, suggesting that these seemingly disparate phenomena may share similar underlying triggering mechanisms. The compilation also shows that pre-existing geysers and already-erupting volcanoes and mud volcanoes are much more sensitive to earthquakes than quiescent systems.
M MANGA, M BRUMM, M RUDOLPH (2009). Earthquake Triggering of Mud Volcanoes Marine and Petroleum Geology DOI: 10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2009.01.019