BS: What scientists think about

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 07:11 PM

GUEST Paranoid Android asserted:

Enough of where we came from. So where are we going? Is there any scientific evidence that humans are evolving to a higher order of being? Will genetic engineering replace natural evolution to accelerate our progression to a more enlightened species? Can YOU read my mind?

No, I can't read your mind, so please enlighten me: What do you mean by "a higher order of being"?

If we are talking about Darwin's writing on The Origin of Species, he doesn't make such a claim. He talks about a population profiting by and surviving by means of advantages which occur by natural variation. In the environment in which it happens, the biological line may get enough advantage to replace its parent population, but that's not the same as "a more enlightened species". Or even "a better species", for that matter. The very change which helped that new species to survive and supplant its parent may, if there is a large change in the environment, be fatal to the new species in the long run.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 07:56 PM

If the crucial factor is a waist that is notably smaller than the adjoining bits that need not in any way imply a small waist.

I'd suspect that interpreting the results as favouring small waists is a culturally conditioned one, reflecting a rather untypical culture.

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: John Hardly
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 08:22 PM

good post, DaveO. A very notable misconception -- that evolution somehow implies "direction" from simple to complex.

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: Rowan
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 09:02 PM

The NS article I referred to, McGrath, was quite specific in reporting that the investigators found the it was the hip:waist ratio or 1.2:1 that was the only 'measure' that stood up. It was so long ago now that I can't recall some of the other specifics but they certainly ruled out any single criterion such as waist size. And boob size.

Amos' post after mine reminds me that other NS articles, at around the same time as the one I summarised, looked at other putatively evolutionary aspects of attractiveness and its consequences. The series (NS never 'drew attention' to any notion of a 'series'; that was my doing) started with a report on DNA analyses of siblings and found there was a disproportionately (to them) high rate of families where the mother's husband was not the father of all her offspring even though, putatively, he ought to be. In exploring this phenomenon (from an evolutionary perspective, you understand) someone carried out an investigation in which women diarised their randiness, sexual activity, menstrual cyles as well as whether or not they were using contraception (and type) or not.

From memory, they found that women were randier and more sexually active at times when they were more likely to conceive and those that were in committed relationships who 'played away' were more likely to do so also at times when they were more likely to conceive. While diaries are not as objective as soom would wish, Amos' post above would seem to support hypotheses that men would find women more attractive at times when they're more likely to conceive, a corrollary to the first of the findings.

The second leads to an hypothesis that women may choose their social partner on the basis of his ability to support herself and dependants but also choose to widen the biological competition by requiring his sperm to be competitive as well.

The NS series went further but I'll leave it for now.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 12:39 PM

regarding using pollution to reduce the effects of global warming -
that is already happening - its called global dimming
(the atmosphere should actually be warmer - but the presence of pollution from various smokestacks has offset this by reflecting more sunlight) There was a Nova science documentary on it last year.

oddly enough the best evidence came from a measurable difference in temperature in the few days of no flights and no contrails after 9/11.

Roger Angels space umbrella is an interesting concept to try to reduce global warming.

A trillion tiny umbrellas - transparent - enough to deflect the sunlight and reduce warming. Launched a million at a time - in 16million launches. (From a mile high magnetic rail gun. The tube would be built into a mountain so you wouldnt have to construct a huge building)
In an interview I heard with him on CBC's Quirks and Quarks - he does say that its far better of course to address the global warming problem by reducing our green house gases through renewable energy.

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 04:21 AM

Just released:

IPPC Report first release 02FEB2007

Watch for it (not) on your local news stand.

[quote]
1,600-page climate report, out in February, says, evidence is compelling

The Associated Press
Updated: 2:51 a.m. CT Jan 23, 2007

WASHINGTON - Human-caused global warming is here — visible in the air, water and melting ice — and is destined to get much worse in the future, an authoritative global scientific report will warn when it's released next month.

"The smoking gun is definitely lying on the table as we speak," said top U.S. climate scientist Jerry Mahlman, who reviewed all 1,600 pages of the first segment of a giant four-part report. "The evidence ... is compelling."

Andrew Weaver, a Canadian climate scientist and study co-author, went even further: "This isn't a smoking gun; climate is a battalion of intergalactic smoking missiles."

The first phase of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is being released in Paris next week. This segment, written by more than 600 scientists and reviewed by another 600 experts and edited by bureaucrats from 154 countries, includes "a significantly expanded discussion of observation on the climate," co-chair Susan Solomon a senior scientist for the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. She and other scientists held a telephone briefing on the report Monday. [22 JAN 2007]

That report will feature an "explosion of new data" on observations of current global warming, Solomon said.

Solomon and others wouldn't go into specifics about what the report says. They said that the 12-page summary for policymakers will be edited in secret word-by-word by government officials for several days next week and released to the public on Feb. 2. The rest of that first report from scientists will come out months later.

The full report will be issued in four phases over the year, as was the case with the last IPCC report, issued in 2001.

Global warming is "happening now, it's very obvious," said Mahlman, a former director of NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab who lives in Boulder, Colo. "When you look at the temperature of the Earth, it's pretty much a no-brainer."
... ... ... ...
As confident as scientists are about the global warming effects that they've already documented, they are as gloomy about the future and even hotter weather and higher sea level rises. Predictions for the future of global warming in the report are based on 19 computer models, about twice as many as in the past, Solomon said.

In 2001, the panel said the world's average temperature would increase somewhere between 2.5 and 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit and the sea level would rise between 4 and 35 inches by the year 2100. The 2007 report will likely have a smaller range of numbers for both predictions, Pachauri and other scientists said.

The future is bleak, scientists said. "We have barely started down this path," said chapter co-author Richard Alley of Penn State University.

© 2007 The Associated Press.

[end quote]

Cleaning the eyeballs (with environmentally friendly methods) to get ready to start reading.

John

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 01:27 AM

In the everlasting search to find where mythology gives way to history ---

Rome's richest hill yields up ancient treasures

Place of city's ancient founding may lie beneath endangered monuments
By Ariel David, The Associated Press, 6:23 p.m. CT Jan 23, 2007

ROME - Work on Rome's Palatine Hill has turned up a trove of discoveries, including what might be the underground grotto where ancient Romans believed a wolf nursed the city's legendary founders Romulus and Remus.

Archaeologists gathered Tuesday at a conference to save crumbling monuments on the Palatine. The Palatine's once-luxurious imperial homes have been poorly maintained and were at one time in danger of collapse — a situation that forced the closure of much of the hill to the public during a restoration project.

While funds are still scarce, authorities plan to reopen some key areas of the honeycombed hill to tourists by the end of the year, including frescoed halls in the palaces of the emperor Augustus and of his wife, Livia.

After being closed for decades, parts of the palaces will be opened for guided tours while restoration continues, officials said.
Mysterious grotto found

It was during the restoration of the palace of Rome's first emperor that workers taking core samples from the hill found what could be a long-lost place of worship, believed by ancient Romans to be the cave where a she-wolf suckled Romulus and Remus, the abandoned twin sons of the god of war Mars.

Irene Iacopi, the archaeologist in charge of the Palatine and the nearby Roman Forum, said experts used a probe to peer into the 52-foot-deep (15-meter-deep) cavity and found a vaulted space decorated with frescoes, niches and seashells. It is too early to say for sure whether the worship place known as "lupercale" — from "lupa," Latin for wolf — has been found, but Roman texts say that it was close to Augustus' palace and that the emperor had restored it, Iacopi said.
"It was a very important symbolic place and we believe that it was well-preserved," said Giovanna Tedone, an architect leading the work at the palace. Archaeologists are now looking for the grotto's entrance, she said.

[Some more at the link, but I didn't see much detail of particular significance except that "they're still digging."]

John

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: Slag
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 01:51 AM

What to wear in the morning. Coffee. Price of petrol, transportations. Writing grants. Publish or perish. Their love life or lack thereof. Professional jealousy, theirs or others.

And then there is that question for which they are seeking an answer or answers. They are thinking of ways to get to that question. They are thinking of hypotheses which cover as many variables as possible or as are germane and of ways to account for the other variables.

Just thought I'd take a stab at the original thread title. That's what caused me to peek at this.

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: GUEST,ib48
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 04:03 PM

They think about testing their tubes

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 04:50 PM

It's been a while since this was posted so I am copying it in:

"The key point is that in both cases the "common ancestor" is the most recent individual from whom all currently living humans are directly descended. The notion that these two are the "first persons ever" is completely falacious, and is something to "get over."

If the current MRCA(Eve) [= Most Recent Common Ancester - female] had more than one daughter, then two separate lines of descent diverge from her. If all the matrilineal descendants of all but one of these daughters die off (fail to produce female descendants) then the daughter whose line continues becomes the new MRCA(Eve).

The same (mathematical) condition applies to the male line. The more recent MRCA(Adam) simply means that the paternal lines of descent of all but one of the males alive at the same time as the female MRCA failed to continue to produce currently surviving male descendants, moving the "title" of MRCA(Adam) to a more recently appearing male."

If the MRCA(Adam) lived 75,000 years ago, wouldn't his mother automatically be the MRCA(Eve)?

I expect that the two numbers were arrived at independently and within the framework that was used are probably accurate but still...

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 04:54 PM

Oh, dear. I didn't realize the numbers were not in the bit I copied. MRCA(Eve) was found to have lived 150,000 years ago and MRCA(Adam) 75,000 years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 06:34 PM

KB -

Not necessarily true, and in the case of the actual "tracings" not at all true. There were some prior discussions, with links to articles that should make the difference clear.

The MRCA(Eve) is the one for whom all her sisters' (and cousins etc.) descendants became extinct, but some of hers survived.

The MRCA(Adam) is the one for whom all his brothers' (& etc.) descendants became extinct, but some of his survived.

In a sense, it's more a matter of how recently all the other lines were wiped out, than a matter of survival of the line that is traced back.

As a trivial - NOT necessarily the only - example of how there could be a difference, conquering armies frequently killed all the males but enslaved (and bred) all the females , so the rates of extinction of a given hereditary line differed significantly for male ancestors and for female ancestors. We're all descended from ancient kings, 'cause the politicians always weasel their way out and survive.(?)

John

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 10:08 AM

If the MRCA(Eve) was only in regards to all living females and MRCA(Adam) was only in regards to all living males then it makes sense that way. But if all living humans are descended from MRCA(Adam) then we also must all be descended from his mother. It must be so. This is not a push for male primacy on my part. Adam is getting first billing because he is said to have 75,000 years ago while Eve is said to have lived 150,000 years ago. The same thing would be true in reverse if the numbers were switched.

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 09:48 PM

KB -
If the MRCA(Eve) was only in regards to all living females and MRCA(Adam) was only in regards to all living males...

You're ignoring that every parent may have both male and female offspring, although the assumption is subtle.

1. All humans now living are descendants of MRCA(Adam).

      All humans now living are also descendants of any direct ancestor of MRCA(Adam).

      Any of those ancestors is a COMMON ANCESTOR (CA(Adam) or CA(Eve)) for all humans now living.

2. All humans now living are descendants of MRCA(Eve).

      All humans now living are also descendants of any direct ancestor of MRCA(Eve).

      Any of those ancestors is a COMMON ANCESTOR (CA(Adam) or CA(Eve)) for all humans now living.

In other words, there is (probably) a very long string of COMMON ANCESTORS, both male and female, stretching back prior to MRCA(Adam) and MRCA(Eve), since any person has only one father and one mother.

But only the last - most recent - one can be traced genetically.

Only the MOST RECENT COMMON ONE) is being considered.

It is NOT NECESSARY that the MOST RECENT common ancestors, male and female, appear in the same generation.

(Excuse the caps. I'm not shouting, but trying to emphasize the "keys" to help clarify things.)

John

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 12:54 PM

John, here is how I came at the question. I started a genealogical chart with only MRCA(Adam) on it. I then add his children and their children all the way down to today. Every living person is on this chart. Every living person can trace their ancestry back to MRCA(Adam). If you go back just one generation then you find Adam's mother. Therefore every living person can also trace their ancestry to her. The genders of Adam's children don't matter in this.

If all of Adam's children had the same mother then MRCA(Adam) and MRCA(Eve) would be in the same generation but there is no way to know whether this is true or not. But if not, then since we do know that MRCA(Adam) only had one mother she MUST be the MRCA(Eve).

I am not looking at the genetics of this. Taking the question from my premise the genetics can be used to approximate a date for when MCRA(Adam) and MRCA(Eve) lived. Since the geneticists are asking two different questions (one for Adam and one for Eve) it is possible to come up with very different answers.

I think what the geneticists are doing is very worthwhile and can yield valuable insights. In my view, they are coming at the question from a different side than I am. As far as I can see the MRCA(Adam) and the MRCA(Eve) can not be more than a generation apart. It is just not physically possible.

Please look at the question from my perspective and let me know if you see a flaw in my logic. Maybe I am missing something but I (obviously) don't think so.

BTW, the caps and bolds are fine with me. Creating emphasis can be a tricky business.

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 06:48 PM

This is making a few basic assumptions, I'm sure JiK will correct me if needs be:

1. Male common ancestry is worked out by looking at variations in the Y Chromosome, and arriving at a date by estimating rate of change over time. This can only look at the male line.

2. Female common ancestry is looked at using mitochondrial DNA, which is carried in the egg, and therefore from the Mother. Again, date comes from looking at variation within modern population, and estimating a rate of drift.

This means the Y chromosome can only be traced along a line where every father had a son. He could have 20 children, but if they're all daughters, then his Y chromosome will not be passed on. 'Adam' is the most recent person we can get back to in this way. Similarly for a Woman, if she has no daughters, her mitochondrial DNA line is broken.

The most recent common ancestor is a bad name, it's the most recent common traceable ancestor we have here.



As the X chromosome can be inherited from either the Mother or Father, you can't use it to trace a population back in the same way as either the Y, or the mitochondria

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 10:05 PM

A problem with our attempted explanations here is that we've been, at least to some extnent, polluting the real question of "what/who is MRCA(Eve)" with attempts to explain why or how or who gives a shit about whether .... etc.

MRCA(Eve) is a mathematically defined concept that's interesting because we can prove mathematically that "the thing called MRCA(Eve) must exist" and we can say things, with real mathematical certainty about "the thing called MRCA(Eve)".

The key is to get the definition straight, so that we know what we're talking about, before speculating about circumstances and conditions, etc.

In this thread, at:

18 Oct 06 - 06:05 PM ( (local link to page 3 if you're loading by the page) you'll find a link:

What, if anything, is a Mitochondrial Eve?

The explanation there is much more thorough than I can re-create and give easily here.

Note the comment at that link, that the MRCA(Eve) is:

"… the most-recent common ancestor of all humans alive on Earth today with respect to matrilineal descent. That may seem like a mouthful, but without even a single one of those qualifying phrases, any description or discussion of the ME reduces to a lot of nonsense."

In other words, if you do not observe any one of the conditions of the definition, you may have something that's of interest to somebody – perhaps even to you yourself – but you are not talking about MRCA(Eve). The same happens if you try to add anything else to the definition.

Look at the definition carefully:

The (most recent)¹ (common ancester)² of (all humans alive on earth today)³ (with respect to matrilineal descent)⁴.

There's also some lesser discussion of MRCA(Adam) at the same link, but the female line is better defined and easier to analyse, so the mathematicians assert that it's more important and spend most of their time and effort on the matrilineal line.

John

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 11:21 AM

After my last post I reread the linked article and realized we are dealing with three different situations and therefore come up with three different answers. The author of the article discusses the MRCA(Eve) and the purely matrinineal line followed to get back to her. She then discusses the MRCA(Adam) and the purely patrilineal line followed to get back to him. She then makes the incorrect connection that these two individuals are the MRCA's of all living humans. That is a different question all together and one that can't be addressed using the methods at hand.

At the end of the day I think we are all actually in agreement and terminoligy got in the way.

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: Rowan
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 05:19 PM

Just a minor point of correction in all this, Bunnahabhain. You wrote
"Similarly for a Woman, if she has no daughters, her mitochondrial DNA line is broken."

This is not quite correct, as her mitochondrial DNA is carried in all her cells, and thus all her eggs, including those that get fertilised by sperm containing Y chromosomes and which consequently produce sons.

Being the pedant that I am, I occasionally wonder when the corrections to chronological calculations will start coming in. The "Mitochondrial Clock" notion is based on at least three assumptions, all quite reasonable at first sight. One is that the rate of mutation in the DNA is constant; since we started measuring it the evidence doesn't seem to contradict this assumption. A second assumption is that it has always been constant. This is what they thought about radiocarbon dating when it was first discovered and applied in the 1950s; some subsequent anomalies were explained when they discovered variation in the rate of production of C14. Other subsequent anomalies were explained when they discovered that organisms living in an environment rich in 'old' organic carbon (that had much of its C14 already depleted) were taking up that carbon, leading to biassed 'elapsed time since death' calculations.

This latter anomaly could be described as 'leakage' of the datable material. The third assumption about mitochondrial DNA is that all of it in any given cell is maternal in origin. There is evidence of leakage of paternal DNA (from the fertilising sperm) into the cell of the fertilised egg and thus the consequent zygote, foetus and adult. It is described as 'leakage', the material leaked is datable, as it contributes to the set of DNA that is used for dating, and must affect 'apparent' rates of mutation and thus any age consequently calculated.

I dare say there's more than a couple of PhD dissertations available for keen students.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 05:41 PM

KB -

Unless you omit the COMMON from

"MOST -- RECENT -- COMMON -- ANCESTOR"

the MRCA(Eve) and MRCA(Adam) are the MRCA's of all living humans. And his describtion does NOT incorporate any INCORRECT ASSUMPTION.

The definitions given in the linked article are mathematically correct; and they can be - and have been - rigorously (mathematically) proved.

Note that there is not a particular bit of crumbling dust from which we can provide the name, address, social security number, and a set of finger prints for a specific "nameable" person.

The thing that is proved is that

1. at some specific point in time

2. there existed ONE FEMALE PERSON from whom all currently living persons are matrilineally descended.

3. at some other specific time

4. there existed ONE MALE PERSON from whom all living persons are patrilineally descended.

5. it is implicitly assumed that at either of these two times, there were many other living persons, and there may be many descendants of many of them living now, but:

5.a. no persons living now are descended by a direct patrilineal path of descent from any MALE other than MRCA(Adam).

5.b. no persons living now are descended by a direct matrilineal path of descent from any FEMALE other than MRCA(Eve).

The only thing concluded is that the existence of an MRCA had to have occured approximately at some particular time. The TIME when it happened is the only thing that can be found from this particular analysis of the available information. Other, and separate, methods can make some predictions about things like where an MRCA lived, but this definition applies only to the estimation of when it happened.

It's MATHEMATICS, applied to genealogy, with the names omitted.

John

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: Cluin
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 09:03 PM

What scientists laugh about.

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: Crystal
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 05:20 AM

What Scientists Think About no.98:

Why has my stipend stopped? Stupid Moronic middle management!

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: heric
Date: 02 Feb 07 - 10:22 AM

Surgery that severs the corpus callosum, separating the two hemispheres (a treatment for epilepsy), spawns two consciousnesses within the same skull, as if the soul could be cleaved in two with a knife. Time 1/19/07

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: Wolfgang
Date: 22 Jun 07 - 10:23 AM

Firstborn kids smarter

firstborn men performed better on a military intelligence exam than second-borns and third-borns by an average of 2 and 3.2 IQ points, respectively

This newspaper article is unusually good for mentioning different theories and potential problems.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Jun 07 - 12:38 PM

I'd tell my younger brother about this, but he outweighs me by 50 lbs and has a temper.

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jun 07 - 12:51 PM

I imagine the younger-born do better on humanitarian intelligence tests?

A

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 22 Jun 07 - 01:03 PM

Evolution, Religion and Free Will?

A recent column in American Scientist reports on surveys of evolutionist scientists on the topic of Evolution vs Religion vs Free Will.

Evolution, Religion and Free Will

The report is accessible to the public. (not all articles at this site are). Sigma Xi members can download the convenient pdf version free. Subscribers to the magazine can purchase it for $5 (US), and non-subscribers may purchase the pdf for $12 (US). Anyone may read and/or print it without registration or payment.

In the regular "Macroscope" column:

Evolution, Religion and Free Will

The most eminent evolutionary scientists have surprising views on how religion relates to evolution
Gregory W. Graffin, William B. Provine

During the 20th century, three polls questioned outstanding scientists about their attitudes toward science and religion. James H. Leuba, a sociologist at Bryn Mawr College, conducted the first in 1914. He polled 400 scientists starred as "greater" in the 1910 American Men of Science on the existence of a "personal God" and immortality, or life after death. Leuba defined a personal God as a "God to whom one may pray in the expectation of receiving an answer." He found that 32 percent of these scientists believed in a personal God, and 37 percent believed in immortality. Leuba repeated basically the same questionnaire in 1933. Belief in a personal God among greater scientists had dropped to 13 percent and belief in immortality to 15 percent. In both polls, beliefs in God and immortality were less common among biologists than among physical scientists. Belief in immortality had dropped to 2 percent among greater psychologists in the 1933 poll. Leuba predicted in 1916 that belief in a personal God and in immortality would continue to drop in greater scientists, a forecast clearly borne out by his second poll in 1933, and he further predicted that the figures would fall even more in the future.

Edward J. Larson, professor of law and the history of science at the University of Georgia, and science journalist Larry Witham, both theists, polled National Academy of Sciences members in 1998 and provided further confirmation of Leuba's conjecture. Using Leuba's definitions of God and immortality for direct comparison, they found lower percentages of believers. Only 10 percent of NAS scientists believed in God or immortality, with those figures dropping to 5 percent among biologists.

[For the most recent poll]

A primary complaint of scientists who answered the earlier polls was that the concept of God was limited to a "personal God." Leuba considered an impersonal God as equivalent to pure naturalism and classified advocates of deism as nonbelievers. We designed the current study to distinguish theism from deism—that is to day (sic = say) a "personal God" (theism) versus an "impersonal God" who created the universe, all forces and matter, but does not intervene in daily events (deism). An evolutionist can be considered religious, in our poll, if he calls himself a deist.

Comprised of 17 questions and space for optional comments, this questionnaire addressed many more issues than the earlier polls. Religious evolutionists were asked to describe their religion, and unbelievers were asked to choose their closest description among atheist, agnostic, naturalist or "other" (with space to describe). Other questions asked if the evolutionary scientist were a monist or dualist—that is, believed in a singular controlling force in natural science or also allowed for the supernatural—whether a conflict between evolution and religion is inevitable, whether humans have free will, whether purpose or progress plays a role in evolution, and whether naturalism is a sufficient way to understand evolution, its products and human origins.

Perhaps the most revealing question in the poll asked the respondent to choose the letter that most closely represented where her views belonged on a ternary diagram. The great majority of the evolutionists polled (78 percent) chose A, billing themselves as pure naturalists. Only two out of 149 described themselves as full theists (F), two as more theist than naturalist (D) and three as theistic naturalists (B). Taken together, the advocacy of any degree of theism is the lowest percentage measured in any poll of biologists' beliefs so far (4.7 percent).

No evolutionary scientists in this study chose pure deism (I), but the deistic side of the diagram is heavy compared to the theistic side. Eleven respondents chose C, and 10 chose other regions on the right side of the diagram (E, H or J). Most evolutionary scientists who billed themselves as believers in God were deists (21) rather than theists (7).

…

How Evolution and Religion Relate

Evolutionists were presented with four choices on the relation between evolution and religion: A, they are non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) whose tenets are not in conflict; B, religion is a social phenomenon that has developed with the biological evolution of Homo sapiens—therefore religion should be considered as a part of our biological heritage, and its tenets should be seen as a labile social adaptation, subject to change and reinterpretation; C, they are mutually exclusive magisteria whose tenets indicate mutually exclusive conclusions; or D, they are totally harmonious—evolution is one of many ways to elucidate the evidences of God's designs.

Only 8 percent of the respondents chose answer A, the NOMA principle advocated by Stephen Jay Gould, rejecting the harmonious view of evolution and religion as separate magisteria. Even fewer (3 percent) believe that evolution and religion are "totally harmonious," answer D. A weak response to both of these options is unsurprising since the participants are so strongly nonreligious, shown by their answers to other questions in the poll. But we did expect a strong showing for choice C, which suggests that evolution and religion are mutually exclusive and separated by a gulf that cannot be bridged. This was the answer chosen by Richard Dawkins, who has a strong reputation for declaring that science has much better answers for human society than does religion.

Instead, the wide majority, 72 percent, of the respondents chose option B. These eminent evolutionists view religion as a sociobiological feature of human culture, a part of human evolution, not as a contradiction to evolution. Viewing religion as an evolved sociobiological feature removes all competition between evolution and religion for most respondents.

…

Conclusion

Only 10 percent of the eminent evolutionary scientists who answered the poll saw an inevitable conflict between religion and evolution. The great majority see no conflict between religion and evolution, not because they occupy different, noncompeting magisteria, but because they see religion as a natural product of human evolution. Sociologists and cultural anthropologists, in contrast, tend toward the hypothesis that cultural change alone produced religions, minus evolutionary change in humans. The eminent evolutionists who participated in this poll reject the basic tenets of religion, such as gods, life after death, incorporeal spirits or the supernatural. Yet they still hold a compatible view of religion and evolution.

My Comments:

Those familiar with a few prominent authors on the subjects will find several mentioned in the full text, with brief descriptions of how the authors think they would fit into the categories elicited by the survey. The small diagram on the first page (at the link) is quite helpful in visualizing the results as one reads the full article.

John

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: Wolfgang
Date: 22 Jun 07 - 01:34 PM

humanitarian intelligence tests?

Younger siblings do better on some tests, but the above tests are completely unknown. There's not even a single google hit.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 22 Jun 07 - 01:57 PM

Wofgang -

The IQ thing gets a lot more public press than academic, since the academic reports get buried in obscure specialist journals. I got numerous Google hits using "sibling rank IQ" (no quotes). Poking around a bit might get references to other rankings.

As far as "humanitarian intelligence tests," do we presume that Amos has older siblings and is "fighting feathers"? I don't recall ever seeing the term, but it could be a generic one for which Amos could provide a more specific alternate.

He may have something in mind like the MMPI where illiteracy gets you a better score? (joking, sort of)

John

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 30 Jun 07 - 06:16 PM

IBM Takes the Top Spot on Supercomputer List

[quoted in full]

06.27.07
By Scott Ferguson
Once again, IBM can lay claim to having the world's fastest supercomputer.

The list of the top 500 supercomputers in the world was released June 27 at the International Supercomputer Conference in Dresden, Germany, with IBM taking top honors for the fourth straight time.

Big Blue, of Armonk, N.Y., built six of the top 10 supercomputers on this year's list. Dell, Cray and Silicon Graphics also were included among the top 10. Unlike last year, when only one of IBM's Blue Gene/L systems cracked 100 teraflops of performance, at least three of the top 10 supercomputers in the 2007 list sped past the 100 teraflop mark.

The top 500 list, which is published twice a year, is compiled by the University of Mannheim, in Germany; the University of Tennessee; and the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center's Lawrence-Berkeley National Laboratory.

"The 29th edition of the closely watched TOP500 list of the world's fastest supercomputers shows a lot of shuffling among the top-ranked systems and the largest turnover among list entries in the history of the TOP500 project," according to a statement from the three institutions that compile the list.

Read the rest of this eWEEK story: "IBM Takes the Top Spot on Supercomputer List"

[end quote]

From the full article at the link immediately above:

"All of the systems on the top 500 list are getting faster. The entry level mark for the list increased from about 2.74 teraflops six months ago to about 4 teraflops now."

"The notion of supercomputers breaking the teraflop barrier might seem obsolete soon. Both IBM and Sun Microsystems said at the show that they are building or will build systems that offer a "petaflop;" or a thousand trillion calculations per second of performance."

From another article linked in the above:

"A 72-rack Blue Gene/P system with 294,912 processing cores will achieve the 1 petaflop of computing performance, Shultz said. A 216-rack cluster offers 3 petaflops of performance. At the ISC, IBM plans on sharing the benchmarks it achieved with a two-rack Blue Gene/P system, which should place the supercomputer at No. 30 on the Top 500 list."

Das Blinkelights apparently don't blink any more.

John

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: gnu
Date: 30 Jun 07 - 06:25 PM

Cool. I watched hummingbirds in my mum's back yard today. They flap their wings fast too.

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 08 Jul 07 - 04:45 AM

Theory links lead (heavy metal) exposure, crime

Economist says removing metal from gas, homes has reduced violence
By Shankar Vedantam: The Washington Post
Updated: 10:57 p.m. CT July 7, 2007

The theory offered by the economist, Rick Nevin, is that lead poisoning accounts for much of the variation in violent crime in the United States. It offers a unifying new neurochemical theory for fluctuations in the crime rate, and it is based on studies linking children's exposure to lead with violent behavior later in their lives.

The article is too long to paste here (personal opinion) but is worth reading (another opinion).

The basics are:

1. Lead is a known neurotixin and its documented effects include increased impulsivity and aggression:

Impulsivity means you ignore the consequences of what you do," said Needleman, one of the country's foremost experts on lead poisoning, explaining why Nevin's theory is plausible. Lead decreases the ability to tell yourself, "If I do this, I will go to jail."

2. The reported research has shown close correlation between peaks in violent crime statistics, approximately 20 years after peaks in exposure to lead, as people exposed to lead as children reach late adolescence and adulthood.

3. The correlation is present in analyses for nine separate countries where peaks in lead exposure occured at different times, with peaks in violent crime rates closely paralleling (~20 years later) the lead exposure level peaks in each country.

4. Comparison of variations in local and regional lead exposure rates within single countries showed strong correlation two decades later with variations in local and regional violent crime rates in the same places.

5. Comparison of lead levels in survey groups of arrested adolescents and young adults to levels in "non-offending" same-age groups have consistently shown (in the limited number of sample groups tested) higher lead levels in offenders.

6. This researcher explains a secondary rise in crime rates (particularly in the US) as being the result of recidivism in earlier offenders who are now approaching or have reached a peak in rates of release from prisons after being convicted of earlier crimes. (Possibly the least convincing point in the report, not because it isn't plausible, but some additional data and analysis is needed more specific to this possibility – IMO)

What makes Nevin's work persuasive is that he has shown an identical, decades-long association between lead poisoning and crime rates in nine countries.
"It is stunning how strong the association is," Nevin said in an interview. "Sixty-five to ninety percent or more of the substantial variation in violent crime in all these countries was explained by lead."

And in another 30 years, will we find that some new ubiquitous toxin is responsible for (some of) the most objectionable traits in the "new generation" reaching post-adolescence today? (t.i.c. maybe)

John

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: Wolfgang
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 02:09 PM

Killer asteroid fingered

One more piece of evidence for the Yucatan impact 65,000,000 years ago. The (at least to me) new idea is to calculate asteroid movements back in time to point to a very big crash 160,000,000 years ago in an asteroid belt.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: Wolfgang
Date: 11 Oct 07 - 12:53 PM

Words on the brink

A fascinating application of mathematical models to the evolution of language(s).

To wed will be the next verb to cross over from irregular to regular.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: Rowan
Date: 11 Oct 07 - 06:42 PM

Probably at about the same time as the act to wed passes from the regular to the irregular.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: Amos
Date: 11 Oct 07 - 06:54 PM

I wed, you wed, he weds, we wed, you wed, they wed...what's irregular about that? And what will it be when it "passes to regular"?

A

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Oct 07 - 07:07 PM

you mean, it ain't 'wid', 'wod', 'wed'?

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: Amos
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 10:21 AM

Some argue the past pluperfect is "I woad", but that is an aristocratic conceit. The vox populi rules in this case with the definitive spelling, "I woed".

In other news there is a fascinating biographical sketch of three scientists awarded a joint Nobel Prize for their work in developing a way to selectively turn off genes in mice in order to see what the genes do.

Talk about an interesting life or three! Especially Dr. Capecchi, who said he lived as a street urchin in Italy during World War II, whose mother survived Dachau and who was reunited with her after a long search after the war ended.


A

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: Rowan
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 10:20 PM

On ABC RN Friday mornings is a short snippet about various scientific achievements. Yesterday's included one about a New Mexico scientist who investigated how much money was earned by local lap dancers. I raised my eyebrows too, but it turns out the scientist was trying to investigate whether human females had an oestrus cycle and not just a menstrual cycle.

The lap dancers were asked to keep diaries of their nightly earnings for several months and to record the timing of the menstrual cycles over the same period. [Sorry 'bout that.] Also recorded was whether they were using the pill for contraception. I think there were 20 dancers involved.

Apparently the average nightly earnings for the ones using the pill was about $200, with no statistically significant variation. For those not on the pill, however, the nightly earnings averaged the same $200 when they were not 'receptive' in the endocrinal sense but peaked at just under $400 at around 'day 14' in the cycle.

According to the report, the women were "unaware" of the effect of their cycles on their earning and the cyclic increase in their apparent appeal to customers when at the peak of receptivity (endocrinologically speaking, you understand) was taken to be evidence of an oestrus cycle in human females.

The things some people do in the name of scientific investigation!

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 11:05 AM

"Searching for God in the Brain                

Researchers are unearthing the roots of religious feeling in the neural commotion that accompanies the spiritual epiphanies of nuns, Buddhists and other people of faith"


God in the brain

It's a long article, but it seems pretty balanced in its treatment of the research. The implications of the study are many, but they vary a lot according to what presuppositions one brings to the discussion.
I, of course, see more evidence (not necessarily proof) for the brain as source, (or at least mediator), of various experiences. Others..(hi, Amos), may draw different conclusion.

   Now we need a double-blind project with Baptists, Episcopalians, Atheists, Humanists, etc., on the table and a careful choice of what to comtemplate while the machine buzzes & whirrs.

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: Wolfgang
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 07:22 AM

False memories show up in the brain

It is really surprising, but there is a very weak relation between accuracy and confidence

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: GUEST,Keinstein
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 08:36 AM

You don't have to subscribe for this version of the same.

At least, I'm sure that it's free!

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: GUEST,Keinstein
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 08:43 AM

While we're at it, a survey shows that a third of 12-19 year olds in California think oral sex is abstinence. Though I expect some of them also think it means just talking about it.

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: GUEST,Keinstein
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 08:47 AM

Meanwhile scientists in Illinois have discovered a new way to make water out of alcohol! I've been doing that for years, my method is much more fun!

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 10:39 AM

As some might imagine, I'm not surprised to read this. It seemed obvious to me...but 'seemed' is not real evidence. Every day we learn more.

(still reading the details)

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: Amos
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 01:58 PM

The discrepancy between confidence and accuracy is one of the major breeding vectors in popular religions.

A

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: GUEST,Keinstein
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 07:48 AM

There is evidence that retroviruses are enbedded in the human genome, and that some at least of our "junk" DNA is a fossil record of ancient diseases. With a fascinating digression on the evolutiuon of the placenta.

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: Amos
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 10:08 AM

INtersting piece, Keinstein. Thanks!

A

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: Amos
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 11:14 AM

An excerpt from the New Yorker article linked above by Keinstein:

"Robin Weiss, who is now a professor of viral oncology at University College London, found endogenous retroviruses in the embryos of healthy chickens. When he suggested that they were not only benign but might actually perform a critical function in placental development, molecular biologists laughed. "When I first submitted my results on a novel 'endogenous' envelope, suggesting the existence of an integrated retrovirus in normal embryo cells, the manuscript was roundly rejected,'' Weiss wrote last year in the journal Retrovirology. "One reviewer pronounced that my interpretation was impossible.'' Weiss, who is responsible for much of the basic knowledge about how the AIDS virus interacts with the human immune system, was not deterred. He was eager to learn whether the chicken retroviruses he had seen were recently acquired infections or inheritances that had been passed down through the centuries. He moved to the Pahang jungle of Malaysia and began living with a group of Orang Asli tribesmen. Red jungle fowl, an ancestor species of chickens, were plentiful there, and the tribe was skilled at trapping them. After collecting and testing both eggs and blood samples, Weiss was able to identify versions of the same viruses. Similar tests were soon carried out on other animals. The discovery helped mark the beginning of a new approach to biology. "If Charles Darwin reappeared today, he might be surprised to learn that humans are descended from viruses as well as from apes," Weiss wrote. "


I think this little snippet is quite telling, not just because of the really surprising and interesting linkage between viral structures and genetic code, but because of the pattern of rejection Weiss experienced by established authorities in his field seeking to get peer-review on a genuinely innovative idea actually supported by evidence.

IF you know the stories of Harvey, of Semmelweiss, of Galileo's persecution by the Church, and dozens of similar tales of extreme inertia resisting new ideas, you know that the aboive is not something new. It is something, rather, against which we should always be scrupulously alert. THis is not easy because it happens so often that completely haywire ideas are presented as innovations or breakthroughs that are in fact free of merit; and their presneters use these same arguments in defense.

But we need to be good at BOTH -- analyzing and rejecting the illusory while keeping the door open for the unusual, unheard of, but actual or possible and seeing the genuinely possible and new despite our own biases for the old and familiar. There's the rub.


A

a

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: Rowan
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 07:23 PM

Amos, Bill Bryson's A short history of nearly everything makes a similar observation regarding the pattern of rejection Weiss experienced by established authorities in his field.

Fortunately, there are people who persist in accumulating pertinent evidence.

Cheers, Rowan