A while ago I wrote a rather sarcastic post on plate tectonic denialists. I got a reply from Harry Dale Huffman, who claimed that plate tectonics was easily disproved and directed me to one of his blog posts. Go take a minute and read it. I'll be waiting after the jump.
Okay. Done with that? Let's talk about it. First I want to discuss warning signs, then logistical problems, and finally the actual content of the post. Maybe I should do this in reverse order, but at the moment I don't want to do it that way. I'll say at the beginning this is not an ad hominem, because I will discuss the actual content of his claims, but, if you want to claim poisoning the well...I'll partially accept it. However, I do believe that Mr. Huffman falls into the larger category of, to put it bluntly, quacks. If you read through that post, you get a lot of references to paradigm changes, that this is obvious if only people open their eyes, that these has been denied or dismissed by scientists, etc, etc. This should be a red flag for most people, it's the kind of language that you hear most often among the quack or pseudo-scientific community, be it evolution deniers, climate change deniers, HIV-AIDS deniers, etc. This is not to say that Mr. Huffman is not an intelligent man and cannot do actual research. I am sure he is quite competent, but it is to say that in this particular area, he is a bit of a quack.
It is interesting, if not particularly surprising, that many intelligent design supporters tend to be engineers. People who actually work in the field of biology see through ID rather quickly and don't accept arguments about design because, very simplistically, biological units don't follow the same rules and processes of man-made objects. There are some superficial similarities, of course, but deeper study reveals that this is a false analogy. Call it a special case of functional fixedness - after working for so long on design and being trained to look for elements of design, it isn't hard to see that these people often try to import their views on design into natural systems. So, yes, we tend to be rather wary when people start talking about design in natural systems - it hasn't really panned out yet.
As to logistical problems - there are a few problems. First, he claims that "seeing is believing." The short response to this is easy: "Wrong." The more detailed response is, as should be expected, more complex. Indeed, in some ways, seeing is believing. However, it is very easy to be wrong about what you believe, or what you believe you are seeing. Optical illusions are the easiest example of this - I would presume that Mr. Huffman would not argue that these illusions represent the reality of the situation. Likewise, perhaps Mr. Huffman would like to look at the Face on Mars (from the 1970's observation) and explain why that is or is not evidence of advanced civilizations and design on Mars. Perhaps Mr. Huffman also believes that the fractal patterns of ice crystals is also evidence of intelligent design of ice, or perhaps not. I would also question him about just how far he wants to take this statement - should we deny the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum outside of visible light because it is not readily apparent to the naked eye? Also, if this were really so evident as Mr. Huffman wants to claim, why is it that only he has noticed it, and that this "evidence" has completely escaped the best minds of the planet for centuries? This is a rather common issue among quacks - they always claim some secret knowledge that is "readily apparent," "completely obvious," "denied by modern science," and "discovered by hard work under the oppression of the establishment."
On another point, Mr. Huffman isn't really clear about how the whole movement of continents worked in the past and why it won't continue now. He doesn't deny that the continents have moved, he merely wants to argue that they have been purposefully moved and now, apparently they have stopped moving. As that I've gotten a lot of hits on this blog from the last plate tectonics post, and as that most of those hits are from queries that are looking for evidence specifically to disprove plate tectonics, I think it is important review some of that evidence here. This does not necessarily bear directly on Mr. Huffman's arguments, as he does not seem to deny previous continental movement, but we'll get to that.
First, we have the overall shapes of the continents. It isn't hard to see that they seem to be pieces of a large jigsaw puzzle and that they could be all fitted together. This was the original impetus for the theory of continental drift, but originally there was no mechanism identified for why the continents should move. Secondly, we have fossil distribution. The distribution of fossils of the same type and same edge along the edges of continents (and sometimes across continents like Antarctica) only makes sense with the assumption that at some point in the distance class the continents were either connected or vastly closer together. Third we have paleomagnetism. When a rock is formed, its magnetic alignment is frozen. We can see that looking at rocks of a certain age, if we draw the lines of their alignment now, they align somewhere in space above the earth, or are misaligned. If we assume the same continental placement/distribution that makes fossil dispersion make sense, then the magnetic alignments converge on the poles. This is a nice finding. We also have the evidence of the distribution and types of earthquakes and volcanoes - the majority occur along the proposed plate lines and actually serve to define these lines rather well. Likewise, at the proposed sites of new upheaval, such as the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, we see the expected gradient of age in rocks as you move further from the Ridge. That is to say, the youngest rocks are along the ridge and they get progressively older the farther away you move from the ridge. Likewise, we have the continued growth of mountain ridges where plates are grinding against one another. There are also symmetrical magnetic bands on either sides of these ridges, showing evidence of the previous polarity reversals and weakenings in earth's history. These are all converging lines of evidence that point towards the movements of the continents, and point toward plate tectonics, but as that Mr. Huffman does not directly disagree with previous movement of continents, they do not particularly bear on his points.
However, Mr. Huffman does want to deny current or future movement. He argues that the mechanisms of plate tectonics are physically impossible. Currently, the mechanism is described as convection zones of heat underneath the crust. This heat originates from (in a very small way) residual heat from the formation of the earth, and, more importantly, from the continued radioactive decay within the earth. A large problem with Mr. Huffman's ideas is that he would have to account for how this heat is going to be released if not through the movement of the plates. A bigger problem is whether or not he have a mechanism at all for previous movement, if not from the release of this built up heat. I would be very interested to know his ideas on how previous movement occurred and why it should stop now without catastrophic results, or perhaps he intends this.
Mr. Huffman's main argument seems to be a recapitulation of Pythagorean and Platonic ideas about geometric shapes and how they are reflected in the world or universe. Johannes Kepler struggled with this idea for a long time before eventually rejecting it - realizing that no matter how much the mathematics, design, and beauty of it all looked, the evidence just didn't back it up. I think this is largely the same case. Mr. Huffman wants the design to work out so badly that he's willing to flub some of his "data." Look again at his drawing of the prime lines that bisect the globe. Notice how there's not really much consistency in how far away some of these lines stray from the actual coast lines. Some are very close or even cross land, while others are pretty far into the ocean. His "Asian" line is drawn out to the coast of Japan, while his "African" line avoids Madagascar. Why are islands considered part of the coast line only some of the time? Why are his South American and North American lines allowed to cross land at certain points? Why is the Gulf of Mexico's coast line ignored while cowing the importance of the line's proximity to the Yucatan peninsula? Why, after discussing how important it is that these lines align along the east coasts of landmasses, does he note the importance of how close the fifth line comes to the ~west~ coast of New Zealand, which is not even a continent? What does Mr. Huffman have to say about the continued movement of the continents, continued subduction, continued growth of mountain ranges along the plate lines, and continued expansion along places like the Mid-Atlantic Ridge? Why is this moment in time, when these lines are possible to draw, so important?
It seems after all of this that Mr. Huffman is perpetuating two errors - 1) Confirmation bias, and 2) anomaly hunting. First, Mr. Huffman is dismissive of any evidence that would invalidate his claims, or even where his own method doesn't particularly work (e.g., his fifth line), but is quick to jump on anything that helps his bias towards ancient geometric traditions. Secondly, Mr. Huffman's argument doesn't go much beyond "isn't this interesting?" and taking what would appear to be a coincidence (if it is even that) to something very meaningful. These sorts of anomalies are to be expected in any system that is large enough or complex enough. In fact, it would be much more interesting if they ~weren't~ present. Mr. Huffman also falls into the same sort of argument that many evolution denialists fall into - the use of odds. These are almost always red flags and are typically quite misleading. Let us look at any crystal formation - the odds of each atom being in exactly the place it occupies is extremely low. The odds of being able to place, at random, each atom into its correct position are so low as to be past the point of being fathomable. However, these crystals exist - they have to take some state. This sort of argument is contained within the field of statistical dynamics, as stated in a previous post. What other system is Mr. Huffman considering when he calculates the odds of the continents being in their present location?
So, in conclusion, I would like to hear Mr. Huffman's explanation of why the continents are still moving, why mountain ranges like the Himalayas are still rising, and why new material is still appearing at mid ocean ridges, as well as to explain the inconsistencies within his own presentation. I do not agree with him, clearly, and I do not think that his case is anywhere near as self evidence as he would like to claim.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Plate Tectonics Redux
Friday, August 21, 2009
How I wish I had those squidly tentacles of doom...
So I'm just going to link to PZ at Pharyngula for this post on the age of the earth. It's too well done and too good of a take-down for me to really try to add anything to it other than "Snaps!" and, perhaps, "Boo-yah!"
Ah, science. Helping people more closely approximate reality for over 300 years.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Commemorating Apollo 11
I wanted to make a short post to commemorate today as the 40th Anniversary of the first Moon Landing. A few days ago was the anniversary of the launch, and I meant to put up something then but didn't get around to it due to being sick for a while. Anyways, recovering now, and I would ask you to take some time and browse around The Big Picture's post on the Apollo 11 mission, or go check out Phil Plait's blog for a bit of a more personal reflection. I wasn't alive at the time of the landing, unfortunately, but it's had its impact on me in other, less direct ways.
The Moon landing was an important and historic achievement, perhaps largely political in its time, but in the long view it has come to symbolize something about humanity in general - our curiosity, our outward and upward reach, our scientific and technological advances, and the general hope that pervades our species for a better world. There is something impressive about the speed with which we went from the first flight to stepping forth onto another world. Likewise, it is hard to believe that is has been close to 40 years since humans have really left Earth orbit. I hope we return soon, with forethought and a well-laid plan, and continue to press out into not just our solar system, but eventually the cosmos as a whole. In a way, we are returning to the primordial oceans that birthed us, we are going home.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
The Livelihood and Some Thoughts
I handed in my final paper today. I'm officially done with the requirements for my Masters degree. So, I figured I'd update you a little on my life.
I realize that it's a bit arrogant to think that any of you would actually care about what's going on in my life. When I started this blog, I think I seriously thought people would, or would be interested in some of the topics talked about on the blog. First time blogging naivete, perhaps. Anyway, I've reconciled myself to the reality that this blog is really more of a mouthpiece for some of the things that I, personally, find to be more interesting, or a place to scribble down a few musings as I go, and I'm okay with that. In that vein then, indulge me.
Some of you know me well enough to know what I've been doing with my life for the past little while. For those of you who don't: I finished my BA in psychology and philosophy & religion at Appalachian State University in 2007. I was accepted into the MA in Divinity (note, this is distinct from a Masters in Divinity) at the University of Chicago. I count this as a rather prestigious honor for several reasons - it's a selective school that offers a very excellent education; I've met a lot of really great people here and had the ability to expand my cognitive horizons; and, lastly, I had a lot of extra time during my coursework to take classes in another field of interest - cognitive neuroscience. Now, those of you who know me slightly less well may be saying at this point: "What the heck? YOU? In a Divinity School? But you love science and most of what you talk about is science!"
Yes, that's certainly true. I've always maintained, however, that I am not an expert. I consider myself an educated lay person, and when I don't know something, I look it up or, even better, consult with an actual expert in the field. They're nice people, and are generally willing to answer questions related to their study. A lot of scientists are like that - some are genuinely surprised that other people are even interested in their work. Now, as I said, I've also been taking classes in cognitive neuroscience/psychology, and when I'm in the lab or doing coursework there, I consider myself to be a scientist-in-training. I'm trying to pursue a Ph.D. in the cognitive sciences, but with the current economic situation and universities tightening their belts...well...it's tough. So, no, you should not consider me an expert or a "scientist" just quite yet, but I am certainly working towards that. I will never be an expert in evolutionary theory, or biology in general, that's true. However, I do consider my opinion on these matters to be among the educated lay people, and will try to direct any questions I cannot answer to someone who actually has had that sort of training.
More below...
So why did I pursue a Masters in, essentially, religious studies? Well, that's a bit of a tough one. I deeply appreciate the historical-critical method of investigating scripture, for one. This is the method that is taught in most divinity schools and even seminaries in the country. It is not devotional - that is, it does not attempt to exam the text for life lessons or absolute truths. Instead, you learn about the text - who wrote it, when, why, and how. You learn that scriptures were written by particular people at particular times for particular reasons. Thus, you also come to understand that some doctrines cherished by you or others may not have originally been in the text you're so committed to. For instance, the doctrine of the divinity of Christ or the Trinity are not present in the oldest manuscripts of the New Testament. Tom Sheepandgoats, a guy that I've had fairly frequent contact with, is fond of pointing out some of this information in support of Jehovah's Witnesses having a more probable and better translation of Scripture in these cases, at least. This point, I will certainly grant to him - the Jehovah's Witnesses are right - these doctrines are later insertions. However, we would still disagree as to the actual existence of God and all the rest. Tom, if you're reading this, I don't mean this in a pejorative sense, but an apt analogy would be for when I come into contact with people who believe in Scientology or Spiritualist writings - indeed, your translation may be closer to the original or what was originally intended by the author, but, we're still arguing about things that are unlikely to be true anyway.
Yes, indeed, I am an atheist. Or at the very least, a very strong agnostic (not in the sense of thinking that no one could ever have knowledge about God, but more in the sense that I think it's incredibly unlikely, but I simply do not absolutely know). So why am I studying in a divinity program? Well, for one, I was once a very committed believer. I have that as a personal part of my history, and indeed it has influenced my later life. I likewise find religious belief and behavior utterly fascinating. True or not, religions have been some of the most important motivators for human behavior in all of history. A very, very, very minor point was that I was tired of hearing people complain about people like Dawkins and Dennett by saying "Oh, they don't consider the advanced theological opinions," mostly from theologians. Personally, I have studied these opinions, and the reasons behind them, and I find them utterly unsatisfactory. Part of me wants to understand the psychology behind belief, but I've also come to realize in pursuing this degree that I really want to focus on the scientific fields more and pursue cognitive neuroscience as a career.
I'm also getting married. I'm engaged to someone who makes me happier than I have ever felt, and I feel wonderfully blessed (in a non-deity way) to have met her and to be with her. To think that out of all the billions of years of the universe, out of all the possible people who could be here in my or her place, out of all the trillions of things that could have been different so that we would never have met...to have our particular molecules come together here, at the same place and the same time, is truly wonderful and astounding. Some would call this a religious experience - in the sense that it is awe-inspiring and wonderful, then indeed, yes, I would agree. But I need no God behind it to make it so wonderful. Some would complain that this is the monk mistaking the finger pointing for the moon. I would say that these people are more ones who want to argue that the elephant's wings are its most noble and glorious quality.
I want to say, briefly, that I actually don't have that much against religious belief or behavior, so long as it does not interfere with other peoples' freedoms. I understand the motivation, the drive, behind witnessing to others, and to an extent, the desire to make into law your own position. I have been there, but I also came out of it and realized how terrible it really was. Here's the essential problem for a democracy though - how can you have a successful democracy, and democratically represent and respect those who refuse to recognize the organizing principles behind democracy? That's a post in and of itself, and I'm not going to get into here. All I'm going to say is that I am strictly opposed to people trying to legalize their own opinions and make illegal any other opinion on the basis of a faith statement. I would make that statement stronger, and simply leave it at "make illegal any other opinion," but the actually issue is a bit more complicated, and again, I don't have the time or the desire at the moment to go into it at the moment. If a person has religious beliefs, that's absolutely fine. If they want to voice them, likewise, that's fine. But, I stress, what is also fine is if I want to argue with them over those beliefs. I am deeply appreciative for Tom Sheepandgoats. I don't agree with him on several issues, but I am very glad to have that conversation with him and come to better understand what I actually think about these issues through those conversations. Would I like to have him come to agree with me? Well, in some ways yes. In other ways, I more appreciate the dynamic of disagreement.
So, I want to leave with a few thoughts right now. I'll be posting more on interpretations of books of the bible or classical theories of religion over the summer, and whatever else tickles my fancy, but for right now, I want to ask a simple question. Why is it that we spend so much effort, time, money, and volume against foreign terrorists who want to kill American citizens, ostensibly for the freedoms that we enjoy, when we have domestic terrorists who have bombed American facilities and assassinated American citizens? Yes, I am talking about anti-abortion extremists. These guys have had a long history of violent protests, intimidation, assassinations, and bombings, culminating most recently in the death of Dr. George Tiller in Kansas. This was a tragic occurrence, and what makes it even more so is that there is no sanctioning of these extremists. When was the last time that you heard of anti-abortion advocates being killed for their viewpoints? I hope that it doesn't come to that, but it is disturbing to see entire media networks, such as Fox News, pushing the type of behavior that led to Dr. Tiller's death. Why have we not come to the conclusion that we can differ in opinions without the need for violence, and if violence occurs and seems endemic to a position, perhaps it should be watched more carefully. Now, I personally am disquieted by late-term abortions. I would personally prefer that they not happen except in life-threatening cases. However, I also believe that it is a matter between a woman and her doctor (and her god if you happen to believe in that sort of thing). My personal opinions should not take away the freedom of someone else whose situation I do not and cannot know.
In a (perhaps) related note, a question occurred to me recently while I was taking a class on Ancient Near Eastern Mythology and Magic. We have been covering magical rites in ancient Mesopotamia for the second half of the course, and the majority of these rites deal with eliminating witchcraft and the influence of witches. The majority of these rites involve creating figurines of a witch and warlock, setting up an alter and a crucible, burning incense, invoking a deity, listing the afflictions the supplicant has, accusing some unidentified person as the one causing the afflictions, imploring the deity to find and destroy these persons, burning or otherwise destroying the figurines, and then offering praise to the deity and washing oneself clean.
What interests me, beyond the rituals themselves (the incantations and other literature is quite fascinating in and of itself), is the relationship between ancient Mesopotamian witchcraft proceedings and the types of things that happened in Europe. Specifically, in ancient Mesopotamia, witchcraft is handled primarily through ritual acts. These acts are often legalistic in nature and tone, but they are directed towards an "unknown" witch, warlock, ghost, or demon. The ritual is performed, the supplicant feels better, social order is maintained, and no one is hurt. It's a relatively bloodless system. Occasionally, and I stress that, occasionally a real person would be accused of witchcraft and be brought to trial, but it was incredibly rare, as far as we know. In medieval Europe, on the other hand, witchcraft accusations were primarily directed against someone within the community and were dealt with, often, by execution. An interesting side note is the folk vampire literature in Europe - a recently deceased person's spirit would return to cause mischief and kill livestock, etc. The body would be exhumed, mutilated, and "dealt with" in an appropriate way. While perhaps disturbing, still, no one was actually hurt.
Why the difference, then? This may be an impossible question to answer. There are many factors that could be in play here. Maybe we simply don't have the relevant texts - that's certainly possible, our excavations are limited and incomplete. Maybe there are socio-economic factors underlying these differences, but what are they? Maybe there are socio-cultural factors to consider - certainly Mesopotamian cultures were very concerned with the idea of a single universal law that bound both gods and men, and they had a god, Shamash, the sun god, who saw everything and would judge every case fairly. Shamash would deal with witches righteously, destroying them through his associate Girra, basically deified fire. However, this still doesn't answer the question of why in Mesopotamia witches went unidentified, or why they didn't accuse other people in the community directly, as happened in Europe. There could be religious factors in play between the Mesopotamian religions and Christianity - Mesopotamian religions are more explicit in saying that witchcraft is not always evil and they can serve a useful purpose (at least until the later periods). And I would like to note that I am not blaming this difference on Christianity. I'm simply pointing out an observed difference and trying to offer possible suggestions which may interact with one another.
If there are any historians or other professionals in the field who happen to read this blog and can or want to comment on this issue, please feel free, I'd love to hear your opinions.
Alright kids, it's getting late and this has gone on for far, far too long. I'm going to bed. Expect more posts in the near future as I'm finally done with coursework.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Friday, May 8, 2009
Plate Tectonics - A Theory in Crisis?
Let's talk a moment about the theory of Plate Tectonics.
Scientists have this new-fangled theory about the continents sitting on huge "plates" that slosh around all over the place and collide with one another. They even say that at one point, all the continents were all joined up together in one big piece! They say they have a lot of evidence, and let's be honest, we're not arguing that there are certain facts we can agree upon, it's simply the interpreation of these facts that we disagree with. I mean, we've all experienced earthquakes or tremors, and this kind of micromovement we can agree upon, but macromovement? The movement of entire continents? I think not! Were you there to see them move? Also, isn't the whole thing rather circular? Earthquakes occur along fault lines and we know where fault lines are because earthquakes happen there? I'm not saying we shouldn't teach plate tectonics in geography and geology classes, merely that we should teach the strengths and weaknesses of the theory, teach the controversy, and let the kids decide. After all, it is only a theory.
More below the fold...
Of course the above paragraph is mostly bullshit. Plate tectonics is indeed an accepted science, and there is a lot of evidence for it (some quite recent). The point is, the exact same argument made by creationists against evolution can in fact be used against every area of science, and this is what some of them are actually driving at. Part of the problem, for some of these people, is that science doesn't deal in proof. It deals in evidence and the most likely explanations for a series of facts.
So, to begin with, let's get a few things straight.
A fact, in science, is roughly equivalent with the idea of data (though humanity studies love to point out that data is what is "given" while a fact is "made"...thanks guys). It is an observation that can be objectively verified. For example, it is a fact that when I release an object, it falls down. It is a fact that the sun appears to rise in the east. It is a fact that earthquakes occur. It is a fact that the magnetic orientation of rocks on various continents align to a point in space as they are now, but if the continents were closer together, they would converge on the north pole. It is a fact that we have a large, though certainly incomplete, fossil record of species that seems to show transformations from one to another while preserving significant morphological, geographical, biomolecular (in some special cases), and chronological similarities. It is a fact that we have witnessed events of speciation the lab and in the wild within the past few decades. It is a fact that we have witnessed novel mutations bringing about a net increase in fitness. Several of my previous posts deal with these issues and more.
A law, in science, is a description of how certain principles operate, typically expressed in mathematics. For example, there are Newton's Laws of motion. These describe the ways that objects behave and finally pin down those really hard observations like "the harder you shove something the faster it moves." I'm not trivializing here - F=ma is a very important law, and it took us centuries to nail it down. Good going, Newton. Likewise, there is Newton's Law of Gravity - it describes to a fair degree of accuracy how two bodies of mass interact with one another in the absence of other forces. There are also laws in population genetics, a field with some notable influence in evolutionary biology. A law is not the "highest" class of scientific ideas - they are merely a subset of them. Getting a law named after you is a pretty cool thing, though.
A theory, in science, is a well-tested explanation that attempts to tie together a large set of facts and laws and explain why they are the way they are. For example, we had Newton's Law of Gravity for a long time (as well as his theory), but it failed in some important aspects, specifically with the orbit of Mercury. Also, his theory had low plausibility. It wasn't until Einstein that we understood why the planets orbit the way they do (i.e., due to the curvature of space-time), and also picked up some pretty cool new predictions, such as gravitational lensing. These predictions, a necessary component of any theory, allow for evidence supporting its veracity, but they don't "prove" a theory true. A theory never graduates into a "law" or any such thing, it either stands the test of time, or is falsified and rejected in the harsh reality of the scientific world. What works stays and gets refined over the years, what doesn't work is rejected and scorned. Sorry, them's the breaks. So, for example, we still don't say that Einstein's Theory of Relativity has been proven true - people are constantly trying to disprove it. However, so far, no one has been able to offer verifiable evidence against it. It stands thus far, but may be replaced in the future. That's one of the wonderful things about science, we go where the evidence leads us, and we're willing to change our minds. Hell, we may even win a Nobel Prize in the process. Sweet! This is also why the "just a theory" claim is so laughable. A theory is a battle-tested and hardened contentor in science. We want to teach our theories, they're the best explanations we have in the world.
Anyways, back to what this has to do with plate tectonics and evolution.
I've heard the arguments I started out with said about evolution all the time. It's really pretty trite, I must say, and five minutes with a google search or a good librarian should be able to clear up these misconcepts. Darwin proposed his theory of evolution in 1859, and within a few decades, the scientific debate over the matter was settled - Darwin was right. Now, the funny thing is, I hear people say all the time, "We have evidence for microevolution, but not macro. That's just fantasy." What makes this laughable, beyond its merely being invented by creationists, is that it comes from our rather peculiar time in history. Had we lived when Darwin first published his book, the argument would have been exactly the opposite. Darwin based his theory on evidence from palentology, biogeography, comparative anatomy, physiology, and embryology and drew a very large picture. He had no workable theory of inheritance, the "micro" of this particular scale. It wasn't until the 1950s, actually, until we had a solid model of that, which allowed for the neo-Darwinian synthesis. Since that point, Creationists have been making a huge effort to ignore or create elaborate explanations for all the evidence that had existed and continues to mount against them.
One of the more laughable comments from creationists is the "Where you there?!" question, intended to cast doubt on any scientific theory, because, as they say, it is supposed to be based entirely on "observable evidence," which for them means only which can be seen under a microscope in a lab. I'm sorry, creationists, but science is bigger and more imaginative than that. When you have a theory that allows for predictions, and can go out and test those predictions, and follow the evidence, well, that's science. For example, Neil Shubin knew that there had to have existed an intermediary between fish and amphibians. He predicted, based on the theory of evolution, when this type of creature had to have lived. He went out and found rock of that age (I may go into how geological layers are laid down, and why there is no single geological column that contains all the layers, in another post), and bam...there Tiktaalik was. More confirmation of the predictions of evolutionary theory, which goes to offer more support for evolutionary theory. Listen, if you want to say evolutionary theory is false, well, okay, you've still got to explain the facts of evolution that we've seen, as well as come up with evidence that the theory doesn't work, and supply a theory that has at least as much evidence and plausibility as evolution has going for it now.
Now, the plausibility bit is important. The old saw is "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," and that's true. The more prior plausibility you have, the less extraordinary the evidence you must have to make a claim believable. For example, if I am known to love cookies and tell you that I had a cookie this afternoon, you'd probably believe me. If, however, I am deathly allergic to cookies, have shown you how terrible my reactions are in the past, and then saunter in and tell you that I just got done eating twenty-three pounds of cookies, you'd probably ask for some proof or just assume I'm bullshitting you. It's the same in science - the work is still based on evidence, but the more out-there your claims, or the more it directly contradicts all the evidence we have so far, or proposes new mechanisms, the more evidence you have to have to convince people. Likewise, this is why supernatural explanations don't work - they have low prior plausibility and they are utterly untestable. Science is a field in which testing is supreme. When you say you want to insert an untestable, unnatural explanation in there, you've got a contradiction of terms.
Some people say that evolution is a circular argument - the survival of the fittest really means that whatever survives is the fittest. Well, not really. Evolution predicts the differential survival of individuals dependent on the interaction of their differential genetic and behavioral characteristics and the dynamic environment. "Fit" is not a static thing, it changes from environment to environment and from species to species. Sometimes, otherwise fit organisms die in catacylsmic events. Too bad. What you end up with the differential survival of alleles in populations. That's the important thing - evolution is about populations.
Evolutionary theory takes evidence from biology, palentology, geography, geology, chemistry, and many other fields to create a comprehensive explanation for the diversity of life forms and generate new predictions. There are significant controversies in evolutionary theory, but they're not the ones that creationists tell you about. They're about things like gradualism versus punctuated equilibrium and the overall influence of genetic drift versus natural or sexual selection. If you doubt evolution, with all the evidence for it, I would argue either you haven't done your homework well enough, have been indoctrinated against it, or should also doubt that gravity exists, that the earth is roughly spherical, that modern medicine has anything going for (as so much of it is based on evolutionary theory anyway), or that atoms exist. We're talking about the same levels of evidence here.
Anyways, look up plate tectonics sometime. It's a fascinating field, and some of the lines of evidence for it are just great. Science, people!
Lastly, a guy I've had some frequent debates with, Tom Sheepandgoats, is fond of a phrase: "Why should I listen to scientists telling me that my car doesn't work when I'm driving along in it?" It's pithy, I admit. I can understand the feeling behind it - some of science is quite counterintuitive and some of it is incredibily difficult to grasp. However, my response would be that it was in fact science and technology that built the car and explain how it works in the first place - how chemical reactions release energy stored in hydrogen bonds in the hydrocarbon fuel and powers a drive train to produce rotation in the wheels, which interacts through friction with the road to propel the car foward. In fact, it seems more the creationists who want to argue that the car can't work, even though it clearly does. They continually deny evidence put before them, or argue things along the lines that because the drive train can't steer the car or because the steering wheel can't propel the car, cars are impossible, or because they haven't personally seen any tractor trailers, they deny the possibility that tractor trailers exist, even though other people have seen them.
For one example of this, I'm going to go for radioisotope dating. You get a lot of claims about radiocarbon dating being wildly inaccurate or incorrect. For example, Kent Hovind loves to talk about living mollusks being dated to millions of years old, or shrimp, or marine seals....hmm...there's something going on here. His statements are actually true - these creatures have been dated with obviously wrong dates, but they are also incredibly misleading. In one video, Hovind even cites one of the studies he's quoting from, but he doesn't give the title - which clearly states that the paper is about fraudulent dates for mollusks and marine animals and why it happens. Listen, these creatures are filter feeders that tend to live in and feed on carbon-14 depleted environments. This becomes incorporated in their shells and bodies, and then when other marine predators eat them, they likewise absorb depleted carbon. It's true, radiocarbon dating is very inaccurate for marine organisms, and this is one of the reasons that scientists don't use it for those types of creatures! See, that's the other thing. Scientists aren't stupid. They know the limits of their tools and they're careful to describe exactly what they're doing with what and why. You use radiocarbon dating for a narrow range of materials and it has a limited time period in which it is generally accurate. Luckily, we have many other kinds of radioactive dating, all of which can be independently verified by other means. Likewise, creationists often play up the "random chance" element of evolution - the mutations. They always forget the selective elements, or the evidence that mutations can increase fitness. If you need a real-world, real-time example...let's use viruses, Influenza A H1N1, for example. There you go. Thank you, done.
That's about it for now. If you want to comment or debate any of these issues, feel free to reply. Likewise, if you see any mistakes, go for it.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Brief Update on ID in Florida
A Tampa radio station has taken up a line on State Senator Stephen Wise's bill on Intelligent Design, which he hopes to raise when the Florida Senate meets in March. Scientists have stood up against them, and good on them! Wise is highly influenced by Ben Stein's Expelled. Listen to the last half of the radio segment on the bill. Senator Wise has exposed himself as having literally no understanding of evolution whatsoever. "I've always liked the story the, the person says 'we came from monkeys...we came from apes.' Well, why do we still have apes if we came from them?"
FAIL, Senator Wise. FAIL.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Florida Intelligent Design Bill
A State Senator from Florida, Stephen Wise, has introduced a bill that will require the teaching of intelligent design in biology classes. Note, thus far, the language of the bill seems to be not allowing the teaching of ID, or suggesting it, but actually requiring it. Now, I and others have argued before that this is essentially the same as requiring the teaching of astrology in astronomy classes, or teaching tarot card or I Ching readings in a psychology or economics class. It just doesn't make any sense and there's no evidence for it, but still we have people who want to use the court systems to get their ideological views enforced. Much like various religious groups and the passage of Proposition 8 in California - not content to wrestle with their ideas in the public arena, they want to see enforcement of their views from the legal arena. It's sneaky, underhanded, and manipulative.
Let me offer you this question - are high school students competent to decide whether evolution or intelligent design is "true?" I would argue no. This is not to denigrate the intelligence of high school students, I've known some of them to be quite bright. The problem is that they do not have the experience and education to intelligently decide on these. Do we teach the various schools of interpretation of quantum mechanics to high school students and "let them decide?" (Do we even teach quantum mechanics in high school?) Do we teach high school students about every religion out there and "let them decide?" Do we teach them various economic views and let them decide, and set our policies to their decisions? Do we teach them ethical theories and let their decisions on which seem right guide our laws? Would we be in a better place if we did? I'm not entirely sure on those, but, I would still argue that in all these situations, these kids simply don't have the background or experience to make informed decisions on these matters. It is not up to high school students, or state senators, for that matter, to determine the "truth" of any of these theories, it is up to the evidence at hand. And thus far, the evidence is fully in support of evolutionary theory and on modern astronomy, not intelligent design and astrology. On interpretations of quantum mechanics and ethical theories, I will fully say I am not qualified, and I do not think there is enough evidence yet, to really say which one has won out. The other problem is that the ID argument is actually an attempt to completely tear down the very basis of scientific inquiry itself. It is an attack against the fundamentals of a system or method of inquiry which has given us the modern world which we take for granted today, including the ability for me and my ID opponents to post their opinions on web pages that anyone in the world can view and criticize. Are things perfect? No. No they are not, but we're doing the best we can. This is my earth, my country, my home, my body, and my brain...they aren't perfect, but they're fine, and I'm doing the best I can to improve them. Is that horribly oversimplified and cliched? Oh, definitely.
Lastly, this story reminds me a thought experience Carl Sagan used - the Dragon in My Garage. I'll reproduce it here, just to give you the flavor of it:
"'A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage'
Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!
'Show me,' you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.
'Where's the dragon?' you ask.
'Oh, she's right here,' I reply, waving vaguely. 'I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon.'
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.
'Good idea,' I say, 'but this dragon floats in the air.'
Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
'Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless.'
You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
'Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick.' And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility. Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative -- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."
Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons -- to say nothing about invisible ones -- you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.
Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages -- but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.
Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence" -- no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it -- is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion."
I want to consider one more scenario - what if everyone believes in their Dragons in their garages, and instead of allowing others to argue that "No, there probably aren't dragons in these garages," or "No, I don't believe in them. When you have evidence, I will change my mind," or "No, the evidence actually argues against that idea...here's a more likely hypothesis," the dragon-believers enforce their views through the court systems. No market-place of ideas or debates in which their views would fail, no careful engaging of their non-existent evidence...just, push it through the court system piggy-backing on the general respect and tolerance of dragon-belief that pervades the country. It's a simple strategy. Under-handed and dishonest, but simple.
The battle for reason and evidence as the basis for education, especially science education, is far from over.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Classical Theories of Religion: A Background
I said a while ago I was going to write a series of posts on classical theories of religion. I've put it off for a while, but I'm going to try to rectify that now. This post will be a brief, general background on the classical theories of religion. So, enjoy, or just skip if you're not interested.
The general goals of a theory is that it aims at a general definition - to generate an abstraction from particular cases or distill a common ground and basis. Likewise, with more modern theories, there is a constant interrogation of general definitions and assumptions.
In terms of religion, we hit an interesting problem at the very beginning. When does "what is religion?" become an askable question? The most general answer to this is that there is a moment in which a cultural encounter allows for comparison. Basically, in the encounter with the Other, one can compare oneself and the distinct Other, and "religion" becomes a category. Now, unfortunately, in a lot of ways, there also developed assumptions about the definition of the category and its characteristics - religion was constituted as good, and established an ethno-centric hierarchy. Thus, there was also the development of the "duty," as the "good, religious people" to bring "religion" to poor, backwards, inferior, subjugated people.
More below the fold...
Interestingly, with Muslims, the category distinction became one of faith and truth, and thus, not a benighted heathen who needs education, but instead a dangerous adversary. The colonial encounters were much less charged than encounters with Muslims, mainly due to power dynamics/gulfs.
Colonial encounters led to very early definitions and categories of religion, but our modern idea of religion and all its multiple forms arose during the Protestant Reformation. For the first time, instead of having cross-cultural encounters, people within the same group divided over religion - Catholic and Protestant.
Of course, the Reformation ended in the 30 Years War, a bad time all around. For the first time in European history, a war about religion was waged among those of the same religion. Religion came to shoulder the blame for the war, regardless of how it spilled out into local political realities. In reaction to this overall disgust, a new regime of truth emerged to contest the churches and faith - The Enlightenment. Reason was made to be the highest virtue; universities, academies, salons, and secret societies were formed; and the culture came to privilege debates and polemics, real questioning, and a multiplicity of opinions and research. Also, this was the first moment in which there was a general refusal to grant the object of study the right to define itself, which has become incredibly important for modern research in all fields.
The Enlightenment was not the end, though. A new reaction appeared - Romanticism, a reaction towards emotion, sentiment, and personal feeling. Romantics took the "local perspective" to be in danger and in need of being saved. They valued the distinctive qualities of a specific people and places. They also felt that the Enlightenment was caught up with modernity and progress, and were throwing out tradition and continuity in the process.
Romantics insisted on the inspired nature of poetry, on sublime contact with something more than oneself. They established a new definition of religion that privileged individual participation. The Enlightenment ran out of steam when it granted religion a sphere of its own, even a private one; as well as when Kant argued (for better or worse) that we can never know of the immortality of the soul or the existence of a deity through reason alone.
There's your basic introduction to the time period that I will be discussing. Most of these theorists will move back and forth across the Enlightenment/Reason and Romanticism/Emotion divide. These categories have stayed with us, and we have switched between them several times. It may be impossible to fully escape these options, though I feel that it's certainly a false dichotomy. Keep all this in mind for future posts. Note, I will not comment on my personal feelings about these theories and theorists, I'm just trying to present some general information.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Obama and Science
Obama is now the 44th president of the United States of America. I'm proud of us in a lot of ways, and I'm proud of him. The Inauguration was interesting to watch, and I found the fub during the Oath...well, adorable. It was a very human moment. Apparently, that's been corrected.
He has some interesting plans for our foreign policy coming in soon. I'm glad to see these, though of course we'll have to see how these pan out and the consequences/problems associated with them.
Lastly, I'm very glad to hear that Obama has pledged greater transparency in his administration. I am cautiously hopeful about it:
Obama has pledged to return science to its rightful place during his administration. And he has recognized non-believers in his speech. These are both good signs. Let's make sure that he follows through with them.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Running with the Red Queen
Phil Plait, aka The Bad Astronomer, regularly blows my mind with his science posts. He's got a market on really fascinating astronomy items, but let me try to steal two:
First, something weird is going on with our cosmic ray data. There appears to be a mysterious source that's pumping out a surplus of cosmic ray electrons in the 300-800 billion eV range. That's high-powered, which means that the source has to be fairly close - within about 3000 light years. Phil goes into the speculations on what's causing it, and I have to agree with him. What if we determine its direction as coming from "everywhere"? Wouldn't that be interesting? Here's a link to a ScienceDaily abstract from the article itself.
More below the fold...
Some new and exciting news from Mars! Subterranean glaciers! Woo! Total Recall was right! Now if only we can get Arnold in a mechanical woman's suit and...oh...wait...nevermind.
Guys, let's go back to the Moon. Let's get it right, get the technology down, and then head to Mars. We need this as a species. For the inspiration, initially, for the science, second, and for habitation last (but perhaps most importantly). I hope our President-elect is as far-seeing as he has made himself out to be.
Along the lines of making Mars habitable and new findings, to bring it a little closer to Earth, here's an article that details some new extremophiles. Now, this has implications for Mars exploration, if for nothing else then just showing how extreme of conditions life can withstand, if it ever developed on Mars in the first place. W00t! Go life!
Also still in the spacey mood, I'm a little late in posting about this, but a Universal Declaration of Human Rights has launched into space. Symbolic? Yes. Inspirational? I hope so. Likely to do much good? ...Eh. We'll see if this even hits the media.
I'm going to toss a can of worms out there - the newest article I've found on the eusociality/superorganism debate. E.O. Wilson's latest work hasn't been well received by a lot of biologists, and I can imagine that this is only going to stoke those flames higher. It's not a debate I'm competent enough to engage in intelligently, so...have at it bio-guys!
Lastly, some articles more in my field:
First, we've learned that neurons do not regenerate in part because of a down-regulation in the mTOR pathway. Active during cell development, but as the neuron matures, this pathway gets basically cut off. Scientists recently used genetic techniques to silence some of the key parts of this down-regulation mechanism in mice. Lo! And Behold! Neuronal regeneration!
Now, let's be clear. Of the neurons that sustained injury, about 50% survived in the mutant mice, but this is compared to 20% in the normal mice. That alone is a significant finding. More interesting, however, is that about 10% of the surviving cells in the mutant mice regenerated axons, and regrowth increased with time. That's fascinating! Of course, it does not yet provide proof that such regrowth is functional - more time and study is needed before we have a clear idea about that, but this is a great first step. It also tells us that maybe we've found one key in the puzzle - maybe we can get more than 10% of surviving cells experiencing regrowth. Again, the answer is more and better studies.
Lastly, a neurology article that suggests that pure sensory processing accounts for a great deal of our decision-making behavior. As I've said before, I do agree with determinism, but I don't find it depressing, and I can understand how it's a useful heuristic to talk about free will. This article is interesting to me because of its mechanical perspective - these are the kinds of things that we can and should model in neural networks. "But is it conscious?" should become a relatively unimportant question - this is complex behavior that appears conscious, even though it's just signal weights in the brain. Good stuff.
I also just want to say that I'm really busy right now with school, work, and Ph.D. applications. I'll be back next week, but don't expect much from me this weekend unless I just can't handle staring at my regular reading and such anymore.
Other blog writers, do you guys have anything to contribute? I'd appreciate it greatly.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Wow...just...Stunning
There's some really excellent exoplanet news coming in today from two studies. Pictures!
Fantastic! Absolutely stunning! And, of course, The Bad Astronomer totally beat me to it.
Well, he is the astronomer, and knows a heckuva lot more about it than me. Go read his summary! It's wonderful!
Woo! Science!
Saturday, November 8, 2008
I Have Seen Forever, and It Is Full of Stars
A quick update, with a major tip o' the telescope to the Bad Astronomer. Apparently the European Southern Observatory has released the deepest ground-based look at the universe ever taken, mostly in the UV spectrum. It took several years and 55 hours of observation to get this image, so take a look:
Doesn't look like much initially, does it? Well, maybe you should check out the hi-res version (warning: 32 Mb file).
If that still doesn't seem like too much, let me say that there are only a few stars from the Milky Way in that image. One, which is quite interesting, actually appears as a funny sort of rainbow because it moved over the years it took to gather this image (yeah, physics and geometry of optics!) Almost all those points of light...they're all galaxies. It evokes Sagan: "billions and billions." And the other thing, this is a small swath of the sky. Everywhere we point our telescopes, we get more of the same. Also interesting, these galaxies are old...really old.
Head over to the Bad Astronomer for a breakdown of some of the more interesting things he picked out with his first glance.
This is the wonder and beauty of science. The Universe is more marvelous, enormous, and ancient than we had ever imagined.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Taking Place Science Quickies
Okay, so, getting back to some of the original intent of this blog, I'm going to toss you guys some quick science abstracts below the fold. Give me some feedback here, if you want, on what kind of stuff you want to hear about. If it were up to me, I'd mostly be posting neuroscience or cognitive psychology, as that's my field of interest.
Anyway, see you after the jump (quantum jump, that is...)
First of all, we have an abstract for a study that shows that development puts constraints on variety in evolution. Now, this article is interesting for several reasons. First of all, it is an interesting question: nature certainly seems to have an abundance of strange creatures...but the extent of this strangeness is nowhere near as large as it could be. For example, look through the creature creations of Spore players. Why aren't there things like that walking around? Also keep in mind, Spore creatures are bilateral and have a single spinal cord. So, basically, Spore players are exploring the design space of vertebrate, bilateral creatures...a much smaller subset of the total possible space. Why is it that creatures occupy only a small subset of possible design space?
This article suggests that developmental factors (basically gene regulation, all sorts of fun epigenetic factors, etc) allow for great variance between taxonomic groups, but less variance within a group - groups begin to occupy more diverse body types, but within a group, they tend to cluster. An interesting finding, overall. I'd like to know what level of taxonomic group they're talking about, so I'll probably be getting the actual paper. I suggest you do the same.
A good abstract on why some people are better at learning languages. Basically, it boils down to a correlation of being able to better discriminate sound differences. Impersonators, vocalists, etc, should be better at learning second languages, at least statistically. Of course, this is not a causal argument - some people may simply have an altered brain structure that would make them good at both. I do wonder how plastic that area of the brain is, however, and if you could train it...something to look into.
Next, we have the hypnotic induction of synaesthesia. Now, i know, I know. "Hypnosis" should set off all sorts of skeptical alarms in your head. I'd be interested to read the entire paper, though, and I'd like to see some confirmation from other lines of evidence - basically, that there is wide-range enervation between sensory modalities and that normal people merely have strong inhibition of these connections. That's about the only model I can think of that this would work for. We'll see. It's an interesting first find, and if it's confirmed by converging evidence, all the better. It actually tells us something about how the brain is hooked up.
Here's an interesting study on individual differences in memory damage as result of damage to the hippocampus. Now, in the literature, the hippocampus is thought to be key to memory formation. Damage that, and you get amnesia. For example, H.M., a famous case, had his hippocampus and adjacent parahippocampal gyrus removed to treat epileptic seizures. Well, his seizures stopped, but he also developed severe anterograde amnesia and retrograde amnesia for events about 11 years prior to the surgery. This study shows, however, that damage to the hippocampus does not necessarily lead to memory deficits. The authors admit it may be specific location and pathology - we just don't have technology sensitive enough for this, but it does put up a challenge to current neuroscience models of memory that involve the hippocampus. Look for more research in this area soon.
Finally, my favorite, the selective and safe erasure of memories in mice. Now, I read this article early this year for a class, and the abstract's just popped up on Science Daily. I find this one incredibly impressive. One of the basic take away messages is that recalling something is not like playing back a video tape - a steady-state relic of the event. Instead, recall is actually "reconsolidation" - you reconstruct an event when you remember it. This is one of the basic reasons why eye-witness testimony and memory in general is so dubious.
So, the basic paradigm is, you get a creature to "recall" an event, and then you suppress it's ability to form a memory. In this case, by the over-expression of a particular protein in the NMDA pathway. This thereby erases that memory. Now, hopefully this is memory-specific, and it seems to be, at least as far as we can tell with mice and the experiments that have been run so far.
Some people get a little antsy when you start talking about things like this..."The gub'ment's gonna come in an' take my mem'ries!" and such. Well, no...first of all, these mice were genetically engineered to be able to over-express this protein. We aren't. A drug could be developed that mimics the effects, maybe. But that's a long way down the line. Secondly, while there is certainly a potential danger in this technique, it could also be a powerful therapy tool. In fact, the "reconsolidation" idea can powerfully inform cognitive therapy already. On the other hand, the ability to erase particular memories, say, for war veterans, could be a useful tool if the patient so desires it.
Anyway, that's some of the science news that's caught my eyes in the last week or so. I'm going to try to get back on a more regular posting schedule. We'll see if it lasts.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Back to the fronts.
I've been gone for a little while. I know, I'm sorry. I had to take a vacation of sorts. A very good friend came up, and I've been showing her the city for the week. I also needed a break from work. Not in an "oh, I hate my job" sort of way. I love my job. It's just, I've been going pretty much non-stop this whole year, and it was nice to sit down for a week and just have some fun.
So, basically, I took a science vacation. We went to the Field Museum, the Museum of Science and Industry, the Shedd Aquarium, and the Adler Planetarium. If you're ever in Chicago, get a City Pass and visit these places. Plan on spending about a day on each. Maybe...MAYBE condense the Aquarium and the Planetarium into a single day, but definitely plan on a day (at least) for both the Museums. They're absolutely amazing. Amazing. And full of science.
I highly recommend the "Evolving Planet" exhibit at the Field...absolutely stunning. Standing among all those fossils, all those records of the past is absolutely awe-inspiring. As you hit the Cambrian and the Devonian...well, just keep in mind the accusation by Creationists that "all the major body plans and lifeforms appeared during the Cambrian explosion and haven't changed much since." Right...like...trilobites. And Anomalocaris saron. And Opabinia regalis. And Hallucigenia sparsa. Go check out anything on the Burgess Shale, or any other record from the Cambrian. I guess the question to keep in mind when viewing this, and say, anything like the placoderms of the Devonian is "Okay...well, where are the rabbits? Or the cows? Or the mammals? Or the birds? Or the amphibians (though, granted, by the Devonian, we begin to have ancestors of those), or the reptiles? Dinosaurs?" Nope. None of those. We don't even have tetrapods until the Sarcopterygii in the Devonian. Apparently, tetrapods are not a major body plan or grouping of animals to the more silly Creationists. Oh well. Good job, Discovery Institute.
One of the greatest things in the Evolving Planet display, though, is the hominid fossils. And very clearly, there is a large screen which shows the branching of the hominid tree. Take a glance at the chart on this article on human evolution. Note. It is a not a linear model with each species evolving into the next, as we so often see in cartoons like:
Wrong! The picture is a bit more like this:
The analogous argument of "Well, if we evolved from monkeys, why are their still monkeys around?" is defeated thusly: First, we did not evolve from modern monkeys. Rather, monkeys, apes, and humans all shared a common primate (or proto-primate) ancestor. Second, this is like saying, "If a lot of Americans are descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans around?" Because we branched off into separate groups that have gone their own ways. Just because your grandparents had one child does not mean that they could not have had another. You can have cousins (trust me), and given enough time and differing environmental and genetic pressures, you can grow to be quite distinct families. If you have cousins, ask yourself if the question "which side of the family really carries on the family line?" makes any sense. It's the same basic story for human evolution, just on a much vaster time scale.
(Short side note - yes, evolution does require vast time scales. Many Creationists want to argue for much shorter time periods. Luckily for us, the evidence is completely against them. Any attempt to show that the universe is a mere 6,000 to 10,000 years old runs into inexplicable problems, unless the Creationist is willing to argue a few things: 1) God miracled away all the problems, which...fine, but it isn't science, and God doesn't spend much time talking about these miracles (which, believe me, would be much more fantastic than feeding a few thousand people) or 2) God is actively trying to deceive us, knowing that we would eventually discover science and reason. If you want to argue for a mischievous and deceiving God, then go right ahead, but please, take it to its logical conclusions.)
Anyway, Field Museum - highly recommended in my book. All the exhibits are fantastic.
As for the Museum of Science and Industry, I could go there every day. First off, their space exhibit is incredible. They also have the real re-entry pod for the Apollo 8 mission. I cannot describe to you the sense of awe and connection with human history that standing in front of it brings, or just touring the exhibit in general. It makes me sad that in the intervening years after the last moon mission (Apollo 17) we have yet to set foot on another world again. As Carl Sagan said, we have waded our toes out into the surf of the cosmic ocean, but have returned to our mother's apron strings and have yet to venture out again. This is not to say that we haven't done some spectacular science in the meantime, nor is it to say that I am not a fan of the robotic missions (each are fascinating and incredibly valuable). It's just...there's that sense of wonder that fills you every time you see these objects of our history and you know, that despite all the problems and dangers (there were many and they were substantial) that we did this. We, as humans, working together, made it to another world and returned safely. And we can do it again.
Another huge bump for the MSI is the U505. Again, words fail me to describe the feeling as you walk through the upper levels of the exhibit, slowly descending and learning about the history of the boat. Finally, you turn a corner into the exhibit hall and...well, there it is. The entire boat. The real thing. The real, smack-the-steel boat sitting in front of you. It's just...it sends shivers down your spine.
Lastly, the Adler Planetarium. The shows are amazing, and the exhibits are great and very informative. If you want to know what we're learning about space, go check it out. If nothing else, go to the "Shoot for the Moon!" exhibit, which details the history of the Gemini (and a bit about the Apollo) missions. And yes, they currently have the Gemini XII re-entry module.
So, all this to say...I've been gone, but now I'm back. I feel better, rejuvenated, and I've spent a lot of time soaking up some quite wonderful science. So, to all you pseudo-scientific and woo-woo masters out there, all I have to say is: "Bring it on."
Sunday, August 24, 2008
A Response to Another Blogger
As you may have noticed from this post, Tom Sheepandgoats and I have been engaged in an ongoing debate. I have to say the debate has been quite civil so far, which I'm very glad for. I've enjoyed it. Tom recently posted on his own blog a bit of a response to the debate as a whole, and specifically about some things that Okada said. I responded, and as the response was really long and deals with several issues that I've been meaning to cover here, I'm going to repost my response below the fold.
So, go read Tom's post, or re-read the original debate, and then come back.
Back? Good, here we go:
Tom,
I, likewise feel compelled to respond to this, though probably not for the same reason that Okada has.
First off, I think it is entirely a false premise to say that we, as atheists, or even just as human beings, do not object to the types of things that parents indoctrinate or inculcate in their children. You list a large array of things that children apparently pick up from their parents. Let me also include racism, fanaticism, hatred, bigotry, zeal, jihadism, strong nationalism, etc, etc.
I indeed object to indoctrination in all of the above cases, as well as in those cases where parents teach their children to not value education and learning, or curiosity, or creativity. I am disappointed in quite a lot of things about the way that children are raised. Religious indoctrination is merely one item. Do I speak for all atheists? No, certainly not, just as I assume that you do not presume to speak for all Jehovah's Witnesses. Most of the atheists that I know, however, would like to not even have to argue about modern religion, much in the same way that we don't have to argue about unicorns, leprechauns, Thor, or Zeus (most of the time). We would like not even to have to label ourselves atheists, in the way that I imagine you do not label yourself an atheist for all the gods that you do not believe in (although, technically, you would be defined as such.)
In fact, I am horribly disappointed my a lot of other atheists, as I am disappointed by my fellow Americans, and my fellow human beings. Atheism is merely one part of my identity, and it is in no way consuming of most of my thought. Unfortunately, however, I feel the need to continually bring it up and argue from the non-religious point of view because religions, now more than in a long time, are encroaching more and more in our laws, government, and public life. Also, there is a very strong belief prevalent in at least America that atheists are somehow sub-human and not to be trusted or sometimes, even allowed to live. That is a viewpoint that I will argue against for as long as I am able. But, likewise, I argue just as strongly against alternative medicines, legal issues, especially those involving the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and scientific topics.
Another important distinction to make about religious indoctrination is that the consequences for disagreeing with your parents is much greater than for other things. My father was very much a Ford man for most of his life. I like Jeeps, and now whatever gets better mileage and will get me where I need to go. Dad has in fact changed his mind as the years passed, and he hardly gave me any problems for not agreeing that Ford made the best cars in the world. I am not as conservative as my parents, as we do debate certain issues, but I have not been disowned for not agreeing with them. However, religion is another matter entirely. There tend to be much more significant consequences, both in the family and in the larger community, for leaving a religion or disagreeing with it. This can range anywhere from constant shame and guilt, to disfellowshiping, to a death penalty. If there are any other groups out there that are willing to kill or completely disown their children just for forgiving them, then I am equally against them. I do not think that any child should have to live with the fear of losing their parents' love, or losing their life, because they disagree with their parents, either on religious topics or otherwise. That is my stance, and hence, one reason that I argue against the religious indoctrination of children.
Likewise, sometimes it in fact is the case that people other than the child's natural parents have their best interest at heart. This is why we have social services, to take children out of homes where they will be abused or neglected. Natural parents do not, always, mean the best parents.
Also, as to:
"With religious yearnings nearly universal throughout human experience, it really is a fantastic idea to suggest that failure to break that pattern amounts to child abuse!"
Racism, for most of human history, has been nearly universal. Should we have, likewise, thought it ignorant, arrogant, or terribly wrong to try to teach children differently? You yourself have often said on your own blog that religions throughout the world have promoted divisions and hatred. I would find it odd that you call yourself an evangelical and yet would not say that you want the very same thing that we do? To "break the cycle" of most of this indoctrination? You want converts to your religion, we want converts out of religion. Whether that means atheism, agnosticism, or just a strong appreciation for humanity, it doesn't really matter to me. I am not horribly tied to my atheism, and if someone could actually convince me of the existence of a god, I would certainly change my mind.
And yes, let me use some buzz words: critical thinking and scientific evaluation. Presumably you want those you are evangelizing to think critically about their own faith. We want people to think critically about everything - not just their religion, but their political leanings, their ideas about medicine, and every scientific study that comes out. No one should get a free lunch.
I completely disagree with the statement that you are not "invited to consider" the fantastic improbability of evolution. In fact, evolutionary biologists, including Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins, have written entire books on this topic, and mention it quite frequently in their books. However, there is another important fact to consider. Let us consider a crystal - any crystal is an incredibly highly ordered arrangement of atoms. Statistically, that any crystal at all should exist by chance in the state it exists is vanishingly improbable - impossible by any stretch of the imagination, you might say. But, the crystal exists. And it has to exist in some state. Therefore, no matter how unlikely any one state is (and they are all equally implausible), one of them has to be correct. There is an entire field of chemistry and mathematics dedicated to this: statistical thermodynamics. I encourage you to read some non-technical treatments of it, as it is quite fascinating. There is another important point, however - crystals, as well as organic compounds like DNA, and evolution, is not governed entirely by chance. Crystals, molecules, and evolution are all guided by physical laws - the laws of physics and chemistry, and by natural selection. Mutation only allows for new variation, as does sexual recombination (otherwise, your children would be nearly perfect clones of you. I assume that you are willingly to admit that your children vary to some degree from you and your wife, and it is that range of variation upon which natural selection acts - as well as numerous other factors. Genes are one level of abstraction back from what selection typically operates on - it is the ultimate cause of evolution, but most often we do not directly see selection happening on the genome itself.)
Are mutations rare? Certainly. I take issue with the rest of this paragraph, however - "Gene replication seems accurate almost to perfection. "Typically, mistakes are made at a rate of only 1 in every ten billion bases incorporated," states the textbook Microbiology. (Tortora, Funke, Case, 2004, pg 217)"
I do not know of any case where only a single gene is replicated. I am forced to guess among several options of what you mean - translation from a gene to mRNA? There are errors that can occur here, certainly. Replication of all the chromosomes when a cell divides in mitosis? There are errors that can creep in here as well. However, the most important one, for the sake of evolution, is the process called meiosis, where germ cells split into gametes, and yes, mutations, as well as recombination, happens here as well, producing a large amount of variability. As for your quote that mutations occur only in 1 for every ten billion base pairs incorporated, this possibly a true but misleading statement, in the same way that moon hoaxers say that Hubble has never imaged the moon to search for the landers or rovers (completely true, but misleading, as Hubble cannot resolve that small of a detail, purely do to the laws of optics). The human genome has about 3.5 billion base pairs. Imagine, for a moment, all the eggs and sperm that are created over a lifetime - each one with another splitting of the genome. At least one mutation, statistically, would have to occur for everything three eggs or sperm. I don't think I need to remind you of the vast number of gametes that are in a typical man's ejaculation. Thus, it is statistically likely that every child (or every other child) will have at least one mutation. However, in fairness, I would like to see the entire context of the quote that you pulled this from, as it seems like a very isolated fact. Is this on average? An average rate for humans? In what kind of cells? Without this kind of information, this fact, in isolation, cannot be evaluated accurately or fairly.
Indeed, a fair amount (perhaps a great amount) of mutations are at least slightly deleterious. The majority of sexual acts do not lead to viable children, and the female body aborts a great number of fertilized embryos before they attach to the uterine wall, after they have attached, or at some time during the progression of the pregnancy. Miscarriages are the most spectacular example of this, but the rate of successful reproduction is statistically quite low. Nevertheless, if you have children, I feel that you will agree that children are born because people keep trying, and those mutations that are only slightly deleterious, or only cause harm later in life, or are completely neutral, or are slightly beneficial, or are very beneficial all get through. Slightly deleterious does not equal inviable, and sometimes, these can lead to beneficial traits depending on the environment. What's the evidence for this, you might ask? Sickle-cell is the most well known. A single mutation that causes anemia, but protects the body against malaria. All those children who did not die of malaria lived long enough to reproduce, and now in areas of the world that are heavily infested with malaria-carrying mosquitoes there are populations where sickle-cell anemia is ubiquitous, despite the costs of anemia.
Thus, "So such errors are not only extraordinarily unusual, but also only a similar infinitesimally tiny proportion of such errors are beneficial....that is, useful for evolution. And any winning mutation has to be beneficial enough to confer upon its recipient a significant trump in the "struggle for survival."" is completely inaccurate. A mutation need not be obviously beneficial to be useful for evolution. We recognize now more than ever the influence of genetic drift - that is, the random drift of genetic differences in a population that can lead to speciation. Likewise, "significant" is a misleading word. Any population model will show you that even a marginal benefit can exponentially spread through a population because reproduction, and things like the weather, are iterative functions, and small differences add up over the long run (this, by the way, is why predicting the weather more than a few days in advance is mostly a futile effort. Initial factors are hard to assess, and any small change can very rapidly spread through the whole system.)
If you need some more evidence for this, I suggest looking up Richard Lenski's most recent paper on his 20 year experiment with E. coli bacteria. He evolved one population to feed on citrate, a trait which no E. coli ever has done before. The process took about 20 years and 44,000 generations, and it only happened in one of his twelve populations. It came about through three mutations - one that was slightly deleterious and decreased the overall fitness of the bacteria, another that was entirely neutral, but set the stage for a third mutation, which in combination with the previous two, allowed the bacteria to create an enzyme to digest citrate, leading to the run-away reproduction of that population of bacteria. And yes, he has documented and copies of every generation of each population for the entire twenty years. He's even willingly to loan out populations, if you would like to run the experiment yourself.
I am not calling you, or anyone else, a "superstitious ignoramus." I think you are probably ignorant of advances in the field of evolutionary biology, but I am likewise. As I've stated on my own blog, ignorance is forgivable. Refusing to educate yourself (and I'm not saying that this applies to you), and then arguing against a position, is entirely unforgivable.
"These “probability” arguments, however (and there are many of them) are entirely inadmissible to science! Not because they are not weighty, but because science has no way to weigh them. They don’t adapt themselves to the scientific method, with its insistence on repeatable experiments." Again, wrong. Science is entirely a probability argument. We are sure that our standard models of physics are probably right, at least mostly. We are sure that our understanding of gravity is probably right, as we as we have been able to study it. We are sure that our understanding of evolution by natural selection is probably correct, due to the evidence that we have thus far, and its strong predictive value. All of these things, as all scientific theories are, are probability assessments of the likelihood of the theory being correct. Every experiment that is conducted, every prediction that turns out to be right (and in the case of evolution, I highly recommend that you look up Neil Shubin's finding of Tiktaalik for such a case), every time we make a prediction into a new area on which we have no previous evidence and it turns out to be right, every time we find new evidence that we previously had no idea about and it falls in line with our theory...these are all cases in which we are made more confident that our theories are correct. But they are always falsifiable, and we are always willingly to give them up (and yes, indeed, sometimes grudgingly) when new evidence comes around that contradicts our theories. Do not take this to mean that a single experiment with a negative outcome will completely overturn a scientific theory. There are a thousand reasons why an experiment could come up with a negative result, and most of them are due to experimenter or methodological errors. If you want to overturn a scientific theory, you have to do it the hard way, the scientific way, and establish a literature as strong (indeed, stronger) than the literature that precedes it. Einstein was not immediately accepted - he had to prove his case. What he had an advantage in was that relativity resolved several problems with observed celestial phenomena, such as the erratic orbit of Mercury. Likewise, Darwin was not immediately accepted - but he had the weight of evidence, a plausible mechanism, and strong predictive value on his side. This is not to say that evolutionary theory has not changed - in fact, Darwin may recognize only a little of it by now, especially since he had no understanding of genetics. The point is that every time we test evolutionary theory (and we do, daily), we find more supporting evidence for it.
Does this mean it is dogma? No. It is always possible to overturn. This is a problem that I often have when arguing with people who are not in the sciences - they think that scientists are all dogmatic thinkers and just toeing the party line. I think this shows that the person has not met too many scientists, been to any scientific conventions, or watched debates. We're contentious people. We love arguing. We love proving other people wrong. If nothing else, you could appeal to human greed - we'd all love to win that Nobel Prize. And how do you do that? Mostly by proving older scientists wrong. Science advances in this way. When you're constantly getting more evidence that you're correct, it gets boring. Every time we confirm Einstein, we're glad to have that confirmation, but we're all a little sad too - they're nothing new to learn. We don't appreciate "Eurekas!" or "Just as I expected" anywhere near as much as we love to hear a "Huh, that's interesting..." or "Man, I don't get this at all!" There's something new for us there, something else to figure out. Plus, it keeps us employed. Trust me, if anyone out there could actually disprove evolution, they would be jumping at the bit - a Nobel Prize, a new field of biology, and all the fame they could ever want. You say most people are guided by their lower emotions and desires, but you don't think that scientists, some of the most contentious people out there, don't want to be right about what they're studying, or to prove someone else wrong? I'm sorry, but it seems that you're arguing for a conspiracy theory involving every scientists who lives. That, I find highly implausible. But, if you have evidence, please show me. That's all I'm asking.
This is also not to say that there are not some major problems with evolutionary theory, but it is incredible to say that the people working in the field do not know of these. In fact, it is the scientists working in evolution who are the most vocal about these problems. Find any debate by scientists in evolutionary theory - read any book about it - read any paper published in the field. They are all quite aware of problems, and are all willing to work on them, or are already busy with it.
As to your example of Thomas Huxley - please. First, will you please find the actual reference of that quote? It is possible that he said it at some point, but most people credit it to him during an 1860 debate. The first commercial typewriter did not come on the market until years after. This is a pedantic point, and really is not the main point of my argument against this. The idea actually goes back as far as Aristotle, and has been very popular throughout the years.
My main point of argument against this point is thus: the example is intended as a thought experiment of an infinitely running random string generator. It is almost tautological that eventually, some string of Shakespeare will emerge from it. Indeed, computer models have already done just that. In mathematical terms, we call this "almost certain." Given an infinite amount of time, a random string generator will almost certainly come across a given string (e.g. "To be or not to be, that is the question.") If you increase the number of random string generators, the statistical time required goes down in relation to a very simple mathematical formula.
But, as I've said before, evolution is not a matter of pure chance. When you take out the purely "random" factor, the time required to match any string drops to quite a low amount.
Another point, though, to what are you comparing the improbability? To the probability of humans arising? Well, it's true that if you run back the evolutionary clock that humans may not ever emerge. No evolutionary biologist argues that humans have to arise from evolutionary principles. It is indeed an incredibly "lucky" happenstance that we are sitting here to argue today. That SOMETHING would evolve out of the chemistry of life is much more probable, and that, at heart, is all that evolutionists argue.
I also find it highly ironic that you take the "infinite monkey theorem" so literally when in the very next paragraph you chastise others for the same error. First off, the "experiment" when you cite was more of a performance art piece, and in no way replicated any of the conditions of the thought experiment. Likewise, it is a thought experiment, and one that can be confirmed mathematically. It also helps that we actually have evidence for evolution and speciation. I suggest you check out the literature, a lot has changed in the past 50 years, and a lot of really exciting stuff has happened in the past decade or less. If, on the other hand, you have some firm evidence that evolution is wrong, please present it. If, however, you merely find it highly implausible, well, I'm sorry, but that is never an acceptable answer. That the speed of light is a universal constant, no matter the frame of reference from which you measure it, seems equally implausible to many people. Unfortunately for them, every bit of evidence we have confirms it.
@ Vargas:
I feel like I've already dealt with most of your argument in what I've said to Tom. I would like to say, however, that biologists and chemists are indeed working on the issues of abiogenesis, and recently there have been many advances here. Please, again, as I would tell anyone, check the literature. Lastly, no scientist claims that life appeared "BLAM", just like that from nothing. That, in fact, is the creationist stance. Scientists are working out all the numerous complex pathways through which life comes about. Creationists are quite happy to say "There was nothing, then God did it, then life!"
@ Showme:
It's funny that you do bring up the fossil record, which is far and away one of the most constant proofs of evolutionary theory. Please, explain to me why you feel it is not. Likewise, Peking Man, and several others, were indeed hoaxes. But, it was other scientists who figured it out when they finally got to look at the actual bones (everyone was given only plaster casts originally, which significantly limits the amount of evidence that you have). Scientists figured out that Peking Man and other hoaxes were completely unbelievable, due to overwhelming evidence of the actual evolutionary pathways of humans. Another major disadvantage to early researchers was they they did not have the use of molecular biology - that is, DNA. If someone tried to hoax us again with bones, it is a relatively simple matter to sequence the DNA and judge just how related the bones actually are. Again, I will ask you as well to check the literature, and tell me what you have problems with.
@ Tom, again,
Again, please, tell me why you feel it is so uncompelling, and we can argue that. Personal incredulity does not mean much to me, one way or the other.
Likewise, I would agree that Jehovah's Witnesses probably have an internally consistent position. But, I would argue, so do most religions, and so do conspiracy theories. Once you allow the premise of a conspiracy or a supernatural entity, ~anything~ can be brought in as internally consistent with a little thought. This is why science is committed to methodological naturalism - if you accept the supernatural position, there is no way to distinguish between various hypotheses for their likelihood of being correct. Consider medicine: it is entirely possible that God or demons are the root cause of AIDS, diabetes, or any number of diseases. However, we have no way to prove this or distinguish between God, a demon, or pixies causing illness. Instead, we search for natural mechanisms and effective treatments (often, effective-enough or what we can do presently to alleviate suffering while we continue to do research). This is the only way science can progress, and I hope you will at least recognize this point. Once science allows for a supernatural explanation, any supernatural explanation, all bets are off for any progress. And this is not an argument against Jehovah. It is equally an argument against Hindu gods, homeopathy, therapeutic touch, chi, etc. I hope we're at least somewhat in agreement on this point.
Lastly, I severely disagree with this: "I think there is strong evidence for God. This post presents some of the probability sort….by smashing one position, it leaves the other one to stand." I think this is a false dichotomy. Even if you could completely disprove evolution (which, again, I'm willing to hear what evidence you want to bring), this does not leave God as the only other hypothesis, much less Jehovah of the Jehovah's Witnesses. It is merely one other possible answer. I think this is a major distinction between scientists and religious people. The scientists job is to come up with as many possible explanations as possible and test each one for plausibility. God is a possible explanation, but only if absolutely nothing else could possibly account for the data. Thus far, we have not run into that point. The religious person typically jumps directly to God as the explanation, without considering all the other innumerate possibilities in between.
Finally, I want to tell you that I'm also posting this reply on my own blog, because it deals with several issues I've been meaning to get around to writing a post for. I also realize this comment is ridiculously long, but I want to be thorough, and I'm certainly willing to continue this conversation here, or on my blog.
As always, I am eager to hear back from you.
-Ragoth
Posts
