Balls and Walnuts
more than you ever wanted to know
Category Archives: Blinded by science
Saturday Science
Over at Daily Kos, Darksyde’s This Week in Science is even better than usual.
Highlights:
* Discover Magazine covers science’s greatest fails
* As many of you know, Texas Board of Education sets the pace for the nation’s public school textbooks. In the past, they’ve been dominated by Dominionists (hey, it’s what they do) who believe in their own interpretations of science and history. Guess what, folks: these ultra religious whack jobs are at it again.
* For counterpoint to that last story, here’s some awesomely great news: Lonesome George got laid!
D.
Ice cream with chunks of Toffler
After dinner, I loaded up my laptop and GPS into my backpack, along with my defunct Blackberry (which I use as an alarm clock, address book, and eBook reader), my cell phone, and the little gizmo that lets me log onto the hospital computer from a remote terminal, so that I can answer my patients’ emails. If I was into the iPod thing I’d have loaded that into the backpack, too. Tomorrow, when I leave my car in long term parking, I’ll take my Blue Ant Supertooth* and toss that into the backpack, too. Yes, I can fit all the electronics I need into one rather-heavy-now backpack.
I like to tell my son about our junior high school computer, the one that filled a room and looked like HAL’s memory from 2001. Most of that monster’s memory was dedicated to understanding Basic, and what little was left over could be taxed by a Blackjack program.
Earlier still, in our home growing up we had a built-in black-and-white TV with a built-in fish tank above it. (How’s that for intelligent design?) I can’t remember that TV ever working. TVs back then had radio tubes (pause a moment to explain radio tubes to my son) and a dial to change the channels. My parents still have one of those dial-type TVs, and gets decent reception on one channel. I showed it to Jake the last time we visited.
We still own a CRT-type TV, but we rarely watch it. It used to be our good TV. Nowadays, I turn it on if I’m working in the kitchen, peeling shrimp or what-not. I imagine we’ll replace it soon with a flat-screen TV. Considering how infrequently we watch it, we probably ought to sell it before we move. Sucker weighs a ton.
Not that the flat-screen TV is a lightweight, but considering the size of it, it’s amazing I can lift it. Meanwhile, our stereo from 20+ years ago languishes in boxes, and I’m beginning to wonder about the utility of hanging onto our VCR. VCRs. We have two. Not counting the one I used to have in the Crescent City office.
With any luck, my son should live well into his 80s, and maybe beyond. I wonder sometimes about what we’ll achieve with regard to life extension. But even ignoring that, Jake should see the late 2070s or even the 2080s. What will we see together? What will he see that Karen and I won’t live to see? Will all that gear I lug in my backpack fit into a wallet? Will it be built into a fancy set of eyeglasses, the ultimate heads-up display? And when will we start internalizing this gear?
As a sometimes science fiction writer, my mind wanders to stories where technology has allowed us to cheat death. If we could load the sum total of our knowledge, our personality quirks (mannerisms, diction), our logic and style and creativity into an AI, would anything be missing? We’ll probably see an AI beat the Turing test in our lifetimes; will we see one so sophisticated that we can’t tell a loved one apart from his AI doppleganger? I suspect so. At that point, have we cheated death?
. . . Which is what it’s all about, at least for me. It’s not my own death I fear (not MUCH, anyway!) but the death of loved ones. As I’ve said a hundred times, if I were a better Buddhist none of this would bug me. I’m simply too attached to this business of living.
D.
*cuz some of us don’t like looking like Borg, and besides, those other thingies hurt my ears.
Snopes, you gotta love ’em
Today, a patient told me I could make Mountain Dew glow in the dark by combining it with baking soda and hydrogen peroxide. He referenced this YouTube video.
I’m still enough of a chemist to realize that soft drinks don’t fluoresce, so I checked the last word in urban legends: Snopes.com. And, guess what: it’s bull.
I bet the Mountain Dew people love that viral video. Sells lots of Dew. But I bet they’re less enamored of the rumor that Mountain Dew shrinks your nads.
D.
Question
Isn’t homeschooling wonderful? You can inflict assign all manner of interesting things to your child. Take this week, for example. This week, Jake will be reading about Creationism. There are benefits to this way beyond a deepened understanding of evolutionary theory. He will gain a much better appreciation for logical thought, as well as practical experience recognizing and contending with flawed arguments.
I always research these things myself first. So tonight, I found this site, containing the gem:
The Word of God says we were created with Human bodies that are designed to live forever. Science has recently proven that if we were to learn something new every second, we would take well over 3 millions years to exhaust the memory capacity of our “post flood” brains. (Pre-flood brains were 3 times larger) On the other hand… Evolutionists say things evolve after there is a need for change.
Question… How is it possible for us to have a brain that could hold enough info to last over 3 millions years, when all we can live up to is 90 years? (Don’t expect and answer from them.)
Title of this bit: “The Human brain proves Evolution a lie.”
If we ignore all the hocus pocus (pre-flood brains were what?) and grant the writer’s premise that ‘we would take well over 3 millions years to exhaust the memory capacity of our “post flood” brains,’ this says far more about the redundancy of the human brain and nothing whatsoever about evolution. Nearly all of our organ systems have built-in redundancy. Skin and gastrointestinal tract lining constantly regenerates; we have far more liver, lung function, and kidney function that we could possibly need for our moment-to-moment existence. But that’s the point: we evolved so that we could last long enough to reproduce. Redundancy is a good thing — without it, an infant wouldn’t last 9 months, let alone 90 years.
Some folks argue that our longevity is a product of evolution, too. As a first approximation, we are useless once we’ve reproduced and then raised our children into their reproductive years. Let’s use Michelle Duggar as an example of the pinnacle of Darwinian success. I don’t know how old she was when she had her first, but she might have been 12. It’s possible. Allotting one child per annum, she would then be 30 at the birth of number 18. If number 18 is a girl (and I think she is), this daughter would hit her reproductive years by age 12. By this superficial “first approximation,” Michelle really doesn’t need to live much past the age of 42. Not unless she plans on having numbers nineteen and twenty, of course.
But you can make a strong argument that people should live longer than the minimum years necessary. Let’s remember what’s really important here: that your genes live on not just to the next generation, but to the one after that, and the one after that, and the one after that . . . And what better way to insure the success of your genetic inheritance than to be physically present for its protection?
This should make the Creationists very happy: natural selection favors an extended nuclear family (assuming the elders of that family aren’t psychopaths who, through their nutso behavior, reduce their offspring’s reproductive success).
So we’re built to last, but by “built” I don’t mean “designed,” unless by “designed” you mean “produced by millions of years of evolution.” Because we certainly weren’t designed intelligently — but that’s a discussion for another day.
D.
She moved!
Bix (Fanatic Cook), who knows her nutrition*, has been writing about the dangers of a high protein diet (here, for example). Recently, she posted the protein breakdown of a typical vegan diet, and that sparked an interesting discussion. Here’s my question to my readers, which I posed to Bix: don’t vegans have to be careful to balance their diet in order to avoid deficiencies of essential amino acids?
The answer might surprise you.
***
When I woke up at 6:30, Karen was asleep in a peculiar position. Her breathing was so shallow and quiet, I couldn’t hear anything, and I couldn’t see her chest rise.
An hour later, her position had not changed.
(If I were the prick I sometimes claim to be, I would have taken a picture. Hmm. Does this mean I’m actually not the prick I claim to be?)
Sometimes, I touch her to make sure she’s warm, or to feel her chest rise, but often this wakes her up. Is this paranoia a hazard of my profession? A result of my discomfort at all the pain meds she has to take? An inevitable byproduct of our early years together, when her health was even more dicey?
In any case, two hours later, she’s snoring softly (purring, like some of my patients say) and her arms are in a different position. Phew.
***
Day Two of my more-or-less vegan diet. I don’t know how long this will last, but my gut does feel better. Lately, I’ve been having more and more indigestion with meat — beef, especially, which my body seems to think is Milk of Magnesia. But at some level, this is also an intellectual pursuit. I’m asking myself: what would it be like to not eat a steady diet of crap?
I’m going to miss the pork rinds and Cheeze Whiz.
D.
*From her Blogger User Profile: “MPH with concentration in Human Clinical Nutrition, Certificate in Integrative Medicine, BS in Nutrition and Biochemistry.”
What happened to the dinosaurs
Beelzebufo, the devil frog, to be precise.
Devil frog gives useful advice to his little pal before raiding nest of yummy dinosaur eggs
Credit
From the article linked above:
A team of researchers, led by Stony Brook University paleontologist David Krause, has discovered the remains in Madagascar of what may be the largest frog ever to exist.
The 16-inch, 10-pound ancient frog, scientifically named Beelzebufo, or devil frog, links a group of frogs that lived 65 to 70 million years ago with frogs living today in South America . . . .
“Beelzebufo appears to be a very close relative of a group of South American frogs known as ‘ceratophyrines,’ or ‘pac-man’ frogs, because of their immense mouths,” said Krause, whose research was funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF). The ceratophryines are known to camouflage themselves in their surroundings, then ambush predators.
. . . . Not only was the frog huge, it was powerful in design, had a protective shield, an extremely wide mouth and powerful jaws. These features made Beelzebufo capable of killing lizards and other small vertebrates, perhaps even hatchling dinosaurs.
Remember Tubby, my pac-man frog? Eater of mice, thumbs, toes, and anything else moving within an inch of his enormous mouth?
That’s Tubby as a juvenile. At the time, he ate goldfish. Big goldfish. He graduated to mice within the year.
You bet I can believe Beelzebufo ate dinosaur hatchlings.
D.
Terminator of lurve
I learned a new word today: dildonics. Dildonics is the science of computer-controlled sex devices. I found this word in Robin Marantz Henig’s NYTBR review of David Levy’s Love and Sex with Robots, The Evolution of Human-Robot Relationships. According to Henig, Levy makes a good case for his assertion that robot-human sexual relationships will be common practice by the middle of this century. Not just guys-and-lovedolls, but people settling down for long, committed relationships to . . . Rosie.
. . . Levy cites the gradual shift in the public view of what is acceptable in terms of sexual pairings. People used to be widely appalled by such variations as oral sex, masturbation and homosexuality, but today these practices are “widely regarded as thoroughly normal and as leading to fulfilling relationships and satisfactory sex lives.” All he wants is for us to open our minds a tiny bit more, and make room for th e idea of having sex with the domestic robots that will soon be part of all our lives. In fact, he argues, the human/robot sex of the future promises to be better than most sex between humans is today.
(Anyone remember an old George R R Martin story, “Meathouse Man”?)
On the one hand, I think this is all very sad.
On the other, I can think of several people who would be better off with robo-spouses. Can’t you?
***
From the IMDB FAQ on Terminator 2, Judgment Day:
What about the T-800’s lost arm in the steel mill…Â [Huh. That’s a good point.]
If the T-800 model is a known serial killer from the first movie, why would the Human Resistence send back an identical model? [Yeah! Why?]
Why didn’t Reese warn Sarah about more advanced terminators travelling through time to kill her? [YEAH! And why didn’t they just send the baddest ass terminator they had, right from the start? And why didn’t they just kill Sarah’s grandfather? Doubt he was as buff as Linda Hamilton!]
***
I’m stuck in the office on dial-up, verrry slow, and I have a meeting from hell this evening. So, sorry folks, but no Thirteen today. This post was painful enough, watching letters appear o n e . . . a t . . . a . . . t i m e. If this laptop were a sex partner, she’d be the kind who could only function after three qualuudes and a half dozen massive bong hits.
D.
Essence of cute
A number of years ago, Stephen Jay Gould wrote an essay explaining why Disney heroes (like Mickey Mouse*) are heroes, and why other cartoon villains are villains. These characters are drawn with specific proportions in mind. Take Bugs and a few of his cohorts:
Bugs and Tweety have disproportionately large eyes, small noses, and flat faces. Daffy (who if not a villain, at least manifested the nastier spectrum of human behaviors) has relatively small eyes and a big “nose.” Taz is kind of interesting, because he shares many of Bugs’s infantile features, but not all of them. Our cues that Taz was not altogether heroic: his black blob of a nose and his prominent canines.
Scent of a [sexually receptive partner]
Usually, the mainstream media jumps all over scientific reports relating to gender issues. LGBT science is hot stuff. I might have missed it, but a recent report in Nature (Vol 448, August 30, 2007, p. 1009) should have made a splash, but didn’t — perhaps because the findings can’t be boiled down into a simple sound byte, or the information is a little too technical, or folks are too quick to disregard any relationship between mice and humans.
Here’s the question, and it is, arguably, the central question of gender: what controls our preference for a male or female mate? In the August 30 Nature, Kimchi et al. (no, I’m not joking about the name) report that pheromone sensing controls both partner preference and mating behavior. First, some definitions:
In vertebrates, pheromones are recognized by neurons located in two sensory tissues in the nasal cavity, the main olfactory epithelium (MOE) and the vomeronasal organ (VNO) . . . . Previous work had shown that deletion of the gene encoding TRPC2, a cation channel expressed only in VNO neurons, profoundly diminishes pheromone-evoked activity in these neurons.
Here’s the deal: since the 80s, scientists have had the ability to create “knockout mice,” mice lacking function in one particular gene. (The inventors of the technique recently won the Nobel Prize for it.) In the old days, if you wanted to investigate the function of the VNO, you’d have to surgically ablate it. But that would open up a raft of confounding variables — perhaps the behavioral changes were due to some other effect of surgery, not to destruction of the VNO. But with genetic techniques, you have a truly fine scalpel to dissect structure and function. Trpc2 knockout mice allow us to look at the behavior of mice which have not had surgery, still have VNO neurons, but lack VNO neurons’ responsiveness to pheromones. They are (nearly) ‘pheromone-blind’ mice.
Are you still with me? Great. Because now we get to the good stuff: the behavior of Trpc2 knockout mice.
Male mice lacking the Trpc2 gene do not distinguish between males and females, mating with animals of either sex. Moreover, in contrast to normal males, these mutant mice do not fight with intruder males.
. . . .
Now, Kimchi et al. find that Trpc2-deficient females also fail to distinguish between males and females among their conspecifics [members of the same species] in terms of mating preference. Unexpectedly, however, they found that mutant females behave like Trpc2-deficient males, sniffing, pursuing, and mounting mice of either sex . . . . These findings suggest that the VNO detects pheromones that normally prevent female mice from displaying male-typical sexual behavior.
Females can also be from Mars, Nirao M. Shah and S. Marc Breedlove, Nature News & Views, 30 August, pages 999-1000
How much of this, if any of it, can be generalized to humans? If you search for articles on “olfaction” (the sense of smell) and “libido,” or “anosmia” (loss of the sense of smell) and “libido,” you’ll find a raft of testimonial-quality evidence, but there’s precious little in peer-reviewed journals. A recent review (abstract) looked primarily at evidence from animal studies. However, Swedish scientists have found, using positron emission tomography (a scan which highlights metabolic activity in the brain), that lesbians respond to the putative pheromones AND and EST the way heterosexual men do. Similarly, homosexual men respond to AND the way heterosexual women do.
I don’t think a coherent picture has yet emerged explaining all the intricacies of olfaction and its effects on human sexual preferences. Fascinating topics like this make me wish I were back in the biomedical research biz, though. It’s even relevant to my turf — ear, NOSE, and throat.
Enjoy your Sunday.
D.