I keep meaning to blog. Honest.
Earlier this year we were pottering down in Dorset, (not so much Comic Strip) in the rather small village of Sydling St Nicholas. This seemed close enough to a new fossil museum that I went off on the Saturday to see The Etches Collection.
It turned out this was a longer drive, involving single lane roads, a lot of fog, and dodgy radio reception for the All Blacks game. But it was worth it. The museum has been made from one mans collection - all from Kimmeridge - which is where the Kimmeridgian a period within the Jurassic gets its name. There are extensive clay beds around here, hence the fossils...
And as you'll have guessed, it's all part of the Jurassic Coast. Which, given time constraints, I didn't get a chance to go around.
The exhibition is great, not huge, but well laid out and an excellent museum. Had a good chat to the staff - yeah, I even interacted with people, it was that good.
I did take photos, but can't seem to find them. Oh well. Anyway, definitely recommended. I even got a coffee mug.
Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts
26 October 2017
26 January 2015
Cow lactation
A throwaway comment on Countryfile last night caught my attention, nothing startling, they were commenting that bobby calves were effectively useless - except that this farm was keeping them for 12 months and selling as rose veal. Their point was more that the main function of the calves was to put the cow into lactation, allowing milk collection.
All of which requires artificial insemination (or old skool bull rogering). There's a 2 month period between lactation and birth before allowing the teats to recover.
So, why can't cows be genetically engineered to lactate all the time? or for a 9 month period? In some countries cows are already fed a large number of vitamins, which arguably do more harm than genetic engineering.
Obvious problem is the consumer, for some reason they're happy to accept meat/milk choc-full of vitamins to improve milk and meat production. Probably as they don't realise it's happening. But genetic engineering, which is labelled, is rejected. It is, largely, ignorance, but I suspect if people realised how their meat/milk was actually produced then GE would be less contentious.
any thoughts why it's not looked into?
b
All of which requires artificial insemination (or old skool bull rogering). There's a 2 month period between lactation and birth before allowing the teats to recover.
So, why can't cows be genetically engineered to lactate all the time? or for a 9 month period? In some countries cows are already fed a large number of vitamins, which arguably do more harm than genetic engineering.
Obvious problem is the consumer, for some reason they're happy to accept meat/milk choc-full of vitamins to improve milk and meat production. Probably as they don't realise it's happening. But genetic engineering, which is labelled, is rejected. It is, largely, ignorance, but I suspect if people realised how their meat/milk was actually produced then GE would be less contentious.
any thoughts why it's not looked into?
b
19 August 2014
Little Black Higgs Boson
Todays blog includes literature, racism, and physics.
In 1899 Helen Bannerman published Little Black Sambo. A book I had read to me, as did the siblings. It's frequently banned as 'sambo' is classed a racial slur.
For those of you interested in the full version, with pictures, it's available on Project Gutenberg here. (that links to the HTML version, there's epub etc available as well).
It turns out she's also the grandmother (or rather, was) of Prof. Tom Kibble who discovered the Higgs boson.
Which is just the bestest random link.
B
In 1899 Helen Bannerman published Little Black Sambo. A book I had read to me, as did the siblings. It's frequently banned as 'sambo' is classed a racial slur.
For those of you interested in the full version, with pictures, it's available on Project Gutenberg here. (that links to the HTML version, there's epub etc available as well).
It turns out she's also the grandmother (or rather, was) of Prof. Tom Kibble who discovered the Higgs boson.
Which is just the bestest random link.
B
2 June 2011
Whats in the news this week
yes I know I said I'd mention the second round of gigs from the great week, but in the meantime, here's a couple of articles that have caught my eye.
The Pope has closed a Cistercian monastery. The monks (an ecclesiastical term referring to orders whose life is bound by vows of chastity, poverty and obedience) have been closed down due to 'loose living'. In particular, running a 24hr hotel with a limousine service, and possibly of more interest, concerts starring a lap-dancer-turned-nun.
I'm sure I've seen that b-grade...
One more serious article, that I may try and check out more of the science behind, is claiming that the home-test market for genetic diseases is a load of crock. In principle I'd agree with them, there's too many variables for most of these tests. But what was interesting is that they used a variety of kits, and all gave wildly different results. That's very concerning as most other variables were controlled for. What does this mean? well if you were home-testing for heart disease, and got a 'bad' result, what effect would that have? Possible implications for insurance policies?
As a brush-stroke criticism, most of these diseases are polygenic, or at least are heavily influenced by the environment - so one of the genes predisposing you to a disease, does not equal having the disease. A good example of this interaction is alcoholism, you may have the genes that predispose you to being an alcoholic, but remember a) you'll never become one if you don't drink, and b) if you can show some will-power and control your drinking, then again, you won't be classed as an alcoholic.
The papers appear to have returned to normal, Obama isn't featuring on every bloody news article. It's been like a media wet-dream recently.
Oh yeah the other thing, the arsenic lifeforms reported late last year have been seriously questioned in Science this week. to recap, the entirely unexpected finding of some bacteria that appeared to be able to live using arsenic as a substrate shocked (mild understatement) a lot of scientists. Some of them have now published a critique of the research. We await developments...
(me: I think it woudl be cool, but it's not an area I know much about, so for a change, I'm sitting on the fence)
right, back to music and Springback 100 proof.
me
The Pope has closed a Cistercian monastery. The monks (an ecclesiastical term referring to orders whose life is bound by vows of chastity, poverty and obedience) have been closed down due to 'loose living'. In particular, running a 24hr hotel with a limousine service, and possibly of more interest, concerts starring a lap-dancer-turned-nun.
I'm sure I've seen that b-grade...
One more serious article, that I may try and check out more of the science behind, is claiming that the home-test market for genetic diseases is a load of crock. In principle I'd agree with them, there's too many variables for most of these tests. But what was interesting is that they used a variety of kits, and all gave wildly different results. That's very concerning as most other variables were controlled for. What does this mean? well if you were home-testing for heart disease, and got a 'bad' result, what effect would that have? Possible implications for insurance policies?
As a brush-stroke criticism, most of these diseases are polygenic, or at least are heavily influenced by the environment - so one of the genes predisposing you to a disease, does not equal having the disease. A good example of this interaction is alcoholism, you may have the genes that predispose you to being an alcoholic, but remember a) you'll never become one if you don't drink, and b) if you can show some will-power and control your drinking, then again, you won't be classed as an alcoholic.
The papers appear to have returned to normal, Obama isn't featuring on every bloody news article. It's been like a media wet-dream recently.
Oh yeah the other thing, the arsenic lifeforms reported late last year have been seriously questioned in Science this week. to recap, the entirely unexpected finding of some bacteria that appeared to be able to live using arsenic as a substrate shocked (mild understatement) a lot of scientists. Some of them have now published a critique of the research. We await developments...
(me: I think it woudl be cool, but it's not an area I know much about, so for a change, I'm sitting on the fence)
right, back to music and Springback 100 proof.
me
5 May 2011
gogo armadillo's or lay off the roadkill
Leprosy, I caught it when I was only three,
Bits and pieces keep fallin' off a me
(to the tune of Yesterday)
Armadillo's are transmitting a new strain of leprosy to people in the southern US. I guess this is another case when if you're not with us, you're with the, um, Armadillo's. Although apparently 95% of humans areimmune to it, so I guess the report card will read 'must try harder'.
Although I still think it's uber cool that Armadillo's are the only reservoir for leprosy that transmits to humans.
Article here.
So lay off the roadkill.
This has been a public service announcement from me, and Benriach Solstice.
Bits and pieces keep fallin' off a me
(to the tune of Yesterday)
Armadillo's are transmitting a new strain of leprosy to people in the southern US. I guess this is another case when if you're not with us, you're with the, um, Armadillo's. Although apparently 95% of humans areimmune to it, so I guess the report card will read 'must try harder'.
Although I still think it's uber cool that Armadillo's are the only reservoir for leprosy that transmits to humans.
Article here.
So lay off the roadkill.
This has been a public service announcement from me, and Benriach Solstice.
17 February 2011
amusing
apparently around a quarter of non-primate genomes have large chunks of human DNA in them.
for those of you playing at home, that's contamination.
i never came across that, but i did see reptilian cross contamination, a distinctly squamate sequence in with some testudines. I also knew that particular lab was working on squamates and testudines.
me
for those of you playing at home, that's contamination.
i never came across that, but i did see reptilian cross contamination, a distinctly squamate sequence in with some testudines. I also knew that particular lab was working on squamates and testudines.
me
19 September 2010
What I've learnt this week
That, indirectly, the Nazi's are to blame for everything. EggsBene has been over in the UK laying out phat beats from the popemobile888. Actually trying to find a full copy of what he said has proven difficult, and I don't care, but in essence denial of a fictional figure, a delusion, is the cause of the worlds ills. BasicBene wants us all to have some form of faith, and from that the other delusion, a decent society, will emerge. It seems to me, his decent society and the Tories could be quite similar, white, middle-class, in other words the usual.
Somehow the Royal Mail misplaced my invite for an audience with the pope.
Yes OK, I just wanted to put that link in.
Todays Observer had a few interesting articles in it. Usual overtly leftie handwringing, which is why I generally skip it, but it was the food issue (as long as you avoid the ethical sourcing tirade, it's ok), so picked it up.
An article describing the changing approach to children's TV caught my eye. Apparently by 6yo, children have watched a year of TV. Depressing. I've taken to switching it off more and more. As my lastFM daily numbers will attest. Apparently there was far more thought into PlaySchool than you'd imagine, and that the crew had bets on which window they'd zoom through. Awesome (actually that bit would tie in with EggsBene, betting and rugby, two Catholic staples). Admittedly I know very little about children, even less about entertaining them (waddya mean Jodorwsky isn't 'appropriate'), but what I do recognise is that that article reflects findings in apes. Both in behaviour and actions, human juvenile behaviour and stimulation is very similar to apes. As you'd expect.
What surprised me is that this stuff is trotted out all the time in ape literature, but apparently is new and revolutionary in humans. Typical.
Somehow the Royal Mail misplaced my invite for an audience with the pope.
Yes OK, I just wanted to put that link in.
Todays Observer had a few interesting articles in it. Usual overtly leftie handwringing, which is why I generally skip it, but it was the food issue (as long as you avoid the ethical sourcing tirade, it's ok), so picked it up.
An article describing the changing approach to children's TV caught my eye. Apparently by 6yo, children have watched a year of TV. Depressing. I've taken to switching it off more and more. As my lastFM daily numbers will attest. Apparently there was far more thought into PlaySchool than you'd imagine, and that the crew had bets on which window they'd zoom through. Awesome (actually that bit would tie in with EggsBene, betting and rugby, two Catholic staples). Admittedly I know very little about children, even less about entertaining them (waddya mean Jodorwsky isn't 'appropriate'), but what I do recognise is that that article reflects findings in apes. Both in behaviour and actions, human juvenile behaviour and stimulation is very similar to apes. As you'd expect.
What surprised me is that this stuff is trotted out all the time in ape literature, but apparently is new and revolutionary in humans. Typical.
4 July 2010
The week that was and other things
Didn't have the best of weeks for a variety of reasons. Think I might have to retreat and think about what I can do to fix a couple of things. Nothing too drastic this time (ie. no quit job, swop hemispheres, get married this time, middle-age crisis?pah...). I've had some ideas, but being a public forum here there's not much I can say.
So by Friday I was feeling pretty grumpy, however I'd forgotten our Friday lunch group had decided we'd have some free beer in the evening (didn't help I had to miss Friday lunch either). It's surprising how cheering sitting outside with an ale watching a stunning sunset does for the spirits. We had dinner at a local Thai place near the pub which was actually reasonably good. Nothing stunning, but rather than disguising their inability to cook with chilli, this place let the flavours come through with a limited amount of heat. Then back for more beer. Mmm beer.
Saturday, the Leicester experience, was unexpected, fun, and enjoyable. So that was a definite win. Some CDs had also turned up, so I've had new music (John Grant and Christopher Rees) as well. That's always a win. And the food has been lovely, there is something approaching divine in fresh Italian bread, with buffalo mozzarella, fresh basil leaves, pepper, tomato and top quality olive oil drizzled over it.
An interesting article on Scientific American concerning what separates humans from primates. According to this article it's wanking, or to be less dramatic, masturbation to climax, but I prefer wanking. As a description you understand. I think there's some good points in the article, but as Chris alluded to on FB,there doesn't seem an evolutionary driver for it. The article suggests a reason to explain the result, but doesn't say why that would occur and what would drive it. More comparative studies on what lights up neurologically during masturbation between humans and other primates might be interesting (as an aside, that sentence could have been written better). Also what the tipping point for ejaculation is, are primates reaching the same hormone levels but rather than ejaculating (as humans do) they get the brain stimulus, without the ejaculate. And no, I'm not wanting to go back to science.
There's a been a number of people ranting recently, or more politely, commenting, that they don't want to read books on a kindle/ipad/etc. I think in principle I agree, but I think people are missing the concept here - and simply loading their existing views of books onto the new technology. I have pointed this out to people, but I didn't have any examples to explain what I meant. Basically it's the same as my comments that the death of desktop and possibly laptop will occur in the next year or two for basic usage.
However, there was an article in the Saturday Review section that does explain the potential - and does it much much better than I could hope to. This is definitely worth a read. The potential for enhanced books will revolutionise how we understand,learn and relax. But the massive culture shift will take a little time to reach critical mass - if only for the apps/books (aBooks? iBook+?) to reach a level where writers/producers (who knows what they'll be called) understand the potential for the technology, and how to use it.
Me
So by Friday I was feeling pretty grumpy, however I'd forgotten our Friday lunch group had decided we'd have some free beer in the evening (didn't help I had to miss Friday lunch either). It's surprising how cheering sitting outside with an ale watching a stunning sunset does for the spirits. We had dinner at a local Thai place near the pub which was actually reasonably good. Nothing stunning, but rather than disguising their inability to cook with chilli, this place let the flavours come through with a limited amount of heat. Then back for more beer. Mmm beer.
Saturday, the Leicester experience, was unexpected, fun, and enjoyable. So that was a definite win. Some CDs had also turned up, so I've had new music (John Grant and Christopher Rees) as well. That's always a win. And the food has been lovely, there is something approaching divine in fresh Italian bread, with buffalo mozzarella, fresh basil leaves, pepper, tomato and top quality olive oil drizzled over it.
An interesting article on Scientific American concerning what separates humans from primates. According to this article it's wanking, or to be less dramatic, masturbation to climax, but I prefer wanking. As a description you understand. I think there's some good points in the article, but as Chris alluded to on FB,there doesn't seem an evolutionary driver for it. The article suggests a reason to explain the result, but doesn't say why that would occur and what would drive it. More comparative studies on what lights up neurologically during masturbation between humans and other primates might be interesting (as an aside, that sentence could have been written better). Also what the tipping point for ejaculation is, are primates reaching the same hormone levels but rather than ejaculating (as humans do) they get the brain stimulus, without the ejaculate. And no, I'm not wanting to go back to science.
There's a been a number of people ranting recently, or more politely, commenting, that they don't want to read books on a kindle/ipad/etc. I think in principle I agree, but I think people are missing the concept here - and simply loading their existing views of books onto the new technology. I have pointed this out to people, but I didn't have any examples to explain what I meant. Basically it's the same as my comments that the death of desktop and possibly laptop will occur in the next year or two for basic usage.
However, there was an article in the Saturday Review section that does explain the potential - and does it much much better than I could hope to. This is definitely worth a read. The potential for enhanced books will revolutionise how we understand,learn and relax. But the massive culture shift will take a little time to reach critical mass - if only for the apps/books (aBooks? iBook+?) to reach a level where writers/producers (who knows what they'll be called) understand the potential for the technology, and how to use it.
Me
14 January 2010
Turtles! Tortoises! Extinction!
I like reptiles. Mainly I like their genetics. Cos that's just the way I roll. But they look cool too, and their relaxed approach to life strikes a chord.
Anyway, a paper just published in PLOS One on the Galapagos Tortoises has successfully identified some individuals from a previously presumed extinct population. Using DNA samples from extinct specimens, a sample of captive (both Galapagos captive and zoo captive) DNA was run and analysed using Bayesian assignment, with 9 animals identified as having genetics similar to the extinct species. There had been some cross-breeding, as you'd expect, but it looks good - 6 females and 3 males, and one of the males possessed the presumed extinct mtDNA - which is even better.
Normally I'd be grumbling about whether or not to bother saving them, but the Galapagos Islands offer a unique opportunity to do the conservation properly - indeed another critically endangered population (down to 15) has now repopulated the species by spawning 2000, and with evidence of on-island breeding. So in this case, it's definitely worth trying to recover this species - and it helps that the tortoises are iconic.
What's particularly cool about this paper is the use of extinct species to identify presumed extinct or cryptic species extant within captive populations. Scientists frequently use extinct species DNA to help align phylogenetic trees - and it's been bread and butter for morphologists for a long time - but usually it's with the resigned sigh of 'eh we won't be seeing that one again'. So in this case, huzzah to Adalgisa and her team (and yeah, I've met her a couple of times - she wouldn't give me her job tho)!!!
B
Anyway, a paper just published in PLOS One on the Galapagos Tortoises has successfully identified some individuals from a previously presumed extinct population. Using DNA samples from extinct specimens, a sample of captive (both Galapagos captive and zoo captive) DNA was run and analysed using Bayesian assignment, with 9 animals identified as having genetics similar to the extinct species. There had been some cross-breeding, as you'd expect, but it looks good - 6 females and 3 males, and one of the males possessed the presumed extinct mtDNA - which is even better.
Normally I'd be grumbling about whether or not to bother saving them, but the Galapagos Islands offer a unique opportunity to do the conservation properly - indeed another critically endangered population (down to 15) has now repopulated the species by spawning 2000, and with evidence of on-island breeding. So in this case, it's definitely worth trying to recover this species - and it helps that the tortoises are iconic.
What's particularly cool about this paper is the use of extinct species to identify presumed extinct or cryptic species extant within captive populations. Scientists frequently use extinct species DNA to help align phylogenetic trees - and it's been bread and butter for morphologists for a long time - but usually it's with the resigned sigh of 'eh we won't be seeing that one again'. So in this case, huzzah to Adalgisa and her team (and yeah, I've met her a couple of times - she wouldn't give me her job tho)!!!
B
23 December 2009
Meals you're unlikely to have
From todays news : the man who killed and ate the last wild Indochinese tiger has been jailed for 12 years. Pleading self-defence while gathering clams in a wild-life reserve, the prosecutors argued 'you don't need a gun to gather clams'. The only known tiger in the reserve has not been seen since his dinner in 2007.
More info on the tiger itself here.
Genetics of tigers splits them into 6 distinct groups, well according to this paper anyway. Admittedly these are all subspecies, and whether we even care about that is a whole other question.
Another paper, which lists 5 subspecies, assigned captive tigers to the subspecies, finding a large proportion (52 of 105 examined) were of mixed origin (what would the BNP say). If you've got access to Science Direct it's available here.
This means that it is technically possible to continue 'pure-breeding' the subspecies, but whether it's worth it or not - who knows. Obviously they interbred quite happily, so the question becomes, do we want to enforce speciation on them, along with the corollary of (probably) reduced genetic diversity?
Me.
More info on the tiger itself here.
Genetics of tigers splits them into 6 distinct groups, well according to this paper anyway. Admittedly these are all subspecies, and whether we even care about that is a whole other question.
Another paper, which lists 5 subspecies, assigned captive tigers to the subspecies, finding a large proportion (52 of 105 examined) were of mixed origin (what would the BNP say). If you've got access to Science Direct it's available here.
This means that it is technically possible to continue 'pure-breeding' the subspecies, but whether it's worth it or not - who knows. Obviously they interbred quite happily, so the question becomes, do we want to enforce speciation on them, along with the corollary of (probably) reduced genetic diversity?
Me.
5 November 2009
Reasons to still be in science
Articles such as this one:
Fellatio by Fruit Bats Prolongs Copulation Time
Min Tan, Gareth Jones, Guangjian Zhu, Jianping Ye, Tiyu Hong, Shanyi Zhou, Shuyi Zhang, Libiao Zhang
Who knew eh?
Fellatio by Fruit Bats Prolongs Copulation Time
Min Tan, Gareth Jones, Guangjian Zhu, Jianping Ye, Tiyu Hong, Shanyi Zhou, Shuyi Zhang, Libiao Zhang
Who knew eh?
1 September 2009
Musings on the news : sex and prison
I'm confused at the current kerfuffle about the South African chick who is getting harassed for not being a chick, or maybe being a chick. The human rights bleedin' hearts brigade say, if she feels like a woman, she's a woman.
I find that argument to be bollox.
There are fundamental differences in muscular development between men and woman, related to the distribution and quantity of testosterone and oestrogen. that's why there are significant differences between the sexes in the world record times in athletics.
If we follow the liberals perspective to its logical conclusion, then men and woman will race against each other with no differentiation due to sex. And my money will be on men winning. A lot.
So, as far as I'm concerned, all athletes should be tested. Aside from the usual collection of drugs testing, throw in a TDF or SRY gene test. Presence = male, absence = female. It really is that simple. This is a better test than a karyotype spread, it is possible to be male without a Y chromosome, as it's those genes (SRY in particular) that derails the default female pathway into male development.
And in the second part, prison. See I bet most of you reading this thought it would be a perverted missive on prison sex, hahaha fell into my cunning plan !
Scotland and that prisoner. The one who may, or may not have, had something to do with the Lockerbie bombing. Now a lot of political mileage is being made from this case, Gordie B-boi managed to fuck things up again, by forgetting to comment - although Cameron and his c-rew havent really done much of note either.
To recap: Scotland released Abdelbaset al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds. He's got three months to live due to cancer.
The yanks are complaining. Not entirely surprising since if he'd been tried over there it'd have been a quick fry-up, or a long long soak in a bath - head first.
The American on the street is quoted as saying it's disgusting and that they won't be going on holiday to Scotland, and will boycott Scottish products.
I know where I'm holidaying next :)
I wonder if their boycotting includes North Sea oil? Heh heh. Shame its 2pm, otherwise I'd have a nip of Scotch to show solidarity...
Personally: the Scottish governments decision may act as the defining act of the country. From my vague following of the self-governing thing the Scots have been doing, and discussions with various Scots, no-one seemed very sure what the hell Alex and crew were doing previously.
This decision is compassionate. It's sensible. It should shame countries who don't do similar (US?). And if I were Scottish, I'd feel very proud of the government - something akin to how NZ felt when we told nuclear powered warships to piss off.
B
I find that argument to be bollox.
There are fundamental differences in muscular development between men and woman, related to the distribution and quantity of testosterone and oestrogen. that's why there are significant differences between the sexes in the world record times in athletics.
If we follow the liberals perspective to its logical conclusion, then men and woman will race against each other with no differentiation due to sex. And my money will be on men winning. A lot.
So, as far as I'm concerned, all athletes should be tested. Aside from the usual collection of drugs testing, throw in a TDF or SRY gene test. Presence = male, absence = female. It really is that simple. This is a better test than a karyotype spread, it is possible to be male without a Y chromosome, as it's those genes (SRY in particular) that derails the default female pathway into male development.
And in the second part, prison. See I bet most of you reading this thought it would be a perverted missive on prison sex, hahaha fell into my cunning plan !
Scotland and that prisoner. The one who may, or may not have, had something to do with the Lockerbie bombing. Now a lot of political mileage is being made from this case, Gordie B-boi managed to fuck things up again, by forgetting to comment - although Cameron and his c-rew havent really done much of note either.
To recap: Scotland released Abdelbaset al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds. He's got three months to live due to cancer.
The yanks are complaining. Not entirely surprising since if he'd been tried over there it'd have been a quick fry-up, or a long long soak in a bath - head first.
The American on the street is quoted as saying it's disgusting and that they won't be going on holiday to Scotland, and will boycott Scottish products.
I know where I'm holidaying next :)
I wonder if their boycotting includes North Sea oil? Heh heh. Shame its 2pm, otherwise I'd have a nip of Scotch to show solidarity...
Personally: the Scottish governments decision may act as the defining act of the country. From my vague following of the self-governing thing the Scots have been doing, and discussions with various Scots, no-one seemed very sure what the hell Alex and crew were doing previously.
This decision is compassionate. It's sensible. It should shame countries who don't do similar (US?). And if I were Scottish, I'd feel very proud of the government - something akin to how NZ felt when we told nuclear powered warships to piss off.
B
2 August 2009
Antikythera update
Many of you will know of my interest in the Antikythera device, the lunar/planetary device from ancient Greece. It's seriously cool, and predates anything similar by 1000 years.
So there's been some more research published suggesting its even older than originally thought. Bugger a Bovine!!! That's impressive. Even more cool, and yes I am gushing a bit here, is the video of how the thing works !
Choice. Back to beer now.
Oohh a science blog!
14 July 2009
It's encouraging but...
A report, that's made most news sources this week, from Durham University demonstrates that UK children deem the bible irrelevant. That's encouraging. The problem is that teaching them correct information as to why it's irrelevant, a lie, and causes so much confusion isn't occurring.
If they were taught how to think, and explained why the koran, the bible etc are the bastion of the ignorant, then I can see how the news would be good. It would mean they are thinking, and ridiculing of religious zealotry could potentially end a lot of conflict. It won't of course, but I live in a happy place.
But I don't think this report is encouraging, I think it's a reflection of ignorance. I know the bible, I've read it many times, I've cited sections, I 've critiqued sections. I also think it's a pile of crud, but I know why I think that. I think these kids don't know why its irrelevant, as if things were going well, they'd be answering that evolution has led to the rich diversity of life we're busy killing. But they don't. And although the level of evolutionary teaching in the UK isn't good - it's certainly better than parts of bible-belt US tho'.
My position is similar to this report, evolution should be taught as soon as possible - and I agree with that report that 5 years old would be about right. The insidious nature of the right-wing creationalist idiots, means the early kids are taught to think, the better. This paper also suggests an early start, and also reflects my position that evolution should be taught as fact, not theory. It is well beyond any concept of theory as the public understands the term.
On the positive, if slightly surreal, side Richard Dawkins (he who thinks Steve Rothery is God), has set up a rival to scout camps. A summer retreat for non-believers, read about it here.
Most of this rant has been writing while listening to the Blind Boys of Alabama. I find that quite funny :)
me
27 April 2009
Keeping Science Cool
Make your doggie cool, make him safe !! Stop falling over him at night !! For this, and more, Science can be your friend.
How, how can this be? Why make your dog, in this case your beagle, glow !!!
Here for an article about this, and here for the picture, see below.
The authors claim proof of concept, personally I think it's vital research - find your dog in the dark, use your dog to light your way down steps. Frighten the crap out of children at halloween...or even anytime by making woooo-ing noises at night while the dog wanders past, shoving its noise in their groin.
How cool would that be.
Sign me up!!
B
15 April 2009
Take that feckin animal rights twats
Having sat on Animal Ethic committees for some time, been involved in animal research, and attended a number of conferences about the subject, I've got strong views on the subject. And I'm not always in favour of the research. That's a point those fuckin idiot protesters never seem to get through their thick fucking skulls. I don't support all animal research. I don't support all animals in teaching, in fact we had some courses changed to limit or remove the usage of animals.
So wot used to get me really pissy is the animal nutjob people all had their nutjob groups to belong to and feed off each others paranoia, but those of us trying to do research, or protect the animals, had nothing.
Well no more, there's a group of scientists who are protesting against the animal-rights groups. Count me in.
Read about it here.
Oohhh a science post, that's a bit of a rarity these days.
Love, B
So wot used to get me really pissy is the animal nutjob people all had their nutjob groups to belong to and feed off each others paranoia, but those of us trying to do research, or protect the animals, had nothing.
Well no more, there's a group of scientists who are protesting against the animal-rights groups. Count me in.
Read about it here.
Oohhh a science post, that's a bit of a rarity these days.
Love, B
18 January 2009
I have no defence
I'm taking a break from TheWire (upto Ep9) and sipping the last of my PC6 while watching Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel.
I'm enjoying it, obviously not as indepth as the book, but meh I like it.
But I guess as it's Sunday evening and I'm watching a doco ...
I have finished my PC6 bottle, it's been awhile since I actually finished a bottle of whisky! Don't panic lovely reader, there's a bottle of Bruichladdich Rocks for my Islay requirements. Among *some* others.
B
I'm enjoying it, obviously not as indepth as the book, but meh I like it.
But I guess as it's Sunday evening and I'm watching a doco ...
I have finished my PC6 bottle, it's been awhile since I actually finished a bottle of whisky! Don't panic lovely reader, there's a bottle of Bruichladdich Rocks for my Islay requirements. Among *some* others.
B
29 October 2008
(slightly) pished post
The hot date went very well. But we parted as friends, but will see each other again. Probably tomorrow infact. Is that too early? I dunno. Dating is so tricky.
In other news, cavemen were druggies. No really. I read this while drinking...see:
Scientists believe that the drug being used was cohoba, a hallucinogen made from the beans of a mimosa species.
The article here.
An appropriate video would appear to be this:
Love, sleep drunkish b.
In other news, cavemen were druggies. No really. I read this while drinking...see:
Scientists believe that the drug being used was cohoba, a hallucinogen made from the beans of a mimosa species.
The article here.
An appropriate video would appear to be this:
Love, sleep drunkish b.
14 October 2008
Show me your fin, bigboy
From Nature news today, NZ researchers have discovered you can sex dolphins by looking at their fins. Males have more scar tissue and females have more scabs (phrased at patchy skin lesions in the news article).
Show me your fin bigboy!
It's not the size its the scarring!
It's been awhile since I had a science blog. this might be stretching it, but godamnit I'm taking it!!
Show me your fin bigboy!
It's not the size its the scarring!
It's been awhile since I had a science blog. this might be stretching it, but godamnit I'm taking it!!
24 August 2008
Darwin and Dawkins
S and I watched the three part series The Genius of Charles Darwin, written and presented by Richard Dawkins. Obviously no point in critiquing the science, so some vague thoughts on the programmes.
Part 1: An introduction to Darwin and the elegant, simple, perfection that is Natural Selection. Dawkins explained how Darwin came to his conclusions and how his ability to notice similarities and differences between closely related species led to the theory. What was particuarly depressing were the kids from the high school who Dawkins spoke to, some of whom denied evolution occurred thanks to the idiotic belief systems of their parents. It was encouraging that after Dawkins had spoken to them, and shown them fossils on the beach, that they were at least prepared to consider other options. I guess in the end that's all we can ask.
The one point that Dawkins did labour, which is well worth emphasising, is that of all the laws/theories/whatevers in science, Nat Sel is the only one that has never been seriously challenged. Even the 'new' fields of biology, such as genetics, all they've done is add support to Darwin's theory. There is nothing else.
Dawkins himself is a good presenter, he can get a bit ranty at times, but as he was writing/presenting the programme it was all pretty subdued.
Part 2: Dawkins looks at the social darwinism issues - eugenics and stuff. Interesting movie footage of Julian Huxley who was known for his eugenic views. Dawkins used this episode as a vehicle to argue for his selfish gene theory, but also to explain it properly, rather than the half-arsed interpretation most people have of it. Dawkins having pulling power,meant that the guests on this show included Frans de Waal and Stephen Pinker, both discussing the ability of genes to influence behaviour, and in humans, helping others. I found it interesting, but it does require you to pay attention as the concepts are subtle. Dawkins also looked at human evolution including having the Turkana boy skull sitting in front of him as he described it as the most important jewel in human collections, anywhere. Hard to argue with him there.
Good overall discussion about the differences between humans and other animals, and how our ability to recognise social groupings and critique behaviour makes us behaviour in a manner contrary to darwinian behaviour expectations.
Part 3: Ranty Dawkins came back. Kept mostly in check, this episode looked at the effect religion is having on the teaching of evolution. I'm going to try to avoid swearing a lot while writing this, although I failed miserably while watching it. There is inherent stupidity in people who say they recognise evolution occurs, but then find something that's a bit hard and say 'god did it'. What was more concerning is the christian right-wing nutjobs in the US who are demanding creationism, or its more insidious cousin 'intelligent design', are given equal time as 'theories' during science teaching. What a load of bollox. The whole point of science is that it is testable, natural selection has been tested time and time again, and has never been found wanting. Therefore, it is a fact. Creationism or ID are not testable. Therefore they do not even warrant the term 'theory'. They are just-so stories. What gets to me is the unbelievably smug look on their faces when they say 'ahhh but what about...'. I get that in my tutorials and patiently explain intermediate forms, and generally they get it (most of them are not smug looking, as they want to learn). The classic examples are the eye and human intermediate forms. The eye, or photo-receptivity, has been shown to have arisen multiple times in multiple lineages. If you want references, I'll provide them. A lot of them. And as for the absolutely massive fallacy of missing human stages, XXXXXXXXXXXXX. Two points need to be made here, evolution is not directed - a point a lot of people struggle with - if you can grasp that, you've pretty much got the concept, and secondly it is not linear, it always resembles a branching tree (divaricating for those of a plant bent). If you accept those two, human evolution becomes a case of 'what do you mean missing stages?', current fossils clearly demonstrate the increase in brain size, the change in posture (head position and pelvis) etc etc. And with dating these fossils we can clearly see the branching nature of human evolution.
The interview with Rowan Williams was interesting, and I would love to see to a written discussion between these two. Both are highly intelligent, and both are prepared to listen and critique. But the CoE's usual all encompassing position causes problems as well, it's akin to the 'well it occurs, but eh we'll say god kicked it off'. Again a cop-out. There is no need for that.
What really made me yell, and it made Dawkins grumpy too, were science teachers too scared to say 'this is how it is' for fear of offending people. FFS get a grip. It is that way. Tell them, I'm sure religious studies don't go 'well there might be a god, but also it might all be evolution with no such thing as a creator'. What Dawkins didn't say, and having dealt with 1st years for awhile, is that the high school teachers don't understand the topic either. And are therefore too scared to teach it in detail, for fear of being shown up as ignorant.
Another question left alone is: why do we always assume it's the christian god whose the big cheese? I'm sure there's a few other religions out there...
I think I've managed to not rant too much. I enjoyed the programme, finding it a good balance between detail and difficult concepts being clearly explained. As a subject I'm interested in it kept my interest without me wanting to yell at the dumbing down, all I wanted to yell at was the dumb people. I'm still convinced on his genes as units of selection, but it's reasonable...
I'm currently watching Peter Ackroyd's "Thames" now. And enjoying it.
B.
Part 1: An introduction to Darwin and the elegant, simple, perfection that is Natural Selection. Dawkins explained how Darwin came to his conclusions and how his ability to notice similarities and differences between closely related species led to the theory. What was particuarly depressing were the kids from the high school who Dawkins spoke to, some of whom denied evolution occurred thanks to the idiotic belief systems of their parents. It was encouraging that after Dawkins had spoken to them, and shown them fossils on the beach, that they were at least prepared to consider other options. I guess in the end that's all we can ask.
The one point that Dawkins did labour, which is well worth emphasising, is that of all the laws/theories/whatevers in science, Nat Sel is the only one that has never been seriously challenged. Even the 'new' fields of biology, such as genetics, all they've done is add support to Darwin's theory. There is nothing else.
Dawkins himself is a good presenter, he can get a bit ranty at times, but as he was writing/presenting the programme it was all pretty subdued.
Part 2: Dawkins looks at the social darwinism issues - eugenics and stuff. Interesting movie footage of Julian Huxley who was known for his eugenic views. Dawkins used this episode as a vehicle to argue for his selfish gene theory, but also to explain it properly, rather than the half-arsed interpretation most people have of it. Dawkins having pulling power,meant that the guests on this show included Frans de Waal and Stephen Pinker, both discussing the ability of genes to influence behaviour, and in humans, helping others. I found it interesting, but it does require you to pay attention as the concepts are subtle. Dawkins also looked at human evolution including having the Turkana boy skull sitting in front of him as he described it as the most important jewel in human collections, anywhere. Hard to argue with him there.
Good overall discussion about the differences between humans and other animals, and how our ability to recognise social groupings and critique behaviour makes us behaviour in a manner contrary to darwinian behaviour expectations.
Part 3: Ranty Dawkins came back. Kept mostly in check, this episode looked at the effect religion is having on the teaching of evolution. I'm going to try to avoid swearing a lot while writing this, although I failed miserably while watching it. There is inherent stupidity in people who say they recognise evolution occurs, but then find something that's a bit hard and say 'god did it'. What was more concerning is the christian right-wing nutjobs in the US who are demanding creationism, or its more insidious cousin 'intelligent design', are given equal time as 'theories' during science teaching. What a load of bollox. The whole point of science is that it is testable, natural selection has been tested time and time again, and has never been found wanting. Therefore, it is a fact. Creationism or ID are not testable. Therefore they do not even warrant the term 'theory'. They are just-so stories. What gets to me is the unbelievably smug look on their faces when they say 'ahhh but what about...'. I get that in my tutorials and patiently explain intermediate forms, and generally they get it (most of them are not smug looking, as they want to learn). The classic examples are the eye and human intermediate forms. The eye, or photo-receptivity, has been shown to have arisen multiple times in multiple lineages. If you want references, I'll provide them. A lot of them. And as for the absolutely massive fallacy of missing human stages, XXXXXXXXXXXXX. Two points need to be made here, evolution is not directed - a point a lot of people struggle with - if you can grasp that, you've pretty much got the concept, and secondly it is not linear, it always resembles a branching tree (divaricating for those of a plant bent). If you accept those two, human evolution becomes a case of 'what do you mean missing stages?', current fossils clearly demonstrate the increase in brain size, the change in posture (head position and pelvis) etc etc. And with dating these fossils we can clearly see the branching nature of human evolution.
The interview with Rowan Williams was interesting, and I would love to see to a written discussion between these two. Both are highly intelligent, and both are prepared to listen and critique. But the CoE's usual all encompassing position causes problems as well, it's akin to the 'well it occurs, but eh we'll say god kicked it off'. Again a cop-out. There is no need for that.
What really made me yell, and it made Dawkins grumpy too, were science teachers too scared to say 'this is how it is' for fear of offending people. FFS get a grip. It is that way. Tell them, I'm sure religious studies don't go 'well there might be a god, but also it might all be evolution with no such thing as a creator'. What Dawkins didn't say, and having dealt with 1st years for awhile, is that the high school teachers don't understand the topic either. And are therefore too scared to teach it in detail, for fear of being shown up as ignorant.
Another question left alone is: why do we always assume it's the christian god whose the big cheese? I'm sure there's a few other religions out there...
I think I've managed to not rant too much. I enjoyed the programme, finding it a good balance between detail and difficult concepts being clearly explained. As a subject I'm interested in it kept my interest without me wanting to yell at the dumbing down, all I wanted to yell at was the dumb people. I'm still convinced on his genes as units of selection, but it's reasonable...
I'm currently watching Peter Ackroyd's "Thames" now. And enjoying it.
B.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)