Jul 25 2009
As a liberal freethinker I feel strongly about all civil rights, starting with, and perhaps most crucially, the freedom of speech. Naturally, this cartoon really “says it” for me.
The Irish blasphemy law offends me. I think it should be outlawed.
-
[cartoon thanks to http://www.jesusandmo.net/]
Jul 25 2009
Meet Mary (not her real name). Could you recognize Mary in a line-up of other rhesus monkey young ones?
Mary’s troop-mates can certainly identify her. For a social species, being able to differentiate one group member from another is very important. New research has found -
[R]hesus monkeys and humans share a specific perceptual mechanism, configural perception, for discriminating among the numerous faces they encounter daily.
[....]
“Humans and other social primates need to recognize other individuals and to discriminate kin from non-kin, friend from foe and allies from antagonists,” said lead researcher Robert R. Hampton of the Yerkes National Primate Research Center and Emory’s Department of Psychology.
When I look at Mary this is one of the things I see: a distant relative. And science has informed me that her brain works something like mine. In this case –when identifying individual others, including kin.
Jul 24 2009
Insects, perhaps more than any other category of biological life, help remind me that this universe is NOT all about me and my kind. Insects can be so alien looking. And looking at one will raise perplexing questions.
What are the stripes on the abdomen of a bee for? Well, they aren’t for me. Not for me?! Only an evolutionary understanding of life can correctly answer that question. And as far as evolution goes, Homo sapiens occupies no throne.
Seen from afar our cities are a hive of bustle. As for our bodies, our skeleton is not of the exoskeleton variety. We carry our supportive infrastructure on the inside. Do we deserve an ovation and praise for that?
But wait! I use a fork and a knife to eat! To say nothing of my reading ability. And I use indoor plumbing! Certainly that makes me absolutely better than the rest of creation. Doesn’t it?
Jul 24 2009
In a freethought essay by Valerie Tarico, Christian Belief Through the Lens of Cognitive Science: Part 5.5 of 6, I came across a quote that caused me to emit a silent huzzah!
The scientific method has been called, “What we know about how not to fool ourselves.”
No, science is not one belief system among many. In fact, it may just be an antidote to belief. At least bogus belief.
What is science? Too often science is presented solely as the products of a process/enterprise. This strikes me as akin to pointing to a sack of rice and calling it agriculture.
We need more words!
There are the products of science and there is the enterprise or process of doing science.
Here is my spur-of-the-moment definition of “science.” At least the part I think needs to be emphasized.
Science is a set of thinking and information-gathering strategies developed to reduce error.
What differentiates science from non-science? The types of thinking and information-gathering processes used to come to a conclusion or form a belief.
Some fundamentalists view science with hostility, claiming it leads to atheism. There may be something to this, actually. In a sense, science is the process of subtracting the bogus to arrive at the more real (what we can more confidently know). When you apply scientific thinking to religious claims . . . they tend to fall away. In the area of supernatural belief, the atheist is one who has let fall away ideas unsupported by the best methods and technologies of thought.
The audacity! Dropping to the cutting floor another person’s cherished ideas!
Scientists aren’t arrogant or close-minded. They are confident that their cognitive tools are a prophylactic against bogus belief. And they are willing to put ideas to the test! And so they continue to advance, in part, by subtraction.
Jul 23 2009
433 Eros is not a planet nor even a moon. Yet this cosmic body orbits the Sun between Mars and Earth. NASA refers to it as a “tumbling space rock.” It is the second largest near-Earth asteroid.
I’m glad I don’t live on a tumbling space rock. I much prefer our partly-cloudy and very wet spinning, space-spheroid.
[photo thanks to NASA]
Jul 23 2009
Envision a person praying complimentary words or singing praise to their god. “God, you are the greatest and I love you.” From a psychological perspective one might ask, What are they doing? Is there a naturalistic explanation for this type of behavior? What are the evolutionary roots, if any?
Some behaviors we are so accustomed to they seem “natural.” They need no explanation, they just are. Consider the human smile. A smile is just a smile, right? Yes and no. Yes, smiling is an integral part of human nature. But an evolutionary perspective will cause us to wonder from what more rudimentary form the behavior originated. In the case of a smile it is likely the mammalian fear grimace, which shows the teeth, served as the lump of clay from which the smile was shaped. Over generations a flash of the teeth came to signify a friendly acknowledgment. Interim stages may have communicated “I am slightly afraid of you, so don’t worry, I will not attack or attempt to dominate you.” Perhaps. We do see smiles and smile-like gestures in other species and the social situations they are used in. So speculations about the origin of the human smile are built upon something, rather than being simply assumed or accepted as immaculately human and beyond understanding.
As for friendly prayer and praise to a god, I have ideas where this type of behavior originated. These ideas are built upon an understanding of primate behavior. Before sharing more specific details, I offer this teaser: through prayer and praise human beings engage in a verbal grooming of their invisible alpha.
Jul 23 2009
Evolution has been, and still sometimes mistakenly is, portrayed as a grand parade to the new, the better, the more complex. But two things, at least, make this flatly untrue.
First, the failures are an undeniable yet indispensable part of the parade. Sure, they tend to be fleeting and thus partly invisible — joining the parade for a mere half block before veering off to nowhere — but to overlook them is sheer folly. The numbers, were we to count them, are staggering.
Second, there is no force pushing evolution inextricably toward the bigger and the better. None that seems more than a human projection, in my opinion. Consider this recent science news headline:
Male Sex Chromosome Losing Genes By Rapid Evolution, Study Reveals.
That’s right, the male “Y” has been losing size (and hence complexity) over time. It’s shrinking. And not due to immersion in cold water.
With evolution, whatever works in one form or another, persists. Whatever doesn’t, disappears. Sometimes. If we are talking organisms, that is absolutely true. But non-working (non-functional) characteristics of organisms can persist if there is no cost the selective pressures can subtract. Sometimes.
I’m not an evolutionary biologist, so don’t take my word for it. I also wouldn’t advise taking any single thinkers word for anything. I suggest aiming for a deeper education.
Jul 22 2009
I think I’m going to start doing more to “save the Earth” . . . by eating it. Different parts of it, that is.
Specifically, I want to start growing more edible decorations in our yard. Edible by humans. The above is a society garlic plant. The leaves are edible, but not terribly tasty. Still, not bad.
I wonder, could I grow a hedge that would make a good salad? The only challenge would be to rig up a collection bag to the hedge trimmers. “Honey, I’m going in the yard to trim the bushes. What kind of greens do you want with dinner tonight?”
Monsanto — I sense a lucrative opportunity. Get gene splicing!
Jul 22 2009
Roughly 100 million years ago, during the Cretaceous period, there was an explosion of new life forms. Flowering plants appeared and spread and differentiated, blooming across our planet. Why? Good question.
A intriguing explanation has recently been outlined by researchers at Wageningen University. Previous answers included the ability of flowering plants to more quickly evolve along with insect species and pollinators. The new, alternative answer: flowering plants are more edible than non-angiosperms.
Huh? Wouldn’t that be a bad thing?
It seems that part of the benefit to easily digestibility is litter. The ground beneath gymnosperms is relatively poor. Their litter is very slowly transformed to nutrients for other/next plants. Think pine needle vs. maple leaf. Angiosperms -
were capable of improving their own conditions with their easily degradable litter.
Bacteria and small organisms found them “yummy.” Furthermore, there came a positive feedback loop between species.
Ultimately, the improved edibility of the leaves and fruits of the flowering plants led to a tremendous increase in the number of plant eaters on the Earth, which opened the way to the rapid evolution of mammals, and finally to the appearance of humans.
Fascinating. Later today I may just eat an apple and throw the core into our compost pile. The micro-organisms will readily eat that part.
Rapid and efficient recycling — what an innovation!
-
[source]
Jul 21 2009
Any idea what this is? My guess is that you have eaten this at least once in your life. Some people . . . every week. Every day? But it isn’t a main dish. It’s not really even a dish. One last hint: magnification = x60.
Identity below the fold.
Feeds