the evolving mind

Yes, siree. This is science at its reductionistic finest. Researchers at McGill University -

report that the addition of a single phosphate to an amino acid in a key brain protein is a principal cause of Alzheimer’s. Identifying this phosphate, one of up to two-dozen such molecules, could make earlier diagnosis of Alzheimer’s possible and might, in the longer term, lead to the development of drugs to block its onset.

Sharp minds doing precise work. Someone ought to buy those folks a beer. In our country we should make the finding of science a priority.

[source]

Technorati Links: psychology, research

The Hubble Telescope. In orbit. With the freakin’ Earth in the background. AWEsome!

Quite a view of the sunrise. But . . . it’s not really a sun rise. What should we call?

Photo thanks to NASA.

Technorati Links: cosmos, NASA

Individuals with Down Syndrome very rarely get cancer. Their overall rate is less than 10% of the general population! If there is a bit of a silver lining to this chromosomal disorder, that might be it (or at least one thread to a multi-threaded lining).

Researchers are looking into the reason for the lower rate. Down Syndrome is caused by having an extra copy of the 21st chromosome. And it seems that is a clue. According to a EurekaAlert post about new research, it was previously speculated that -

they might be benefiting from a gene that blocks angiogenesis, the development of blood vessels essential for cancer’s growth, since their incidence of other angiogenesis-related diseases like macular degeneration is also lower.

It now seems the speculation was on target. The new research, consisting of experiments on mice and human cells, has confirmed the idea. Rather than an “amen” from the congregation, can I get an ovation for those diligent researchers?!

Could this lead to new cancer treatments or perhaps a preventative vaccine of sorts?

Sorry . . . I can’t resist getting on my soapbox. (I don’t have an altar to stand behind.) Rather than preachers, it is the work of scientists that provides the vast majority of “blessings” our civilization now enjoys.

Technorati Links: freethought, research

What is the meaning of patterns found in nature? Do they suggest that there is/was a pattern-maker? I don’t think so. I think they imply that nature on any level is influence both by the qualities of the elements at a lower level (i.e. a snowflake reflecting molecular characteristics unique to h2o in a solid state) as well as . . . I’ll call it “existential selection.” No doubt symmetry and a stability of form are related. Humans don’t have fingers growing out of their foreheads not because it is ugly or violates a law of godly design. Trees don’t grow in all directions, up, down, south, north, because they are designed that way. What works, persists. Is that the most elemental law?

Technorati Links: nature, philosophy

Epigenetics is the new big thing. While it may not result in what Thomas Kuhn would call a paradigm shift, it will no doubt cause the paradigm to quake and re-shape. In the ScienceDaily post, Epigenetics: 100 Reasons To Change The Way We Think About Genetics, I learned -

An article forthcoming in the July issue of The Quarterly Review of Biology lists over 100 well-documented cases of epigenetic inheritance between generations of organisms, and suggests that non-DNA inheritance happens much more often than scientists previously thought.

While that is interesting, here’s a terrific, fun fact:

For example, Jablonka and Raz cite a study finding that when fruit flies are exposed to certain chemicals, at least 13 generations of their descendants are born with bristly outgrowths on their eyes.

Did you feel that? That was a paradigm shifting. But before you predict an outright scientific revolution, we should heed the words of study authors, Eva Jablonka and Gal Raz -

“Incorporating epigenetic inheritance into evolutionary theory extends the scope of evolutionary thinking and leads to notions of heredity and evolution that incorporate development.”

No, our rapidly progressing scientific understanding is not a whimsical product of a culture, to be wholly changed like the fashion of the day. The bulk of the new stuff extends and deepens what we already know. And that is a very good thing.

Technorati Links: culture, philosophy

Could you drink your own urine? You probably wouldn’t want to. What about recycled urine?

The three crew members of the International Space Station raised plastic pouches in a toast of their first taste of urine that had been recycled into drinkable water.

Notice how intentionally provocative the wording is of the above New York Times science article? “Their first taste of urine that had been recycled.”

Of course, they did no such thing. Taste the urine, that is. Remove the uric acid and otherwise purify the h2o and what have you got but water? And maybe a homeopathic treatment for bed wetting. Recycled urine is urine in thought alone. But that thought is provocative.

I recall a psychological study that explored whether subjects would be willing to eat off a sterilized plate that before having been sterilized held a pile of feces. Despite the fact that the only place the “unclean” remained was in their brains, many couldn’t.

It also brings to mind the hub-bub caused by an article that appeared in a Vermont newspaper years ago. I was living in the state at the time. The title announced that a popular ski resort was “Where the Affluent Meet the Effluent.” Shock and horror! The ski area was using recycled water to make snow. And people were skiing over this “dirty” snow.

It seems that thanks to words, there is an afterlife of sorts. At least in people’s minds.

Technorati Links: emotion, semantics

What is this green stuff? Algae? A leaf? Actually, neither. I don’t think there is any way you will guess what it is, precisely. But you might be able to determine whether it is man-made or Gaia-grown.

x200. Answer and another photo below the fold.

Continue Reading »

Technorati Links: microscope, puzzle

Twice this month I’ve written about traits of an individual that may predict future abuse — bullying — by others. This is not a case of blaming the victim but of trying to best understand all factors involved. And where there is better understanding, there is a greater possibility of devising effective treatment and preventative measures.

New research on domestic violence announced in April of this year took a relatively rare angle. Rather than studying who commits domestic violence under what circumstances, or who is typically the victim of domestic violence, and what behaviors might act as a trigger, the researchers examined the factors that make some victims more resilient (able to overcome stress) than others. Their finding:

Children exposed to violence were almost four times more likely than others to develop emotional or behavioral problems. However, more than half of the children who were exposed to violence adapted well, at least in part because of their easy-going natures and the mental health of their mothers.

Interesting. The issue of more fully understanding a phenomenon to better devise treatments and preventative measures brings to my mind “The Serenity Prayer” — believe it or not. Although I would revise it.

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

Here’s my version:

May experience and education give you the understanding
needed to differentiate those factors you can little change
from those through which you can produce results;
and may your humanity and that of others move you to try.

Technorati Links: freethought, mental illness

Is each voice a snowflake? (And is each snowflake truly a “snowflake,” unique in a significant way?)

I was going to write, “I like exposing myself to different voices,” but that isn’t wholly true. At least not all the time. Some voices strike my ears as dogmatic monotone. Nothing new/interesting here, might as well move on.

Tangentially, are voices influenced by the experiences of those who speak with them? Is that why they can be so . . . compelling?

Of course, in music we can find unique voices. On Internet radio just a few moments ago I listened to John Prine sing,

It’s a half an inch of water and you think you’re going to drown.

Unfortunately, the bulk of song lyrics bore me. Boy meets girl . . . . Scratch that, boy sees girl, boy lusts after girl, girl sees boy . . . they struggle and fight and yada yada yada.

For definitely non-yada words, the latest Carnival of the Liberals might be a good resource to explore. In the least you can view an image of boy meets boy. At most?

Finally, last night I listened to a wonderful podcast about human enhancement from Philosophy Bites. I highly recommend it.

Technorati Links: nature, philosophy

Research out of the University of Florida has revealed that mockingbirds can recognizes faces. Human faces. When individuals ventured too close to mockingbird nests on campus, on subsequent days these individuals would get targeted for a defensive attack by the birds much more quickly than other subjects. And their choice of clothing or angle of approach didn’t matter. They were recognized, flown at and “dive-bombed.”

And yet when different students approached the nests on the fifth day, the birds hardly ruffled their feathers, waiting to flush until last moment. They also gave fewer alarm calls and attacked much less than on the previous day with the familiar intruder.

Birds — at least mockingbirds — can recognize individual humans. What meaning can we make of this? Probably too much if we aren’t careful.

“We don’t believe mockingbirds evolved an ability to distinguish between humans. Mockingbirds and humans haven’t been living in close association long enough for that to occur.” Levey said. “We think instead that our experiments reveal an underlying ability to be incredibly perceptive of everything around them, and to respond appropriately when the stakes are high.”

You might say that the above specific behavior of mockingbirds evolved inadvertently. But there is probably a better word for it. Nonetheless, this point squarely addresses a logical fault rife in human thinking: the naturalistic fallacy. If a trait appears natural — it is widespread in a species — than it must have evolved. On purpose.

The other day I heard a tired version of this argument. It went: Because human “spiritual experiences” are widespread, human beings must have evolved to be spiritual beings.

Well, no. The patent falsity of this statement can be made obvious through the use of a whole number of ridiculous alternatives. Because human beings across the globe love alcohol, we must have evolved to get inebriated. Etc.

Whether in mockingbirds or human beings, there is great benefit in behavioral plasticity. Individuals that can apply their traits to new situations are more adaptable in their own lifetime. Furthermore, their plasticity provides something for evolution to shape in future generations.

Animals of all sorts will creatively apply their “natural” abilities to novel situations. Not because they have evolved to do it, but, in general, because plasticity is adaptive. Or can be. But not always.

Technorati Links: birds, religion