Jan 27 2010
A cabbage palm frond. But don’t try to eat it. Even if it is lunch time. Maybe it would be better to reach for some lettuce instead. Though you probably won’t find any in your yard. Better head to supermarket for that.
Jan 27 2010
In a sense, without evolution there would be no agricultural industry, no livestock farming. Many if not most of the original, “natural” forms of our animal and vegetable food sources are paltry versions of what exist today. What changed them? Call it guided evolution.
In his book, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, Richard Dawkins devotes two chapters to how, for centuries, human beings have been agents of selection (“Dogs, Cows and Cabbages” and “The Primrose Path to Macro-Evolution”). He writes,
“Darwin’s special genius realized that nature could play the role of selecting agent.”
Dawkins sagely recognizes, however, that the line we draw between “natural selection” and human (unnatural) selection is spurious. Whether selection is intentional (i.e., breeders selecting rock doves–pigeons–for coloration) or unintentional (birds with stronger bills better surviving in times of drought…see The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time) — to the organism in question it really doesn’t matter.
If we bother to look around us, we would see that evolution is happening all the time. Okay, maybe not in terms of obvious morphological changes. But in terms of the ebb and flow of gene prevalence in a given population. Yes, ebb and flow. Only with a misunderstanding of evolution can one extract “progress” from it. Many important genetic changes could be described as “one step forward, the same step back.” A good example is human immunity. Our immune systems are constantly changing. Some might say “to stay one step ahead of viruses and parasites.” I would say to be able to side-step the forms we are likely to encounter in our current environment. And that’s what counts. That’s all that counts. In terms of natural selection.
Because the small steps of evolution occur at the genetic level, they seem invisible. That many species continue to change but ultimately “stand still”–according to our perspective–means that evolution can be tough to detect in real time. And, as Dawkins points out, variation among the offspring of specific members of a population is greater than the variation among generations of that population. It’s the nature of the evolution beast. So to speak.
Back to intentional selection. Dawkins’ recent book brought me a a true insight. Because he puts it so well, I’ll quote him verbatim.
“Artificial selection is not just an analogy for natural selection. Artificial selection constitutes a true experimental – as opposed to observational – test of the hypothesis that selection causes evolutionary change.”
I can see that. Thanks Richard.
Jan 27 2010
Black-and-white thinking is juvenile, immature, uninformed, unsophisticated, naive. Sure, it would be nice and simple if everything in our world could be fitted with a black or white hat, like in a old-fashioned Hollywood Western: black for all bad, white for all good. But the world is more complicated than that. The adult who insists it isn’t behaves like a simpleton.
In terms of large (successful/efficient) pharmaceutical companies, yes, some of what they do could be classified as bad. But do they no good?
Yesterday I came across this science article: Little Pill Means Big News in the Treatment of Multiple Sclerosis.
MS is a fairly nasty degenerative disease, and over a quarter of a million people in the US suffer from it.
Multiple sclerosis is a disabling neurological condition which usually starts in young adulthood. It results from the body’s own immune system damaging the central nervous system. This interferes with the transmission of messages between the brain and other parts of the body and leads to problems with vision, muscle control, hearing and memory.
The news of a promising treatment for MS is a good thing. Medical researchers at Queen Mary, University of London, have discovered that the drug Cladribine holds such promise (generic form of LEUSTATIN, originally developed by Janssen-Ortho Inc.).
Compared to patients who were taking a placebo, those taking Cladribine tablets were over 55 per cent less likely to suffer relapse, and 30 per cent less likely to suffer worsening in their disability due to MS.
That’s a robust result. Will it hold up in subsequent trials? For the sake of those with MS — NOT the sake of Big Pharma’s bottom line — I hope it does.
I have no blind allegiance to pharmaceutical corporations. I recognize there are better drugs, there are worse drugs; there are better industry practices, there are worse. I also recognize that in our current healthcare system, it is important for drug companies to prosper. No, not to generate extravagant profits. But to make the money it takes to continue to research and develop drugs. Drugs that hold great promise for whomever may need them. If Big Pharma doesn’t develop and test medicines, who will?
Jan 26 2010
Hey young thinkers, see all those bright dots in the night sky? Connect them and see what you can create! The beauty of this activity is that there is no right answer. Of course, your creations will likely reflect ideas your culture has planted in your mind. And perhaps the applause you anticipate for creations that “make sense” to your social group.
Still. There is no wrong answer. Which means there is no right answer.
[photo thanks to NASA]
Jan 26 2010
Ever here that grade-school song about skeletons?
With the toe bone connected
to the foot bone,
and the foot bone connected
to the ankle bone,
and the ankle bone connected
to the leg bone.
New research has revealed an odd sort of connection between body parts. Well, not the parts so much as how they function. Here’s the science:
Around one in every 100 people is mixed-handed. The study looked at nearly 8,000 children, 87 of whom were mixed-handed, and found that mixed-handed 7 and 8-year old children were twice as likely as their right-handed peers to have difficulties with language and to perform poorly in school. [source]
How, pray tell, is the “handedness bone” connected to the “tongue bone”? The most logical possibility at this point is that the brain’s natural dominance of one hemisphere over the other is disrupted. And brain lateralization/dominance plays a role in handedness (righty/lefty), language, and a host of other behaviors.
Teachers may want to keep an eye out for young learners that keep switching their crayon from one hand to the other. Those students may have some problems in school further down the line.
Jan 25 2010
Okay, maybe I was in a bit of an irritated mood when I read the following headline. An earlier event must have put a thorn in the paw of my intellect and then wherever I stepped I experienced unpleasantness.
Scientists Show How Brain Tumors Outsmart Drugs
I didn’t know tumors had brains. How else could they outsmart drugs?
Am I being too literal? I certainly don’t shy away from using metaphoric language myself. See this very post for examples. (Can headlines be stupid? Can you really get a thorn in your intellect?)
I think what is at issue is the propensity for some science writers to personify (make willful agents of) elements of nature and thus make them more appealing to human social instincts. While in many cases this can be a harmless practice, my concern is that by catering to these instincts we contribute to a misunderstanding of the universe.
So how is my use of metaphorical language different, if it is? First, degree of separation. I am not introducing supposedly hard science to the world, via a news release. My blog posts are further downstream — to once again resort to metaphoric language. And when writing about the actual science, as opposed to my analysis of it, I try to shy away from potentially misleading use of metaphor.
No, if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got to hit the road.
Damn, it’s just so easy to resort to figures of speech.
Jan 24 2010
We live in a strange world. A person can get killed for drawing a cartoon. For drawing. That’s crazy. If you think it’s crazy, exercise your freedoms to say so. Resist those who, for one reason or another, would like to put freedom on a leash.
[cartoon thanks to Jesus and Mo. Keep up the sacrilege!]
Jan 24 2010
A great discussion/debate my developmental psychology class would have each semester would begin with my projecting this statement onto the screen:
Dads are expendable.
A little background: The title to a weekly segment of the class was “Textbook Dig.” I’d give the students time to research the topic in their books for supporting or refuting information. Then all students would “vote” on the truth of the statement — agree, disagree, mixed. I’d chalk up the score. (It seems that people love to be heard and have their opinion counted.)
Scoring complete, the discussion would begin. Task number one: analyze the statement itself. “All dads?” “Expendable how?” Etc. And then students would share the information in the textbook that led them to their conclusion.
Invariably, a number of students couldn’t resist bringing their own experiences into the mix. Because I had this experience, therefore the statement is true. Or, for such a contentious topic as this one, some students would argue from social convention. Well, this is the way it’s supposed to be. Reasoning detached from any evidence would be confidently offered. Such as Without a father in the house boys won’t have the role model they need to grow up to become men.
Besides moderating, I’d ask follow-up questions. While that sounds true, is there any research that supports it?
For this specific topic I recall ending the sessions with this sentiment: There may be a difference between what is necessary and what is optimal.
The above is perhaps a long-winded way of introducing new research I encountered yesterday. You can see how the title would have grabbed my attention:
Do children need both a mother and a father?
While the research doesn’t provide a slam-dunk answer to the question, it does frame the problem nicely. And offer findings from one type of prior studies to suggest an answer.
The presumption that children need both a mother and a father is widespread. It has been used by proponents of Proposition 8 to argue against same-sex marriage and to uphold a ban on same-sex adoption….
The lead article in the February issue of Journal of Marriage and Family challenges the idea that “fatherless” children are necessarily at a disadvantage or that men provide a different, indispensable set of parenting skills than women.
“Significant policy decisions have been swayed by the misconception across party lines that children need both a mother and a father. Yet, there is almost no social science research to support this claim. One problem is that proponents of this view routinely ignore research on same-gender parents,” said sociologist Timothy Biblarz of the USC College of Letters, Arts and Sciences. [bold mine]
As for the findings:
“The bottom line is that the science shows that children raised by two same-gender parents do as well on average as children raised by two different-gender parents. This is obviously inconsistent with the widespread claim that children must be raised by a mother and a father to do well,” Biblarz said.
Of course, left unaddressed is the more common situation of children raised by just a mother. As for the title to this post, “When Two Moms are Better,” I believe that having two parents, whatever sex, is likely to be, on average, better than one. For many reasons — emotional, social, financial, etc.
Additionally, there were these specifics to the research finding:
Indeed, there are far more similarities than differences among children of lesbian and heterosexual parents, according to the study. On average, two mothers tended to play with their children more, were less likely to use physical discipline, and were less likely to raise children with chauvinistic attitudes. Studies of gay male families are still limited.
No definite answers, but the science marches on. With each advance we become better able to answer questions. Even questions that pertain to issues of conventional morality and current social policy. Science is important.
Jan 23 2010
Okay, the image quality is pretty bad. But for a toy digital microscope, what can you expect . . .
Can you guess what “it” is? Hints: the title; x60 magnification; and the darker-to-lighter-to-darker coloration.
Answer below the fold.
Feeds
