 sj |
||
|
||
BS: What scientists think about
|
|
|
Subject: BS: What scientists think about From: Wolfgang Date: 08 Mar 05 - 08:57 AM The thread title is obviously spawned by Amos' more restricted thread title about physicists. I always like to read new entries in that thread so I thought I might follow that idea just with a broader title. Franck Prugnolle et al., Geography predicts neutral genetic diversity of human populations, Current Biology, Vol 15, 2005, R159 - R160 Online version (maybe not accessible for most so I copy the summary and the start of the article) A leading theory for the origin of modern humans, the ‘recent African origin’ (RAO) model, postulates that the ancestors of all modern humans originated in East Africa and that, around 100,000 years ago, some modern humans left the African continent and subsequently colonised the entire world, displacing previously established human species such as Neanderthals in Europe. This scenario is supported by the observation that human populations from Africa are genetically the most diverse and that the genetic diversity of non-African populations is negatively correlated with their genetic differentiation towards populations from Africa. Here we add further compelling evidence supporting the RAO model by showing that geographic distance – not genetic distance as in – from East Africa along likely colonisation routes is an excellent predictor for genetic diversity of human populations (R2=85%). Our results point to a history of colonisation of the world characterised by a very large number of small bottlenecks and limited subsequent gene flow. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: JohnInKansas Date: 08 Mar 05 - 09:58 PM The info at the link indicates that you have to have a current subscription to the magazine in order to access the full article. Th abstract indicates a plausible idea, but of course it's "all in the details" whether much new is added. The RAO idea has been around for quite some time, and does have lots of supporters. A side path on the RAO idea is sometimes called the "Eve Theory" which postulates that we should be able to find a "single mother" (Eve of course) who was the "first human." Few credible people have meant "Eve" to mean a single "person," but quite a few less thoughtful ones have believed that's what they meant. Finding a single area in which traceable ancestors first appeared was all that was really intended by those who first used the term. There's still much debate about whether there was a single place of origin, or several. Even if the genetic origin of humans was a more "dispersed" phenomenon, it still seems likely that it was localized since access to precursor gene pool(s) would likely be necessary to establishment of a surviving new line. The "sport" genetic deviation may result in new and helpful characteristics, but seldom survives on it's own unless it can recall - and be mixed back in with - the other characteristics that permitted survival up to the time of it's appearance. Maybe... John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: GUEST Date: 09 Mar 05 - 12:27 AM So you are scientificaly confirming that we are all niggers? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: harpgirl Date: 09 Mar 05 - 01:19 AM This DNA geneology project by the British researcerh Sykes has illuminated the migratory patterns of early humans. The more mitochondrial DNA information we have on humans the more precisely we will be able to trace our genetic roots. Fascinating. Prehistory is a strong interest of mine. I'm enjoying Jared Diamond's book Guns, Germs & Steel. http://www.oxfordancestors.com/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: John Hardly Date: 09 Mar 05 - 07:16 AM You mean that Jean M. Auel is not authoritative? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Amos Date: 09 Mar 05 - 10:00 AM Not hardly, John!! Harp, that is a great piece of work. Took me months to read itthough, as I could only absorb a page at a time before my head would start to throb! :D A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Bill D Date: 09 Mar 05 - 04:51 PM I see made-for-TV documentaries on the various theories and evidence several times a year..(The Discovery Channel and it's ilk) and there is more & more evidence for the ideas noted in the abstract Wolfgang quotes. One group has collected DNA along supposed migration routes from Africa through S.E. Asia to Australia, and found diversity and patterns very close to what would be expected. Others have found support for migration patterns into Europe that further suggest that Africa is the ultimate source.......and yes, there do seem to be 'bottlenecks' along the way (after global catastrophes) that indicate that at one time we came very close to not surviving as a species, meaning that we all have a very small group of common ancestors about 35,000 years ago. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Little Hawk Date: 09 Mar 05 - 04:56 PM I actually kind of doubt the present scientific theories about the origins of human life on this planet are correct. They're just the latest popular version. I suspect those theories will presently be replaced by other rather different theories in the halls of scientific orthodoxy. They are interesting, though... What I think scientists mostly think about is... Sex. Dinner. Having a drink. Peer pressure. Career advancement. Finances. Professional status. Their new car. You know, the usual stuff... :-) A few really brilliant ones probably think about William Shatner now and then too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Rapparee Date: 09 Mar 05 - 05:07 PM I am a scientist. I even have an Master of Science degree to prove it. I'm thinking about lots and lots of stuff. Like could quark spin be used to influence the input of the 856 MARC field, or the effect that a quantity of trinitrotoulene could have upon the protoplasmic bodies of the city council should they want to cut my budget again this year. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Little Hawk Date: 09 Mar 05 - 05:17 PM Yeah, you could end up like that guy who had his project cut off, and then his wife was complaining that she hadn't had any satisfaction in months and months. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Rapparee Date: 09 Mar 05 - 05:25 PM And right now I'm thinking about going home early. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Bill D Date: 09 Mar 05 - 05:35 PM "I actually kind of doubt the present scientific theories about the origins of human life on this planet are correct." etc..etc... Well, you are no doubt correct, LH...at least about the details. That is what theory and scientific inquiry are about: constant adding to and correcting of ideas. But I see no indication that the basic notions about origins and evolution are in any danger- barring some totally amzing new discovery.(you know...an alien ship buried in Atlantis with unopened containers of DNA labeled "open in 7 million years") Right now it just a matter of honing in on dates, places, specific order and failed lines. *IF* the carbon dating process is not shown to be flawed and no outright tricks like Piltdown Man are discovered, this current 'general' theory looks like it will just be refined. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Wolfgang Date: 09 Mar 05 - 05:52 PM John, they used dataset from 51 worldwide distributed populations and used graph theory to find the shortest path (starting in Ethiopia) using land connections whenever possible and making use of natural obstacles to deflect a path. The migration routes generated this way were quite close to those of Cavalli-Sforza. Genetic diversity between population correlated highly with path distance from Ethiopia. I actually kind of doubt... The 'actually' is brilliant, Little Hawk. It makes you look so special when saying something that is trivially true. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: GUEST,petr Date: 09 Mar 05 - 07:43 PM spencer wells who studied under Cavalli-Sforza published a book Journey of Man (as well as a national geographic documentary) which did an huge study of y chromosome genes which are passed along the male line (although theres been some recent talk that it can be passed along the female line as well) and by studying the dna was able to map human migrations -- quite fascinating although Id like to hear from opposing views from geneticists.. (such as those who studied mitochondrial dna in female genes) the study indicated that not only did humans come of out Africa and displace the rest of the human populations it was much more recent than anyone had expected. Ie. 50-60,000 years ago. From Africa along the southasian coast to Australia, subsequent migrations that came out from Africa again and went to central asia - split into some going to Europe and more going to Asia - north America. etc. it was a fascinating book and documentary.. even though Wells encountered some unexpected opposition from native peoples in Australia or North America, one goes away thinking about how closely related we all are, and just how incredibly resourceful people are to survive in many harsh environments. on another note..Scientific American had story on using, the genetic variation of stomach bacteria to map human migrations - just another tack on the problem. it is an interesting window - prior to the revolution in dna studies, such a survey would not be possible, and a few generations from now, with travel and intermixing of populations the dna will have become to diluted .. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Amos Date: 09 Mar 05 - 08:35 PM In addition the science of linguistics was dramatically advanced by researched that compared the transition patterns of DNA with t he transition patterns of languages. They produced remarkably parallel suggestions about the pattern of migration of human life. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Bill D Date: 09 Mar 05 - 08:40 PM yes, Amos & petr....I think those studies were the ones I saw incorporated into the TV documentary. Language studies and DNA mapping gave remarkably similar patterns. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Little Hawk Date: 09 Mar 05 - 09:02 PM I don't follow your objection to my use of the word "actually", Wolfgang. It's a normal way of speaking, isn't it? However, I shall rephrase my statement. I have my doubts that the present scientific theories about the origins of human life on this planet are correct. I don't think the scientists have the foggiest idea where human beings came from or when. I think they're as far at sea about it as the Catholic Church and the Ayatollah What's-his-name, only in a completely different way. Is that clear enough? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Chief Chaos Date: 09 Mar 05 - 09:36 PM I can tell you what they think about here in the U.S. "Am I going to have to adjust my findings to support the administration's forgone conclusions?" I overheard an employee from one of our scientific services talking to a friend. She had just completed a study that found two species were endangered and in need of protection. She has heard from up the chain that her paper will be reviewed and sent all the way up but it will never be approved. Sorry I can't be more specific but I don't want the source to get in trouble. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Bill D Date: 09 Mar 05 - 10:12 PM gee, Little Hawk...when you 'rephrase', you don't mess around! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Wolfgang Date: 11 Mar 05 - 03:59 PM "just funning", LH, to borrow a phrase. I enjoy interpreting what people have written and not what they might mean. What you had written was trivial and noone would object. Such a sentence is usually started with "I too doubt..." or not said at all. "I actually doubt..." is the start of a sentence by someone who thinks he says something not everybody would agree with. Such a start sounds pompous when followed by a triviality. But since you meant to say something not trivial (utterly wrong and uninformed in my eyes, BTW) your 'actually' fits, of course. Only my deliberate misreading made it not fitting. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: GUEST,*Laura* Date: 11 Mar 05 - 04:24 PM At what point do you become a 'scientist'. Is it just someone who practises science? Or has a qualification? (in which case - I have GCSE science - can I be a scientist?) Or is it if you have a job that involves the use of science? Ahh the possibilities are endless! xLx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Rapparee Date: 11 Mar 05 - 04:35 PM You can only be a scientist if you have a it-started-out-white lab coat and can tell the difference between a Bunsen burner and a dissected frog. Otherwise you have to go into the fuzzy-thinking Liberal Arts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: GUEST,*Laura* Date: 11 Mar 05 - 04:42 PM Ahh - that's me out then. :0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: GUEST Date: 11 Mar 05 - 05:32 PM You're only a true scientist AFTER the bunsen burner has set your hair on fire. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Mar 05 - 05:37 PM Well, then I don't qualify yet... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: John O'L Date: 11 Mar 05 - 06:44 PM Petr - "Wells encountered some unexpected opposition from native peoples in Australia or North America" Do you know what their objections were? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Les in Chorlton Date: 12 Mar 05 - 03:28 AM Sex and drugs and rock & Roll actually. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: freda underhill Date: 12 Mar 05 - 07:02 AM An MRI might cheer you up Reuters, Friday, 11 March 2005 Scans may cause other effects we don't yet understand, say researcher, who are calling for renewed caution in the use of high-speed MRIs . A magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan can have the same effect as antidepressants, say researchers, whose findings in rats confirm previous observations made in humans. Dr William Carlezon of Harvard Medical School's McLean Hospital in Massachusetts and team say their findings, reported in the journal Biological Psychiatry, suggest that electromagnetic fields can affect brain biology. "We found that when we administered the magnetic stimulation to the rats, we saw an antidepressant-like effect, the same effect as seen after administration of standard antidepressant drugs," say the researchers. Carlezon and team tested the rats after another team at the same hospital reported a new type of magnetic resonance imaging, called echo planar magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging (EP-MRSI), had improved the mood of people in the depressed phase of bipolar disorder. The new study was designed "to see if we could demonstrate in an animal model what the clinicians thought they were seeing in humans," says Carlezon. "It's a non-drug way to change the firing of nerve cells," Cohen said. "That's why the implications of this work have the potential to be so profound." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Rapparee Date: 12 Mar 05 - 10:07 AM So THAT'S why I so attracted to electromagnets! I thought I had too much iron in my blood. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: JohnInKansas Date: 12 Mar 05 - 12:45 PM An Opinion on Evolution (Note: I'll post much more of this than I would normally, since it appears you may need Macromedia Flash to get this to download, and some prefer not to have such fancy gadgetry. I do suggest reading the full article, which is not really too long.) quoting from Technology Review: Carl Woese published a provocative and illuminating article, A New Biology for a New Century, in the June 2004 issue of Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews. His main theme is the obsolescence of reductionist biology as it has been practiced for the last hundred years, and the need for a new biology based on communities and ecosystems rather than on genes and molecules. He also raises another profoundly important question: when did Darwinian evolution begin? By Darwinian evolution he means evolution as Darwin himself understood it, based on the intense competition for survival among noninterbreeding species. He presents evidence that Darwinian evolution did not go back to the beginning of life. In early times, the process that he calls horizontal gene transfer, the sharing of genes between unrelated species, was prevalent. It becomes more prevalent the further back you go in time. Carl Woese is the worlds greatest expert in the field of microbial taxonomy. Whatever he writes, even in a speculative vein, is to be taken seriously. Woese is postulating a golden age of pre-Darwinian life, during which horizontal gene transfer was universal and separate species did not exist. Life was then a community of cells of various kinds, sharing their genetic information so that clever chemical tricks and catalytic processes invented by one creature could be inherited by all of them. Evolution was a communal affair, the whole community advancing in metabolic and reproductive efficiency as the genes of the most efficient cells were shared. But then, one evil day, a cell resembling a primitive bacterium happened to find itself one jump ahead of its neighbors in efficiency. That cell separated itself from the community and refused to share. Its offspring became the first species. With its superior efficiency, it continued to prosper and to evolve separately. Some millions of years later, another cell separated itself from the community and became another species. And so it went on, until all life was divided into species. The basic biochemical machinery of life evolved rapidly during the few hundred million years that preceded the Darwinian era and changed very little in the following two billion years of microbial evolution. Darwinian evolution is slow because individual species, once established, evolve very little. Darwinian evolution requires species to become extinct so that new species can replace them. Three innovations helped to speed up the pace of evolution in the later stages of the Darwinian era. The first was sex, which is a form of horizontal gene transfer within species. The second innovation was multicellular organization, which opened up a whole new world of form and function. The third was brains, which opened a new world of cordinated sensation and action, culminating in the evolution of eyes and hands. All through the Darwinian era, occasional mass extinctions helped to open opportunities for new evolutionary ventures. Now, after some three billion years, the Darwinian era is over. The epoch of species competition came to an end about 10 thousand years ago when a single species, Homo sapiens, began to dominate and reorganize the biosphere. ... end quote. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Les in Chorlton Date: 12 Mar 05 - 12:51 PM Fascinating but a bit too anthopomorphic for my tastes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Rapparee Date: 12 Mar 05 - 03:46 PM Little Bo Peep has lost her sheep And doesn't know where to find them. But they'll all, face to face, meet in parallel space Preceeding their leaders behind them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Wolfgang Date: 13 Mar 05 - 05:27 AM John O'L: according to their legends (beliefs) they have been there from the origin on (in Latin: ab origine, therefore aborigines) and have not migrated from somewhere else. Period. Results telling them otherwise are unacceptable for some. They are now at that stage the Christian religion was in the 16th century, but one could argue that at some places even for some Christians the 16th century is still there. Neither religion, nor politics, nor PC-thinking should prescribe what are acceptable results. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: GUEST,petr Date: 14 Mar 05 - 02:32 PM John, Wolfgang just answered the question for me.. Wells was surprised when he was explaining his theory of migration based on genetic variation, to an Australian aboriginal artist who just said bullshit I dont believe it, all our traditions say we came from here period. And whose to say the rest of the world wasnt settled from Australia? he had similar opposition from North American first nations. Although to his credit rather than debating the science versus mythology he took the view that the 'science' is essentially his or the NorthAmerican/European mythology. Some north American first nations people also took opposition to his theory but did find it appealing on another level, when shown photos of Chukchi (siberian reindeer herders) they saw a lot of similarity in their faces.. And on another level, they did find the idea that we are all distant cousins rather than completely separate races quite appealing. There is another recent theory (still quite controversial) that some early north american peoples may have arrived from Europe. Ie. the clovis technology looks very similar to the Solutrean technology (from France 20,000 years ago) and that there is nothing like the clovis spearpoint technology in Siberia. And although there should be no evidence of pre-clovis sites in North America, some sites do turn up. There is a genetic marker in some east coast first nations that is clearly a European marker but is some 15,000 years old.. of course while youd think there would be strong opposition to such a theory, a first nations spokesman took the view that it shows the strength and tenacity of those early people that they were able to survive in such environments, and again that we are all much closer related than previously believed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: John O'L Date: 14 Mar 05 - 06:33 PM Thanks Wofgang & Petr I should have realised what their objections would have been. Science v. religion. Here we go again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: GUEST,munchie Date: 15 Mar 05 - 10:20 AM Since scientists already know everything about man's origin, maybe they should now think about how to cure the common cold or something. I mean, which should be easier to do after all? Seems to me like curing the common cold, or even cancer for that matter, would be easy for the scientists who already know how we originated and "evolved" into our present selves. I would say more, but I'm just not smart enough to talk about scientists. :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Amos Date: 15 Mar 05 - 10:38 AM Ther is a lot of evidence that ABoriginalcultures came to Australia, rather than rising there. They are written about clearly in "Guns Germs and Steel" a really fine study on the movements of cultures through time. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: GUEST Date: 16 Mar 05 - 04:01 AM "Darwinian evolution requires species to become extinct so that new species can replace them." Tripe. Species change occurs whenever an opportunity arrives, and one or more existing populations has characteristics which allow them to exploit the opportunity. The opportunity can arrive in many ways, the most common probably being environmental change. "Now...the Darwinian era is over. The epoch of species competition came to an end about 10 thousand years ago when... Homo sapiens, began to dominate and reorganize the biosphere. ..." Also tripe. All species are constantly adapting to their environment. Human domination over the last five hundred years is merely another environmental factor from their evolutionary point of view - though perhaps as great a change as an ice age or an asteroid. Why should other species stop competing (to live) just because humans are cutting down the forests they live in? 10 thousand years? You probably couldn't even tell whether any evolutionary adaptations in that timescale were speciation or variation within a species. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: GUEST,Paul Burke Date: 16 Mar 05 - 04:01 AM Sorry, forgot to sign that last one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Wolfgang Date: 03 May 05 - 11:56 AM Acupuncture activates the brain evidence that patients benefit from acupuncture not simply because of their expectations...This study gives a clarification of the possible mechanisms by which acupuncture works, and by understanding the mechanisms we can design better placebos Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 03 May 05 - 06:36 PM "Woese is postulating a golden age of pre-Darwinian life, during which horizontal gene transfer was universal and separate species did not exist. Life was then a community of cells of various kinds, sharing their genetic information so that clever chemical tricks and catalytic processes invented by one creature could be inherited by all of them. Evolution was a communal affair, the whole community advancing in metabolic and reproductive efficiency as the genes of the most efficient cells were shared." If I may be so bold, ALSO Tripe. Surely it is apparant that "The clever catalytic processes" were not inherited by all of the microbes at once. How does a one celled organism know which genes to inherit? Obviously it doesn't. Occams razor suggests that the selection mechanism was that the microbes with the better genes outbred and crowded out those without them, Darwinian evolution. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Bill D Date: 03 May 05 - 07:41 PM Thanks, Wolfgang...that is the kind of study I like to see! Real, testable results, with placebo variables thrown in! There has been lots of anecdotal evidence that acupuncture has some real effects, but it was quite hard to tell whether it was psycho-somatic or not. This is similar to learning about bio-feedback and how we can actually control some of our body's responses. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Amos Date: 03 May 05 - 09:28 PM If they can get 80% of the pain relief from the placebo effect, why don't they just learn to implement the placebo effect? Surely training someone to heal himself through self-suggesting a placebo effect is more empowering than increasing his dependency on chemicals? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Wolfgang Date: 04 May 05 - 08:53 AM Amos, it has nothing to do with 'healing' it is symptom control. Pain is (usually) a symptom of an illness and pain perception is very subjective. That makes it a promising candidate for replacing pills by techniques using suggestion. I'm all for that of course. However, feeling pain less painful, whether by morphine or suggestion, doesn't make a cancer go away. The placebo effect in actual healing lamentably looks much less promising yet than the placebo effect in influencing the subjective perception of pain. A suggestion technique is to be prefered to pills if it works (that seems to be quite variable between persons) for it has not most of the side effects painkiller pills can have. However, one adverse side effect both painkiller pills and a placebo technique share: Pain has a warning function and if a readily available suggestion technique (or pill) suppresses effectively pain perception, the real cause that has triggered the warning signal of pain may be overlooked for just too long. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: jpk Date: 04 May 05 - 05:00 PM just remeber,a master in science degree,or any other piece of wallpaper,a scientist it does not make. a scientist is some one,who's thoughts and deeds tend to advance the causes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: *Laura* Date: 04 May 05 - 05:50 PM I think scientists think about science. quite a lot of the time. but not all of the time. some of the time they think about food. some of the time they think about sex. some of the time they think about how food and sex are scientific. so most of the time I think they think about science. xLx (sorry - I am quite tired and have just written a pointless essay for college so I am now brain-dead) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: GUEST,Paranoid Android Date: 04 May 05 - 09:37 PM 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? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: GUEST,Wolfgang Date: 24 May 05 - 07:11 AM On the Number of New World Founders: A Population Genetic Portrait of the Peopling of the Americas I haven't tried (and am not sure if I could if I tried) to follow the mathematics (and the assumptions) in this modeling but I found the plain language results fascinating: The estimated effective size of the founding population for the New World is fewer than 80 individuals...Analyses of Asian and New World data support a model of a recent founding of the New World by a population of quite small effective size. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Bill D Date: 24 May 05 - 12:03 PM Since both statistical and DNA/anthropological evidence suggests that this sort of circumstance has happened in various placess in the world..(migration from SE Asia to Australia, for example), I am not suprised. It is interesting, though, to see some refinement of the details, even if the math is overwhelming. Adding this analysis to the data that indicates that the entire human population was, about 35,000-40,000 years ago, reduced to a few scattered groups numbering in the thousands, it is a wonder that any of us are anywhere! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: mooman Date: 24 May 05 - 12:46 PM I am a scientist and think mainly about nekkid Doctors of Archaeology. I used to think mainly about scientific things in the not-too-distant past but since Mudguard (a computer-professional type naturally) mentioned this repeatedly in the context of the last EuroGathering I find it very hard to purge from my mind. Peace moo |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Fibula Mattock Date: 24 May 05 - 04:50 PM I am a scientist and an oft-time nekkid Doctor of Archaeology. I think about: dinner, sex, cleaning, health stuff, visual perception, non-intrusive and inexpensive ways of capturing 3D information about rock art, Belgian-dwelling guitar players and computer-y Bavarians, Eurogatherings that I missed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: JohnInKansas Date: 24 May 05 - 05:40 PM From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor - PM Date: 03 May 05 - 06:36 PM If I may be so bold, ALSO Tripe The era that Woese is talking about is presumed to have been very early, before most "species" appeared, and hasn't been much discussed, but it's not entirely "Tripe" when one considers that a few bacteria who have developed immunity to an antibiotic, when placed with other bacteria who are not resistant, have been shown to "transmit" the resistance to others in the colony. Sort of an "evolution by infection," in a process that has been likened to transmission of a disease. All bacteria in the colony who are "infected" with the new resistance will pass it on to their "succeeding generations." It is not unreasonable to suppose that mechanisms like this may have played a significant role in evolution of the earliest life – and/or near-life – forms, and may still operate in primitive forms now. In simple life-forms, inheritence by reproduction is NOT a requirement for the expression of new life-form characteristics, or for the spreading of a "new" characteristic throughout a colony. Darwin didn't deal with lifeforms of this kind, and the Darwinian model of evolution is simple enough that many people can grasp it as something that might happen to beings like themselves. That Darwin's theories aren't the whole story just shows we may have made some additional "progress." John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: GUEST,Guy Who Thinks Date: 25 May 05 - 09:50 AM Am told by a particle physicist that the hottest topic in his area is the unexplained seeming ability of absolute vacuums to spontaneously generate subatomic particles. One friend commented drily that this property obviates the need for a God-concept. If the universe itself produces matter from nothing, what's left for God to do? A second friend replied with some disdain that observable "creatio ab nihilo" comes close to actually proving the existence of God working from outside space-time. Instructive. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Amos Date: 25 May 05 - 11:14 AM "creatio ab nihilo" comes close to actually proving the existence of God working from outside space-time. Well, that's drawing a long bow, I submit. It may suggest that something is operating outside spacetime. But the notion that that something is (a) a VERY large old man with sparks coming out of his fingers or (b) a jealous entity who studies wee-wees in his spare time or any other kind of imaginary godhead is certainly unjustified. The phenomenon, lacking other data, could just as well be explained by Invisible Spirit-Poobahs who infiltrate all the interstivces of individual perception and neatly knit them together into a seamless space-time continuum. Just for one silly example, of course. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Bill D Date: 25 May 05 - 03:43 PM I studied this here "Philosophy" stuff for years, and I still cain't figger out what "outside space/time" might be like. I think it's just moving words around. I am pretty sure National Geographic ain't got no pitchures of it. We know...sorta.. what 'space' is, and have a kinda working definition of what 'time' is....and we know 'outside' as distinct from 'inside' when talking about where to let the dog poop. So all we do is smoooosh 'em together in a sentence and we think we've said something. Jeeez! Where's Charles Ludwig Dodgson when you need him? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Amos Date: 25 May 05 - 05:04 PM No, Bill, that is _not_ what I was doing. Space time is governed by the rules of matter and does not, inherently, seem to admit of creation in its own domain. MAtter doesn't like the idea very much, and when you draw all your thinking out of meatspace you tend to mimic matter's style of thought. Consciousness is capable of far more than that, but not when it beleives it has to come from wetware. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: jpk Date: 25 May 05 - 05:20 PM howabout those of us in the mechnical trades.we like to think about the natural motion of two close coupled physical bodies and the affects of gravity upon said bodies,sometimes,maybe all the time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Fibula Mattock Date: 26 May 05 - 12:52 PM Friction, jpk, it all comes down to friction. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Bill D Date: 26 May 05 - 12:54 PM Ok, Amos, fine...that is_not_ what you were doing. And *if* we had a 3 hour genteel exchange of opinions on perceptual frameworks, *I* probably would still not see how you FIND anything beyond "meatspace" and "wetware", and *YOU* probably would not see the points I would make about circular reasoning, affirming the consequent and quantum leaps based on linguistic constucts. You know very well how to dispute exaggerated claims in traditional theological doctrine and why organized religion has some problems...but you posit concepts just as hard to grasp. I can't imagine what accepting your ...position? orientation? assertions? might mean practically, except within a framework, much like certain abstract math. I guess my fall-back position is the old one... "The burden of proof is on the assertor" *shrug*...The only real claim I make is that many OTHER claims I hear about are not well stated and/or not testable under any parameters that we can agree on. (I know...I didn't need to bite this time, but you tempted me! *grin*. And you know how hard it is to resist temptation when certain ideas are flying!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Amos Date: 26 May 05 - 04:06 PM Perception, which no-one can deny is a fact, is proof that somewhere in the endless chain of stimulus and response and order of quality shift occurs. The leap from S-R on nerve channels to "I see" is not just a multiplication of quantity, IMHO, but a totally order of event. When you cruise down memory lane looking at pictures of long long ago in your mind, the you that is you is what sees the pictures, and is not itself a picture. You can suppress the phenomena down into a matter-and-energy model, and it might well make you feel more comfortable of course. But it won't account for many of the experiences people have reported, and have had verified, including remote viewing, trans-lifetime remembering, and a host of other phenomena which cannot be explained through purely localized models of knowing. But I ain't here to argue, Bill. I just think you'll be in for a surprise sometime. :>D A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Bill D Date: 26 May 05 - 05:41 PM oh, I LIKE surprises! I just don't like them made of cotton candy. *grin* "... But it won't account for many of the experiences people have reported,..." oh, sure it will!...or rather, it can. I can construct an explanation that totally accounts for all those phenomena! Of course, I can't prove I'm right...just as those who have the relevant experiences can't 'prove' they were caused by forces outside the usual space-time physics. You can guess that I 'suspect' that "making you feel more comfortable" is a major component of some of the things YOU believe. I have tried & tried to run fast enough to look at my own 'comfort index' in it all, and though it is durn near impossible for a person to reflexively analyze their own motives accurately, I still don't feel like I have any personal stake in the answers. I'd LOVE to know...as in really, really, know....the answer. But not enough to sign up based on reports I can only shrug about. Every now & then I do have to repeat that my attitude is not one of absolutely denying these claims, but rather adopting a stance of formal, carefully considered doubt which demands a level of proof beyond interesting report of others....or even a couple of 'intense' experiences of my own! (I wonder if *I* get a choice about how I come back in succeeding lives...I have a couple of wishes...) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Wolfgang Date: 16 Feb 06 - 03:47 AM Baby racists The abstract to which the link goes tells the whole story. My link title is an inaccurate representation of the findings for the sake of effect. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: motco Date: 16 Feb 06 - 04:52 AM In answer to Laura's earlier question... One needs to have blown up the school's cricket equipment box with home-made nitroglycerine to be a true scientist. I didn't do that did I? motco |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Paul Burke Date: 17 Feb 06 - 03:39 AM Nitrogen tri-iodide is easier, and just as effective on a cricket box, depending on who's wearing it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Pied Piper Date: 17 Feb 06 - 05:14 AM Thanks for the link Wolfgang. Silver acetylide works well too. PP |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: *daylia* Date: 17 Feb 06 - 07:56 AM There has been lots of anecdotal evidence that acupuncture has some real effects, but it was quite hard to tell whether it was psycho-somatic or not. From the patient's point of view, if acupuncture (or any other healing method) works to relieve symptoms, who cares if it's psychosomatic or not? I do understand the human need/desire to understand HOW things work, but hey, if your friend pointed to the full moon and said "Oh look -- isn't that beautiful!" would you be gazing in wonder and appreciation at his fingertip, or at the moon??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Amos Date: 17 Feb 06 - 09:17 AM And if it IS psychosomatic, then what of that? Is curing a condition by something other than the Newtonian chemical model something medicine should abhor? So much has been written about the placebo effect, and discounting it when it raises its ugly head; but I would think instead it would be of great interest and curiousity as a documented phenomenon that cannot be explained in any standard model except as a curiousity. After all, aside from the drug companies, if the placebo effect could be understood, wouldn't everyone do well to be able to eliminate the signficant per centage of ailments that are psychos omatic by addressing them as such? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Paul Burke Date: 17 Feb 06 - 09:43 AM Quite right. Much of medicine is in the mind; we had a thread up above about people dying of a broken heart. Anything that works is perfectly good to use. The only thing I object to is the pseudoscientific abracadabrian mumpsimus that some of the new- age wonder healers come up with. And when they convince people on scientifically unsupportable grounds to eschew a mainstream treatment that works in favour of an alternative one that doesn't. We had a prime example in the UK, when (partly as a result of blundering by an authoritarian- minded government) a significant number of people stopped having their children vaccinated. This puts their own children, and still worse others, at risk. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: *daylia* Date: 17 Feb 06 - 10:39 AM The only thing I object to is the pseudoscientific abracadabrian mumpsimus that some of the new- age wonder healers come up with. And when they convince people on scientifically unsupportable grounds to eschew a mainstream treatment that works in favour of an alternative one that doesn't. Mumpsimus? :-) IMO and experience, any 'healer' who tries to convince people to forego standard medical treatment is no a 'healer' at all, but an opportunist. And a dangerous one. That said, I really don't require or want scientific 'authority' or 'permission' or 'proof' to learn and practice alternative healing methods. I've studied Reiki and Therapeutic touch, and I've practiced Huna (form of energy work) every day for a few years now. I do know these methods work, and Huna works best of all. I couldn't possibly give you a scientific explanation of how they work. Huna is not a chemical/ medical device/procedure with predictable, guaranteed, measurable mode of action and effect. But I know it works, given certain mental/emotional/physical conditions which I'm discovering and understanding better all the time. Any healing method that works fastest and best when one puts aside all doubt, sees the goal as already accomplished and says "Thank-you!" must be psychosomatic, at least to some extent. Well, that's Huna, in a nutshell! Does that make it any less viable or respectable or worthy a method than standard medical treatment? Not in my book, anyway! I've watched it work, for me, for my family and friends, and for many other people -- as long as those conditions are met. And that's more than enough, for me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Bill D Date: 17 Feb 06 - 11:45 AM wow...an old thread that I had traced...I guess because I was so impressed with my own analysis... (well, actually because I wanted links to those articles Wolfgang showed us...) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: TheBigPinkLad Date: 17 Feb 06 - 12:06 PM Thankfully, scientists do care how things work. Firstly, though, they check to see if they work. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Paul Burke Date: 17 Feb 06 - 12:20 PM Check that they work? Sadly, all to often not true in medicine. ECT was introduced without anyone knowing why it should work, what sort of cases it works for, and so on. There was a famous case about 25 years ago in the UK, when a hospitals ECT machine had broken- but no one noticed for several months. Patients were treated in that period, and progress was apparenmtly perfectly normal... Another treatment introduced without proper testing or a real theory was lobotomy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Amos Date: 17 Feb 06 - 12:51 PM A brief quote from a rapid search for "history of lobotomies": It took a certain Antonio Egaz Moniz of the University of Lisbon Medical School to really put lobotomy on the map. A very productive medical researcher, he invented several significant improvements to brain x-ray techniques prior to his work with lobotomy. He also served as the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Ambassador to Spain. He was even one of the signers of the Treaty of Versailles, which marked the end of World War I. He found that cutting the nerves that run from the frontal cortex to the thalamus in psychotic patients who suffered from repetitive thoughts "short-circuited" the problem. Together with his colleague Almeida Lima, he devised a technique involving drilling two small holes on either side of the forehead, inserting a special surgical knife, and severing the prefrontal cortex from the rest of the brain. He called it leukotomy, but it would come to be known as lobotomy. Some of his patients became calmer, some did not. Moniz advised extreme caution in using lobotomy, and felt it should only be used in cases where everything else had been tried. He was awarded the Nobel Prize for his work on lobotomy in 1949. He retired early after a former patient paralyzed him by shooting him in the back. The ice-pick tradition came later, mostly promoted by one American surgeon who developed the technique and improved it to mass-production scale. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: *daylia* Date: 17 Feb 06 - 01:05 PM A bottleinfrontame beats a frontal lobotomy any day of the week. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: *daylia* Date: 17 Feb 06 - 01:18 PM BPL, figuring out how a thing works is important, of course. Whether or not it does work is even more important. And I don't need science or scientists to know if something works or not. All I need is experience. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: TheBigPinkLad Date: 17 Feb 06 - 01:31 PM Good for you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: *daylia* Date: 17 Feb 06 - 01:42 PM Yup! :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Bill D Date: 17 Feb 06 - 09:50 PM "And I don't need science or scientists to know if something works or not. All I need is experience." we talkin' toasters and light bulbs here?, or something like astrology or precognition? *grin*....makes a difference. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: *daylia* Date: 18 Feb 06 - 01:50 AM Exactly how do you think it make a difference, Bill? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: *daylia* Date: 18 Feb 06 - 02:17 AM Forget it -- I see now. When I watch my toaster toasting my toast, I don't need a scientist to tell me its working. But when I find myself suddenly thinking of someone I haven't talked to in ages, and a minute later the phone rings and it's them -- or when I have a strange and vivid dream only to watch it really happen later, just as I dreamed -- well geez I better not trust myself to know I've just watched 'precognition' at work. Oh no! What *was* I thinking! (thumps forehead) How could I possibly trust myself to know that anything I've experienced directly, first-hand, on a regular basis all my life does really 'work'? Better call Dr Science! :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Wolfgang Date: 15 Sep 06 - 08:43 AM British researcher Ian Walker (U of Bath) has found (Journal: Accident Analysis and Prevention) that car drivers overtaking cyclists leave 14 cm more space (between them and the cyclist) if the cyclist is a female and leave 8,5 cm less if the cyclist wears a helmet. I'm sure that's something we all wanted to know since long. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 15 Sep 06 - 08:55 AM So it is safer to wear a frock than a helmet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Wolfgang Date: 15 Sep 06 - 10:26 AM Actually, to follow closely the article, it is safer to wear a long hair wig than a helmet, so the safest after all may be a crash proof long hair wig. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Bill D Date: 15 Sep 06 - 11:28 AM I want to watch those researchers driving along behind cyclists with measuring devices stuck out the window....and I want to know how much space researchers allow between themselves and their targets. ;>) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Wolfgang Date: 15 Sep 06 - 03:35 PM The researcher was the cyclist wearing wig, helmet or nothing, and the distance to the overtaking vehicles was measured in a very modern (no touch, no subjective element) way without the car drivers knowing or being informed later that they were taking part in an experiment. The experimenter was twice involved in an accident with a car during his study but survived to tell the story. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Amos Date: 15 Sep 06 - 03:38 PM I recently came across some fascinating reference to quantum-scale "back-action" presumably the counter-effect at the quantum scale of observation occurring, which somehow inherently changes the motion observed. Wolfgang, have you read anything on this? APparently the phrase has been around since the 90's. To put it another way, is there some inherent mechanism that guarantees the Uncertainty principle at work when observation occurs? The concept boggles my macro-scale mind. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Rapparee Date: 23 Sep 06 - 10:10 PM You probably missed this. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Ebbie Date: 24 Sep 06 - 01:29 AM "Neither religion, nor politics, nor PC-thinking should prescribe what are acceptable results." 13 March 2005 Wolfgang I realize that that is a year old- but do/did you actually mean that or is 'prescribe' a typo of 'proscribe'? Wolfgang, in speaking of 'baby racists', that article doesn't seem to address what I would consider an important question: What if a white baby were being reared by a black or other colored mother? Would the baby then identify itself as coloured and prefer that shade of skin? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Amos Date: 24 Sep 06 - 01:33 AM Non responsive, Rapaire. Wolfgamg? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: catspaw49 Date: 24 Sep 06 - 02:05 AM Biblical scholars were rocked today and are now scrambling to find another explanation when it came to light and was factually proven that the first two people God created were Adam and Steve rather than Eve as has always been the model in Genesis. It seems that Eve was simply a procreative addition to the creation and not a central player. In a related story, Jerry Falwell is on life support at a Virginia hospital after his head exploded. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: freda underhill Date: 24 Sep 06 - 03:08 AM Ebbie re What if a white baby were being reared by a black or other colored mother? Would the baby then identify itself as coloured and prefer that shade of skin? I know a white Australian woman who, with her husband, went to the Central Australian desert and lived a tribal aboriginal life for over a dozen years. Her daughters were brought up as part of that community, speaking the indigenous language as their first language and English as their second. Both daughters were accepted as part of the indigenous family and consider themselves aboriginal. Now adult, one now works in an art gallery in Alice Springs, central Australia, where her language skills are used to liaise between the gallery owner and local indigenous artists. She is still very identified as an indigenous person. I have a friend whose stepfather was an indigenous Australian. When she grew up she married an indigenous Australian, so I guess she understood and preferred a man similar to the one who was her actual parent, if not her biological parent. freda |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Wolfgang Date: 25 Sep 06 - 12:29 PM Ebbie, (1) I meant prescribe as I have written, so if that makes no sense here it is not a typo but bad English. (2) They had not that control group but from the findings of the article they would predict that the white child (in a black environment) shies away from the (unfamiliar) white faces. Amos, Why Quantum Mechanics Is Not So Weird after All is the last I have read. There are different positions. Many physicists simply use the quantum framework for predictions and do not interpret the results, for the interpretations can sound weird. But in our daily lives, we operate in completely different dimensions. As a German physics prof once said: He could be treated as a wave just as the particles and could be found to enter the lecture hall by two different door at the same time. However, one had to wait many many powers of ten longer than the time since the Big Bang to have a good chance to watch this happening. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Rapparee Date: 25 Sep 06 - 02:56 PM A phyiscs prof was brought to court for running a red light. He pled not guilty and his defense was the red-green shift. The judge was enthralled by this rather esoteric but plausible explanation, until a student the prof had just failed pointed out how fast the prof has to be going for the red-green shift to work.... White (i.e., Caucasian) parents have brought up children of color, just as women of color have raised caucasian children. The children seem to identify with love and caring, not skin color. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Amos Date: 25 Sep 06 - 04:51 PM Thanks, WOlfgang. I sympathize with the Professor's impatience! :D A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Bert Date: 26 Sep 06 - 01:44 AM What if a white baby were being reared by a black or other colored mother? Would the baby then identify itself as coloured and prefer that shade of skin? ... I was working on a remote site in Iran for about six months and was the only white face there. When I eventually went to a bar in town there were a few English guys there; they appeared quite foreign to me. Also many white babies were wet nursed by black slaves in The South. I have heard it said that that is one of the reasons white slave owners took black slaves as lovers. They associated black women with love and nurturing. Perhaps I shouldn't have limited that to The South. Didn't Jefferson do the same thing? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Wolfgang Date: 17 Oct 06 - 06:31 AM In recent years, more and more human behaviours that once were thought to be learned are found to have a genetic component. Hereditary family signature of facial expression (The link may not work for you) The way a person expresses anger, sadness, concentration,... in her face runs in families even in congenitally blind family members. The (first time) investigation of congenitally blind family members rules out the old interpretation that the facial expressions concomitant to emotions are picked up visually. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Paul Burke Date: 17 Oct 06 - 06:49 AM The musculature of the face is complicated, and as selection would be almost entirely sexual (i.e. do you like someone's face enough to have sex with them), genetic variation ought to be passed on. That's not the same as saying that there's a 'gene for a smile', as the complex of genes that produces the precise muscular configuration of the face may well express itself elsewhere in the body- and that could be subject to such competetive selection as humans are exposed to these days. It's also interesting that the facial expressions themselves (as distinct from variations in them) are transmitted genetically- it's not long since anthropologists (who? can't remember) proposed that the smile was itself a modification of an aggressive expression, but if the congenitally blind use it, it must be programmed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Crystal Date: 17 Oct 06 - 09:32 AM Why have my cells all died? How, when I clean EVERYTHING in the fume hood with ethanol did they get a fungal infection. Why after 2 years of infection free cell culture work have I had two infections in as many months???!!! Why me??!!!???!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Paul Burke Date: 17 Oct 06 - 10:07 AM Someone drank the ethanol and replaced it with water? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Amos Date: 17 Oct 06 - 02:29 PM SOme scientists think about how many posts it takes to reach 100, and over how much time. From 8 Mar to 17 October (7 months, 9 days, approximately) divided by 100 provides the answer. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Bill D Date: 17 Oct 06 - 02:57 PM "In recent years, more and more human behaviours that once were thought to be learned are found to have a genetic component." Yep! I have been following this trend in discoveries for a few years now. I would add "...that once were thought to be learned and/or freely chosen.." Brain chemistry and DNA tracing have shown many traits to be seriously influenced, if not controlled, by genetics. (soon we may have to conclude that Shambles can't help himself...and neither can we who respond) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Amos Date: 17 Oct 06 - 04:01 PM A thought devoid of value, I warrant. Dancers inisist they have no choice, because the music moves them, once played; but they often forget how it came into being at all, being enthralled by the very dance. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Mrrzy Date: 18 Oct 06 - 12:18 PM Actually, Spaw, Mitochondrial Eve is twice as old (150,000 years ago) as Y-Chromosome Adam (75,000 mya) - now how does THAT work? Was Eve Adam's great-(...)-grannie? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Amos Date: 18 Oct 06 - 12:26 PM Wouldn't be the first time that sort of hijinks hid behinmd the skirts of respectability. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: GUEST,ibo Date: 18 Oct 06 - 04:32 PM Testing their tubes |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: JohnInKansas Date: 18 Oct 06 - 06:05 PM One of many "explanations" for the difference in age for Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam may be seen at What, if anything, is a Mitochondrial Eve?. 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. In one sense, the determination of a date for a MRCA measures how recently the descendants of other humans, of the same or prior generations, became extinct. It is NOT a measure of "how old humans are." John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Paul Burke Date: 19 Oct 06 - 03:37 AM I still think Mitochondrial Eve is worth a celebration, if only we knew when Mitochondrial Day was. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: JohnInKansas Date: 26 Oct 06 - 12:19 AM The November-December issue of American Scientist describes current efforts and plans to detect and measure gravity waves. The passage of such waves should produce "space distortions" detectable as changes in the distance between two objects. Crude "detection" has been reported, but the size of the distortion depends on the distance between the two objects, and terrestrial distances are too small for adequate sampling. The plan is to toss multiple "laboratories" into space, each carrying a small reflecting object that will be "floated" within the carrying vessel. The vessel will control it's own position to "stay clear" of the reflector mass, so that the object is affected only by gravity. To achieve the detection objective, at least two such masses will need to be placed approximately 5,000,000 kilometers apart (5 Gm) and the "motions" of the sensing masses must be measured to within around 0.00000000000005 meter (0.05 pm ). The ratio between the distance between sensors and the change in distance that must be measured is about 1023:1. They think they can measure it. Safest access to the article is probably at American Scientist, select the article The Sounds of Spacetime. Direct link to the articles may open at Sounds, but there are some access limitations based on membership and/or subscription status. (It works for me, but I have a cookie from them.) The article in pdf format is available, but it's free only to Sigma Xi members, $5 to nonmember Am Scientist subscribers, and $12 for the general public. If you get to the Table of Contents (first link) there may be other articles of interest, but most of them appear to require "credentials." John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Amos Date: 26 Oct 06 - 12:26 AM I have to say that these orders of magnitude and the thought of measuring them just makes my brain wilt and shrivel. Boggling!!! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: JohnInKansas Date: 26 Oct 06 - 02:15 AM The article does compare the resolution required, the 0.05 picometer, not to the diameter of an atom but to the diameter of the nucleus of an atom. The resolution is about (within an order of magnitude - x10) what I got in some thesis experiments as a student, but I didn't have to stand quite 5 million km from what I was measuring. The actual instrument design, construction, and deployment is obviously more of an engineering challenge than pure science. The "science" is understood, and the article gives some (very elementary) hints at the scientific justifications and explanations for it all. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Wolfgang Date: 16 Nov 06 - 05:59 AM Ancient genomics is born The reality of a complete Neanderthal genome draws near, as two papers report the sequencing of large amounts of Neanderthal DNA. The results will help to answer some central questions on human evolution. If true, it should win them a Nobel prize in some years. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Bunnahabhain Date: 16 Nov 06 - 11:03 AM Getting the world, or at least journalists, to accept and use standard form when it's sensible. Long strings of 0's are impossible to read. At least I'm sort of a scientist, and I'll think this at least twice a week, when the media mangles whatever science story is about... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Bill D Date: 16 Nov 06 - 11:45 AM It might show whether the was (or could have been) any cross-breeding between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens. (one infant skeleton was found that 'seemed' to show characteristics of both). DNA has already allowed tracing of many lines of humans and helped date when they appeared in various parts of the world, thus showing the 'map' of migrations and development. It is fascinating to follow 'us'..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Amos Date: 16 Nov 06 - 12:39 PM I got the impression that interbreeding between Neanderthal and Sap was generally ruled out? Maybe the Neanderthals were too liberal for Homo Sap's taste? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Bill D Date: 16 Nov 06 - 03:13 PM "ruled out"?....I think it's been more like (up to now) many doubting that one bit of circumstantial evidence was enough...that's why this latest breakthrough might settle it. (I HAVE seen folks that made me wonder...*wry smile*) We have, relatively, so few examples of our various ancestors that only general conclusions can be drawn about dates and lines of inheritance. DNA, when available, is about the best indicator we can get. It can sure help us rule OUT some things, anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: JohnInKansas Date: 16 Nov 06 - 03:34 PM I've seen more than a couple of recent "news bits" claiming the discovery of a particular segment of the human genome that has "mutated rapidly" in humans but not, apparently, in any other critters. The segment, or at least a very similar one, is present in a few others, but hasn't undergone the mutation. The researchers are postulating that mutation of this particular bit of DNA "explains" the sudden (on the evolutionary time scale) increase in brain capacity in humans. They have confirmed (subject to verification?) that the segment codes for development in the brain, and that it codes for production of an RNA component rather than directly for DNA or other "building block" materials. Something to watch, perhaps. Reports I've seen as of now are too scattered and vague to merit citation. One wonders about the plans to "inject" the segment into mice for further confirmation. What does one do with a mouse who's smarter than the one running the experiment? John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Bill D Date: 16 Nov 06 - 07:08 PM " What does one do with a mouse who's smarter than the one running the experiment?" Flowers for Algernon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: JohnInKansas Date: 16 Nov 06 - 08:53 PM Bill D - After I posted it occured that I sould have said "...once again." The best report I've seen was in a "marginal note" in Technology Revew, where it won't be posted on the web. Tweaks the interest but we'll have to wait for a decent report before there'll be anything to link up to. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Old Guy Date: 16 Nov 06 - 10:55 PM I was telling my wife about a TV show I saw where they fixed a camera on the nose of an alligator and fed it to a python. You could see the insides of the snake as it went in. She said only a scientist would want to know what it looks like. I said why would it matter what it looked like except to the gator and he woul be dead shortly. I wonder why we expend time and money on such bullsh.. err unnecessary endeavors when the money could better be spent on something more pressing and bebeficial to mankind like Darfur or fighting drug drug traffickers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Rowan Date: 16 Nov 06 - 11:11 PM I went to a seminar yesterday (when Mudcat was down) and heard Debbie Argue, a PhD student from the ANU, discuss her analyses of the various pieces of Homo floresiensis and Mike Morwood discuss archaeology of hominin evolution and island biogeography around the Wallace Line. Great stuff! When Mike was first discussing where "Flo" fitted into our understanding, the best explanation of (what was then known about) Flo's anatomy seemed to be that insular dwarfism had been operating on an isolated population of Homo, of a species that predated H. sapiens and the best candidate was H. erectus. Debbie has been able to use quite a few data from Australopithecines, more specimens of H. floresiensis, and lots of H. sapiens (including pygmies and microcephalics) argued (I bet she's tired of that) that her analyses support H. floresiensis as a species quite separate from H. sapiens but also probably separate from H. erectus. Of the two possible explanations, she seemed to think the better would involve the radiation out of Africa of a species with lots of australopithecine features but still part of the genus Homo. Mike went on to give an account of how the occurrence (and lack of occurrence) of island faunal elements might be explained. The lack of investigation of palaeo- material from east Asia generally and southeast Asia specifically came in for some criticism, as did the 'notional' acceptance, by Australlian archaeologists, of a 50k year 'basal date' for human occupation of Sahul. And, having read various comments above about "species", I though it worth saying that bacteriologists, palaeoontologists, botanists and zoologists all use slightly differing definitions of "species". When bacteriologists talk about horizontal gene transfer, they're in a different world from palaoontologists and comments about species evolving need to be carefully explained and defined to those whose understanding might be from a different discipline or even a different era. Cheers, Rowan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: DougR Date: 17 Nov 06 - 08:15 PM I read today that they are going to fire cannons loaded with pollution s into the stratusphere to cool the earth. And all this time I thought that was what was causing global warming! Strange right? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: JohnInKansas Date: 18 Nov 06 - 02:12 AM I've seen only "news media" reports on the injected pollutants theory, but the limited babbling there indicates that the media have their usual cluelessness in high gear. In greatly oversimplified terms, global warming is presumed to be caused by release of polutants that absorb infrared radiation and thus trap heat in the atmosphere causing it to accumulate and increase the earth temperature. The separate effect of depletion of the ozone layer removes the ozone that's the main absorber of ultraviolet radiation, leaving us with no protection at the surface from this separate harmful solar radiation. It's not clear which of these two vastly different effects this proposed addition of new pollutants is intended to correct, or even that those proposing it clearly understand which problem their modelling programs are intended to study. "A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."(?) Anybody got a decent summary of the proposition from one of the clever ones? John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Peace Date: 18 Nov 06 - 02:29 AM Ya'd have to be as smart as Bertrand Russell to answer that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Rowan Date: 18 Nov 06 - 11:38 PM From a radio broadcast of a science journalist's comments I gather the proposal is that the "pollution layer" is intended to diminish insolation reaching the earth and that the layer would need to be far enough away from earth as to be outside the moon's orbit. Which means we'd still be able to see the moon OK but astronomers and their instruments would be looking at stars as through a dark glassly. So would the rest of us. Cheers, Rowan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Wolfgang Date: 19 Nov 06 - 03:33 PM Geoengineering is the word I have recently read for that approach. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Mrs.Duck Date: 19 Nov 06 - 03:37 PM Scientists think about the washing! Geoff tells me on a daily basis that he is a scientist but the rest of the time he talks laundry! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: JohnInKansas Date: 20 Nov 06 - 02:12 AM Mrs Duck - Is it that he lacks the expertise to accomplish that minor task in properly efficient manner, or is the low-life cur objecting to the way you do it? Either way, a proper study documenting tools and equipemnt, materials, methods, schedules, and costs is in order - and quite obviously he's the GIHOM best qualified. John (Genius In His Own Mind) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: JohnInKansas Date: 20 Nov 06 - 09:12 AM Re: Pollution to stop global warming. Save Earth from warming by using pollution?, Associated Press story via MSNBC. The scientist who proposed this "possible action" states quite clearly that he intended it to sound bizarre, as a "wake-up" to those who are ignoring the problem. Apparently quite a few others are taking it more seriously than he intended, but I suspect at this point he's not too upset with that. Several minor gotchas in the concept that those eager to "do something right now" hopefully will pick up on before they start launching the acid rain generators. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Crystal Date: 20 Nov 06 - 10:12 AM What scientists think about no. 98: Hmmm I could probably earn more money stacking shelves at Tescos. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: JohnInKansas Date: 21 Nov 06 - 03:24 PM An update on the effort to sequence the DNA of Neanderthals appears at Neanderthals. An earlier bit of blather on the subject, at Cavemen, Chimps, and Us (July 2006). This appears to be a spin-off effort triggered by the very recent discovery that "hard tissues" that are commonly fossilized do contain DNA in some cases, especially for fairly "recent" (<100,000 y.o.?) fossils. Previously it was just accepted that only soft tissues would have such information, and no real attempts were made to examine fossils. Until some fairly complete results are produced, it will be questionable whether the DNA obtainable from fossils will be "complete" enough to give much information; but it's an open territory being explored. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: JohnInKansas Date: 22 Nov 06 - 04:50 AM "PARIS - Nations representing half the world's population signed a long-awaited, $12.8 billion pact Tuesday for a nuclear fusion reactor that could revolutionize global energy use for future generations. "The ITER project by the United States, the European Union, China, India, Russia, Japan and South Korea will attempt to combat global warming by harnessing the fusion that runs the sun, creating an alternative to polluting fossil fuels." If anyone's looking for a long-term job, they estimate that a demonstration reactor may be ready by 2040. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: JohnInKansas Date: 24 Nov 06 - 03:24 AM Wheat gets genetic boost from the past Modern strain crossed with wild variety to enhance nutrition By Will Dunham Reuters Updated: 1:13 a.m. CT Nov 24, 2006 WASHINGTON - Scientists have found a way to boost the protein, zinc and iron content in wheat, an achievement that could help bring more nutritious food to many millions of people worldwide. A team led by University of California at Davis researcher Jorge Dubcovsky identified a gene in wild wheat that raises the grain's nutritional content. The gene became nonfunctional for unknown reasons during humankind's domestication of wheat. Writing in the journal Science on Thursday, the researchers said they used conventional breeding methods to bring the gene into cultivated wheat varieties, enhancing the protein, zinc and iron value in the grain. The wild plant involved is known as wild emmer wheat, an ancestor of some cultivated wheat. Wheat represents one of the major crops feeding people worldwide, providing about 20 percent of all calories consumed. The World Health Organization has said upward of 2 billion people get too little zinc and iron in their diet, and more than 160 million children under age 5 lack adequate protein. ... In making the wheat more nutritious, the researchers did not change how it tastes, Dubcovsky said. "We're not changing the composition or anything very dramatic in the grain," he said. "I don't think a simple step like this will solve hunger in the world. I'm not that naive. But I think it's heading in the right direction," Dubcovsky said. The gene made the grain mature more quickly while also boosting its protein and micronutrient content by 10 to 15 percent in the pasta and bread wheat varieties with which the researchers worked. "What this gene does is it uses better what is in the plant already, so rather than leave the protein and the zinc and iron in the straw, we've moved a little bit more into the grain," Dubcovsky said. The wheat varieties bred by the scientists are not genetically modified, which could help them become accepted commercially, they said. Copyright 2006 Reuters Limited. [Doing it the old-fashioned way still works sometimes.] John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: bobad Date: 01 Dec 06 - 09:37 PM Levitating small animals |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Bill D Date: 01 Dec 06 - 10:57 PM Who was it said "Man does not live by bread alone."? Seems like he might now! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Wolfgang Date: 10 Jan 07 - 05:47 AM Across cultures a narrow waist indicates feminine beauty The finding is not new. Theories that body indicators of health (e.g., symmetry) determine who we consider beautiful people in our species have found a lot of empirical support. (BTW, that is not restricted to visual cues. Females judge the body odor of immunocompatible men as more pleasant.) The method was new to me. They did make a literature search in three cultures and at least as many languages some centuries back to find descriptions of female beauty. They did find some dozen positive descriptions of a narrow waist and not a single other. Abdominal obesity, as measured by waist size, is reliably linked to decreased oestrogen, reduced fecundity and increased risk for major diseases....Even without the benefit of modern medical knowledge, both British and Asian writers knew intuitively the biological link between health and beauty. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: *daylia* Date: 10 Jan 07 - 09:44 AM So, the smaller the waist the healthier and more beautiful the woman, according to scientists? Hmmmm ... so that's why pregnant people are so ugly! Must be real sick, too. And anorexics/bulimics must be the loveliest and healthiest of all. Oh well, guess most of us will never make the grade. Thanks for the thoughts, scientists. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Bill D Date: 10 Jan 07 - 12:53 PM no, *daylia*, those are not the logical implications of the finding. You are impliciting inserting your own (unstated) premises in order to cast doubt on the study. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: *daylia* Date: 10 Jan 07 - 02:17 PM Actually, I woke up in a grumpy mood this morning (been dealing with a injured shoulder and in pain lately) ... and just the idea that the smaller a woman's waist is the more beautiful and valuable she's considered to be, across time and cultures even --- well, that made the bad mood worse. My apologies. But no, Bill, I was not trying to cast doubt on the study. Its most likely perfectly valid. In fact, I've been up against these scientifically measurable attitudes all my life, just like everybody else. I just don't like it. End of story. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Amos Date: 10 Jan 07 - 02:25 PM It's a subconscious association with reproductive potential, Daylia. It is part of protoplasm's most cherished mission to find opportunities to replicate. It may not be analytical anymore than "V* ower!" is a good reason to buy a Hummer, but it stirs the instincts of the limbic brain. :) A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: JohnInKansas Date: 10 Jan 07 - 02:37 PM daylia - One "study" reported many years ago showed a large number of pictures of women of all sizes and shapes to a large number of people - mostly college students, and concluded that the critical indicator of "sexy" was the presence of a visible waist. It made no difference how large or small the waist was, but it had to be at least visibly smaller than the adjacent (above and below) body parts. Wolfgang's link takes me to a point where a registration is needed to get in, and it's not clear where I would go once in, so I'll defer attempting to look at the details now; but the "conclusion" is not unexpected. More and more "scientists" are recognizing that "anorexics and bulemics" are not sexy. The "fashion model look" is not intended to be attractive. It's intended to make the model less noticeable than the clothes. For an opinion probably closer to Wolfgang's link, try the recent Sexy people play the symmetry card: Balance, not body type, is key in fashion and attraction. This is an opinion from a "fashion designier" (the "science" of selling fashion?) and does reflect some opinion that "his styles are better than their styles" but actually is in line with what numerous studies have reported for decades. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Rowan Date: 10 Jan 07 - 04:06 PM The reports on the studies I saw gave a slightly more complicated picture, John; I think they were reported in a series of issues of New Scientist in around 1996/7. The symmetry stuff pre dates that and (to me) has been undisputed for yonks. The waist stuff is much more interesting; various investigators were trying to see whether there was any sort of objective measure that could then be analysed in a natural selection methodology. At first they took the "vital statistics" of all the Miss America, Miss World and Miss Universe winners, as reported in the press, on the basis that they represented at least a group of 'judged' and thus 'objectively accepted' beautiful shapes. The only common rating (stay with me) applicable to all of them was the Hip:Waist ratio, from memory about 1.2:1. Breast size & shape was irrelevant, apparently and the recorded weights of the women involved had decreased by about 2 stone (28 lbs in American money) from 1944(?) when the first of these competitions had occurred to ~ 1995. But despite these changes, the hip:waist ratio of "the most beautiful" had stayed the same. Thinking that others might regard this as biased due to America (and western) fondness for displays of nudity, they checked their findings in Indonesia, where Playboy routinely had black bars printed over anything nude that wasn't a male chest. They used only silhouettes of women's figures and the preferred images all had the same hip:waist ratio. There was more but that's all I can recall. I might add that this article was only one of series that New Scientist ran over a couple of years that weas most interesting from a human biology perspective. Cheers, Rowan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Bill D Date: 10 Jan 07 - 05:41 PM Whatever the accuracy of the study, it is merely an 'indicator'- a description perhaps of a bell-shaped curve. I'm sure that I, as a male, would not register very high on a strictly 'rated' view of male sexiness..*grin*...broad shoulders and muscles and...ummm..other things. Quite apart from what is 'sexy',(that is, what will win beauty contests), an analysis of what members of both sexes find attractive in members of the opposite sex is a quite complex matter. I have seen beauty contest winners that had 'ideal' measurements that I found dull and unpleasant in bearing and totally uninteresting as theoretical 'partners'. Yet, I have seen and met women both fat and thin who would never even get IN a beauty pageant that were glowing, attractive, happy, pleasant, desirable individuals. (I'm sure all this should be obvious, but it seemed like it needed to be noted in this context.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Amos Date: 10 Jan 07 - 09:47 PM Well, Bill, de gustibus non disputandum is what this proves. And likewise, chacun å son mauvais gout. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Bill D Date: 10 Jan 07 - 09:59 PM You do, and you'll clean it up! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Bill D Date: 10 Jan 07 - 10:06 PM oh...well, I guess them furriners DID make some points... ;>) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Rowan Date: 11 Jan 07 - 01:24 AM With typical reductionism they were trying to limit the subjectivity of their variables. Some of the later NS articles went into some of the more physiological aspects of "attractiveness". One described the effect of attractiveness on how much semen was "stripped" (I kid you not) from men during intercourse and ejaculation. Without going into boring detail, they found that no matter how attractive the males rated their female partners for such activities (even using hip:waist ratios) it was the more Rubenesque ladies (ie, slightly overweight to "modern" eyes) that routinely stripped the most semen from their partners. The inference drawn from this was that, despite any 'conscious' deliberations by the male, the women with just that little bit extra subcutaneous fat (already known to be a marker of higher fertility) were better able to get their partners to "deliver" in the fertilisation stakes. All very Darwinian! Just thought you'd like to know. Cheers, Rowan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Amos Date: 11 Jan 07 - 05:49 PM " Best dressed women have babies on their mind13 January 2007 From New Scientist Print Edition. "DRESS to impress, goes the maxim. "Dress to conceive" might be more accurate. Women take greater care over their appearance when they are at peak levels of fertility. Working with a group of 30 women aged 18 to 37, Martie Haselton of the University of California, Los Angeles, and colleagues took two full-body photographs of each woman, one close to ovulation when the woman was highly fertile, and one at a point of low fertility in the menstrual cycle. Volunteers were then invited to decide which of the two photos showed the woman trying to look more attractive. They chose the woman in her "high fertility" photo some 59.5 per cent of the time more often than would be expected by chance (Hormones and Behavior, vol 51, p 40). Though not in the same class as the obvious physical cues other primate females give when they are ovulating, it is the first evidence that women openly advertise their fertility. Interestingly, all the women in the study group described themselves as being in committed relationships with men. So why go to the trouble of dressing up? Perhaps to attract other men. "Women with high fertility tend to feel attracted to men other than their primary partners," says Haselton. " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: GUEST,heric Date: 11 Jan 07 - 06:13 PM Trivial aside: "They chose the woman in her "high fertility" photo some 59.5 per cent of the time more often than would be expected by chance." What a bizarre sentence - There were only two photos. Did they pick the high fertility photo 59.5% of the time? Or 79.75% of the time? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 11 Jan 07 - 06:51 PM Rapaire told us: Darwinian evolution requires species to become extinct so that new species can replace them. I have to raise my eyebrows at this! This sounds highly teleological, at least as phrased. I admit that Darwin, in The Origin of Species, (which I just finished re-reading) phrases things in teleological-sounding terms too. But clearly, from context, he means (and sometimes says outright) that species necessarily will become extinct in the process of natural selection, as they are pushed out by the new and improved species. So, to paraphrase your sentence above, Darwinian evolution causes species to become extinct as new species replace them. But to "require species to become extinct" so that something else can happen is illogical. It puts the extinction before the development of the new species, and logically implies a creative intention, a choice of final target, so to speak, behind the whole process. Which Darwin certainly never states exists. Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 11 Jan 07 - 06:59 PM Amos commented: If they can get 80% of the pain relief from the placebo effect, why don't they just learn to implement the placebo effect? Surely training someone to heal himself through self-suggesting a placebo effect is more empowering than increasing his dependency on chemicals? Shamanism has within it a large proportion of just that, Amos. Dave Oesterreich |
|
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 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Wolfgang Date: 17 Jun 08 - 10:49 AM PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects In short (and leaving away all the qualifiers): Scans of heterosexual males' brains look like scans of homosexual females' brains, scans of heterosexual females' brains look like scans of homosexual males' brains. Wolfgang (not at all surprised) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about From: Amos Date: 17 Jun 08 - 10:59 AM I concur, Wolfgang. Especially if you subtract the "overlays" caused by cultural bias, rejection, stress, and so on. I am frequently surprised when in the company of gay women, the few that I know, how much their appreciation of pulchritude and mine coincide. A |
