Monday August 25, 2008
CityNews.ca Staff
No one's sure exactly how it happened and we'll may never be. But a dog is being hailed a hero around the world after an unbelievable incident that came to light last Thursday.
It started when a desperate 14-year-old mother decided to abandon her newborn infant in the city of La Plata, Argentina, about 60 kilometres south of Buenos Aires.
Several hours later, the 8 pound 13 ounce, naked baby girl was found with a dog named China (above) and her puppies, in the back yard of their owner's home. It was not known whether the young mother had placed her baby with the puppies, or whether China had found the infant and brought her there.
It would be funny, if it weren't so sad. Aww, hell! It's funny anyway.
But scary.
Be careful, Dr, Dawkins. It only takes one idiot, and that's obviously what these people threatening you are.
First Evidence To Show Elephants Recognize Themselves In Mirror
Evidence of Self-Recognition in the Magpie
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Comparative studies suggest that at least some bird species have evolved mental skills similar to those found in humans and apes. This is indicated by feats such as tool use, episodic-like memory, and the ability to use one's own experience in predicting the behavior of conspecifics. It is, however, not yet clear whether these skills are accompanied by an understanding of the self. In apes, self-directed behavior in response to a mirror has been taken as evidence of self-recognition. We investigated mirror-induced behavior in the magpie, a songbird species from the crow family. As in apes, some individuals behaved in front of the mirror as if they were testing behavioral contingencies. When provided with a mark, magpies showed spontaneous mark-directed behavior. Our findings provide the first evidence of mirror self-recognition in a non-mammalian species. They suggest that essential components of human self-recognition have evolved independently in different vertebrate classes with a separate evolutionary history.This fascinates me because the ability to recognize oneself in a mirror has never been found in non-human animals other than apes and dolphins before. Now two separate studies have just found this ability in the largest land animal and in a noisy, obnoxious bird.
The test is to put a mark on the animal in a spot it can't see. Like the yellow spot of paint below the magpies chin. The animal knows you've done something to it, but it doesn't know what. The magpies first turned and twisted their necks trying to see what had been done to them. When that didn't work, they went to the mirror and checked themselves. Upon seeing the dot of paint in the mirroe, they tried to touch it with their beaks and feet. This was considered evidence that they used the mirror intentionally and recognized themselves in it.
This is especially important, because it had been thought that only humans, apes, and dolphins (all mammals) had this ability. Bird brains are so different from mammal brains that few scientists thought any of them might have this ability. For one thing, bird brains have no neocortex, which had been thought to be necessary for this kind of cognition.
In a different study, three female elephants at the Bronx Zoo in New York were given a huge mirror (8'x8') in their enclosure. They had time to examine it, look behind it, and get used to it. They spent a good deal of time examining the insides of their mouths in the mirror and touching spots in their mouths with their trunks. Without the mirror, elephants cannot see inside their mouths; so this was impressive to begin with. (I have no idea why they only studied female elephants with the mirror, and no males. I'm just reporting what I read. OK?)
Then, a large colored spot was painted on each animal above her eyes, and a spot of clear paint on one cheek. When they examined themselves in the mirror, they touched only the colored spots above their eyes, indicating they were seeing them in the mirror and recognizing the images as themselves. Not just responding to the human touch or the smell of the paint.
All other known species either ignore their image in a mirror or treat it like another animal. (Or they haven't been tested yet, of course.) The working hypothesis now is that this ability requires an animal with a relatively large brain and a comples social system. Elephants have the largest brains on land. Magpies and their relatives in the corvid family -- crows, jays, ravens, rooks, jackdaws, nutcrackers, and others -- have the largest brains in the bird class (aves). Both elephants and the corvids have complex social systems that require them to recognize others of their species and at least remember friend from foe.
A scientist who bought a fossilised insect on the web auction site eBay for £20 has discovered that it belongs to a previously unknown species of aphid.
Dr Richard Harrington, vice-president of the UK's Royal Entomological Society, bought the fossil from an individual in Lithuania.
He then sent it off to an aphid expert in Denmark, who confirmed the insect was a new species, now extinct.
Dr Harrington and his team thought they had identified the bog down to genus level (one step above species), but they had no idea what species it was. Professor Ole Heie, a fossil aphid expert in Denmark, discovered it had not been described before.
Dr Harrington said he "had thought it would be rather nice to call it Mindarus ebayi." "Unfortunately," he said, "using flippant names to describe new species is rather frowned upon these days." Professor Heie named the new species Mindarus harringtoni after Dr Harrington.
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7572052.stm
SF Gate
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal judge says the University of California can deny course credit to applicants from Christian high schools whose textbooks declare the Bible infallible and reject evolution.
Rejecting claims of religious discrimination and stifling of free expression, U.S. District Judge James Otero of Los Angeles said UC's review committees cited legitimate reasons for rejecting the texts - not because they contained religious viewpoints, but because they omitted important topics in science and history and failed to teach critical thinking.
Notice, this is not a decision about Christian schools, or any other kind of school. It is a decision about education. About being ready -- or not ready -- for additional education.
When a prospective student applies to a university for admission, the university wants to know what education the prospect already has. If he or she is missing certain things the university considers important, the prospect may be refused admission. It's generally up to the university to decide what those qualifications are.
They don't want somebody in their math classes who doesn't already understand basic arithmetic or algebra. They probably don't want somebody holding up history classes because he doesn't already have a basic understanding of history. Neither should anybody without a basic understanding of evolution be allowed to attend biology classes. Without evolution, they won't understand it anyway.
Otero also said the Christian schools presented no evidence that the university's decisions were motivated by hostility to religion.
Applicants without the required courses can qualify by taking college preparatory classes or by scoring well in those subjects on the Scholastic Assessment Test, just as anybody else can. How could it be fairer?
The ruling has already been appealed, of course, to try to force UC to admit these particular unqualified students with their impaired education. Charles Robinson, UC's spokesman, said the plaintiffs want a "religious exemption from regular admissions standards." Yep. That's what it sounds like to me.
He continued that the ruling "confirms that UC may apply the same admissions standards to all students and to all high schools without regard to their religious affiliations." And isn't that exactly what they should do? In fact, doesn't the law require them to do that?
There's more, if you want to click the link at the top and read the whole article. Naturally, the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) is already whining that it's a blow to academic freedom: http://www.icr.org/article/4006/ . It is not, of course. It's only a blow to ignorance.
From the New York Times Opinion Page
August 12, 2008
By OLIVIA JUDSON
When the dog days of summer come to an end, one thing we can be sure of is that the school year that follows will see more fights over the teaching of evolution and whether intelligent design, or even Biblical accounts of creation, have a place in America’s science classrooms.
In these arguments, evolution is treated as an abstract subject that deals with the age of the earth or how fish first flopped onto land. It’s discussed as though it were an optional, quaint and largely irrelevant part of biology. And a common consequence of the arguments is that evolution gets dropped from the curriculum entirely.
This is a travesty.
It is also dangerous.
Judson then discusses three reasons why evolution should be taught in science classes:
"First," she says, "it provides a powerful framework for investigating the world we live in. Without evolution, biology is merely a collection of disconnected facts, a set of descriptions."
I agree wholeheartedly. As noted biologst Theodosius Dobzhansky once said, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." Science is not just a matter of making observations. Its also a matter of trying to make sense of those observations by developing theories. Evolution by natural selection makes sense of biology. No other idea that does has ever been published.
Second, "... the subject is immediately relevant here and now. The impact we are having on the planet is causing other organisms to evolve — and fast. "
She's not just talking about bacteria and viruses developing resistance to drugs, either. Her examples include fish that are evolving to a smaller size because we are catching the large ones and bighorn rams that now grow smaller horns because of trophy hunting. These are just two of many examples she could have given.
"In short," she says, "evolution is far from being a remote and abstract subject. A failure to teach it may leave us unprepared for the challenges ahead." Chllenges like preserving endangered species and even maybe saving ourselves from disease or starvation.
Her third reason is more philosophical. "It concerns the development of an attitude toward evidence. In his book, 'The Republican War on Science,' the journalist Chris Mooney argues persuasively that a contempt for scientific evidence — or indeed, evidence of any kind — has permeated the Bush administration’s policies, from climate change to sex education, from drilling for oil to the war in Iraq. A dismissal of evolution is an integral part of this general attitude. "
She then continues with a fourth reason for studying evolution, her personal favorite: "But for me, the most important thing about studying evolution is something less tangible. It’s that the endeavor contains a profound optimism. It means that when we encounter something in nature that is complicated or mysterious, such as the flagellum of a bacteria or the light made by a firefly, we don’t have to shrug our shoulders in bewilderment.
"Instead, we can ask how it got to be that way. And if at first it seems so complicated that the evolutionary steps are hard to work out, we have an invitation to imagine, to play, to experiment and explore. To my mind, this only enhances the wonder."
Absolutely!
Science has been accused many times of taking the wonder and beauty out of nature. I disagree vehemently. Understanding something to whatever extent we can only makes it all the more wonderous.
Those who find something difficult to understand and just say "God did it." can learn no more. If God did it, then what else is there to learn? Can they question God to find out how and why He did it, and what else He is likely to do. If not, then it is an end of learning. From there on is only ignorance.
But those who understand evolution can -- at least in principle -- figure out how it happened and make valid predictions based on their knowledge. They can keep learning.
It was Jerry Gels, a science teacher at Lloyd Memorial High School in Erlanger, KY, who said, "It's imperative that my students understand the concept of evolution If they don't understand evolution, they're not going to be very successful in the realm of science. If they're ignorant of evolution, they're not going to be ready for college."
Darwin's thery of evolution by natural selection has been described many times as one of the most important concepts in the history of science. No, Darwin didn't get everything right. How could he? After all, he had never even heard of genetics; and only a few relevant fossils had been discovered in his time. Now we have many times more evidence, from many areas of science that didn't even exist in Darwin's time, and have integrated it to form a better theory. Not a new theory, but a revision and improvement of the original.
It is vital that evolution be taught in science classes everywhere. Omitting it leaves students ignorant of one of the simplest but most important things they should learn.
I reported on a 90-million-year-old fossil snake with hind legs a year or so ago on the No Bull Website, a little more than half-way down the page.
Here is a different species about two million years older, and with legs we can see much better. The researcher points out one leg (in the video) and tells how she used x-rays to find the other without damaging the fossil.
X-rays are shown of both legs, one straight and one bent. Even an amateur like me can see from them that these legs have the same basic bone structure as the major bones in our legs. That is, it has the tibia, fibula, and femur that we inherited from our reptile ancestors.
This is just one more nail in the coffin of creationism. It's one of the many "missing links" that creationists keep claiming we don't have. There are plenty of others, too.
The James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) anounces that Dr. Philip Plait – renowned astronomer, author, and skeptic – will be taking on the role of President of the JREF effective immediately.
If you are not familiar with either Dr. Plait or JREF, this would be a good time to make their acquaintance. Phil is the "Bad Astronomer" who set up a website originally to debunk "bad astronomy." Probably his most memorable debunking was of the claims that the moon landings were all an elaborate hoax. He demonstrated that every argument of the moon landing hoax theorists was wrong. As more reasonable people knew all along, of course.
James Randi, known professionally as "The Amazing Randi," is a magician, an author, and a skeptic who has specialized in recent years in investigating and debunking claims of the paranormal. His foundation offers a prize -- now set at a million dollars -- for anyone who can demonstrate paranormal abilities under controlled experimental conditions.
Randi said, “Phil is a skeptic, a scientist, and a colleague, and his ideas and vigor will take the JREF very far indeed. We’re pleased and proud to have him take the reins.” He added, “I will now be dedicating much of my time to completing my next two books, Wrong!, and A Magician in the Laboratory.”
Congratulations, Phil.
"A rare 111-year-old New Zealand reptile is set to become a father, possibly for the first time.
"Henry, a tuatara with prehistoric origins, had previously shown no interest in females during nearly 40 years in captivity, say keepers.
"But his 80-year-old partner, Mildred, laid 12 eggs in mid-July, 11 of which are due to hatch in about six months.
"Henry's keepers have put his newfound vigour down to a recent operation to remove a tumour from his bottom. "
The Critically Endangered grey-shanked douc langur is one of the primates in peril.
"The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species says the main threat is habitat loss, primarily through the burning and clearing of tropical forests.
"More than 70% of primates in Asia are now listed as Endangered, it adds"
"Tom Foust saw the train lights in the distance and knew it was time to stop arguing with the elderly driver, whose white 2006 Lexus was stuck on railroad tracks in Glenview. His two friends were pounding on the car windows, yelling for her to get out, when Foust, 17, unclipped the 83-year-old woman's seat belt, grabbed her under each arm, dragged her 10 feet away and then shielded her body with his own as he waited for the impact."
Evolution: Is it only a theory? Some people claim it's not even science at all. What do the scientists themselves say? What is a scientific theory anyway? What does the word "theory" mean to a scientist? It may not be what you think.
People keep telling me there's a controversy among scientists about whether evolution is real or not. Is this true? Do scientists really spend their time arguing about whether evolution happens or not? Is creationism just as likely as evolution?
Find out from the scientists themselves what they say about these questions and more.
Now point your browser over here and find 23 more videos by these and other scientists. (Maybe more by the time you read this.)
Here stands Bill.
To his Grandpa Swaim, he was Sugar Manny. To his Uncle Jim, he was Bilious Bill. To most of those who knew him in his youth, he was a good kid most of the time. (After he was grown, he commented more than once that being chicken can get a kid a lot of credit for being good.)
To most of those same people, he was Billy for his first fifteen or sixteen years. After that, he was usually just Bill; though his driver’s license always listed him as William Henry Dearmore, Jr.
As a child, he thought he was Billy Boy. “‘Oh, where have you been, Billy Boy, Billy Boy? Oh, where have you been, Charming Billy?’ ‘I have been to seek a wife. She’s the darling of my life. She’s a young thing and cannot leave her mother.’”
As a young man seeking knowledge and understanding (and fortune, of course), he was probably more like Little Willie.
“Little Willie from his mirror
Licked the mercury right off,
Thinking in his childish error
It would cure the whooping cough.
“At his funeral his mother
Smartly said to Mrs. Brown,
‘Twas a chilly day for Willie
When the mercury went down.” - (Author unknown, but it came from Bill's high school chemistry class)
But Bill was more careful. (Chicken, actually. Remember?) And maybe a little bit luckier. And Bill experimented more with thoughts than with things, anyway. Partly because of some of his thoughts, a few people said he was a “space cadet,” a “space nut,” or just a “nutcase.” More than once he was said to be “way far out.”
To some, he was Wild Bill; but everybody knew he wasn’t really wild.
He always wanted to be a “professional explainer,” as Isaac Asimov described himself. But he had too little of Asimov’s talent or personality or drive. Or brains.
When he wasn’t trying to be an Asimov, he wanted to be an Albert Einstein, a Linus Pauling, a Paul Harvey, or a Neil Armstrong. But Bill was just Bill.
Bill was probably reasonably smart. At least, he usually thought so. But he seldom if ever thought of himself as wise. He was doubtful there was any great amount of wisdom in the world.
Occasionally someone thought he was a “know it all,” but he always understood that he knew very little of what there was to learn. However, just because he could never know everything — and he knew he couldn’t — he seldom let that stop him from trying. He believed one’s mental reach should exceed his grasp. “To try and fail to learn is far less failure than failure to try,” he said.
Sometimes when the question of knowledge arose, he said he knew a little bit about a lot of things, but not enough about anything to be considered an expert. In his late forties and fifties, though, he might have finally learned enough about personal computer use to be considered an expert by some. Until Windows came along and changed everything.
Bill was a dreamer. He wanted to vacation on the moon and Mars and the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. He wanted to visit the Antarctic and domed cities on the ocean’s floor. He wanted to fly with little wings on his arms in the microgravity near the center of a giant space station.
He wanted to see poverty and disease wiped out by good and capable people using advanced technologies and social techniques. He wanted an end to the bigotries and prejudices and other idiocies that cause war and so much suffering.
For many years, Bill hoped to live long enough to experience some of these things for himself; and he probably died still expecting many of his offspring to experience most of them eventually.
Despite his hopes and dreams, Bill was a skeptic. Skepticism, in his opinion, didn’t imply that one should (or even could) refuse to believe anything. On the contrary, he said refusing to believe a thing is as irrational as refusing to question a belief. Neither did he equate skepticism with cynicism, which he considered an attitude problem.
He liked to define a skeptic as one who questions everything that’s important enough to worry about, because he said, “Life poses more questions than answers.”
Bill believed in the scientific method and information generated by it. Not that it was infallible or “perfect”; but he said it had proven itself to be the best tool ever devised for learning about ourselves, our world, and the universe. He considered skepticism an essential part of the scientific method, and said its function was to weed out unworkable and unnecessary ideas. To Bill, the scientific method was a system of gathering data by observation, coming up with one or more ideas about the data, and then weeding out the ideas that don’t work. Which is usually most of them.
Hence the need for skepticism.
He believed in technology, which he thought of as applied scientific information. That is, information learned by the scientific method and used to create something or accomplish a purpose.
He believed in the power of reason and logic, but he doubted that most of us are as reasonable or logical as we like to think. He said that’s probably why we need skepticism, to keep us from believing even more nonsense than we do.
Bill realized that some of his friends and relatives would be convinced he was going to burn in hell for his skepticism. But he was skeptical of that, too; and he fervently hoped they would not grieve unduly about it. He expected to die like Rover, “all over.” He was very skeptical of immortal spirits or souls or “life after death.” He doubted the existence of any hell other than the one that so many people experience every day of their lives. Or any heaven, either.
That’s not to say he wouldn’t like to believe in eternal life in a place of joy and health and prosperity. He just couldn’t find any evidence of it, and it seemed like a pretty far-fetched thing to believe without serious evidence.
Some of the things Bill did believe in were love and affection; joy, pleasure, and fun; peace; friendship; loyalty; honesty and integrity, without which he said civilization could not exist; limited, but extensive, freedom for all, except those few violently dangerous criminals which he thought should usually be locked up for a long time to protect the rest of us from them; and he believed in minding one’s own business.
If this essay seems a little bit one-sided, it is probably because Bill himself wrote it during his fifty-eighth year of life, and then modified it a little bit several times. He tried to write truthfully, but one never sees oneself as others see him.
Nevertheless, when you drive through the hill country of Central Texas, where Bill’s ashes were scattered after his death, and you come upon a patch of bluebonnets that might have been fertilized by his remains, think to yourself, “Here stands Bill. In his first life, he was just plain Bill. But now part of him lives again, as a patch of flowers, making the world more beautiful.”
When you get home, tip a glass of your favorite beverage and drink to your own health and wealth and joy, and those of your fellow beings on earth. Then take care of our world as long as you live, and make it a better place. Take time to enjoy the flowers occasionally, and help keep the living things living.
I originally wrote this about a decade ago to be read at my own funeral. Maybe it will be sometime; so I've tried to keep it more or less current, just in case. But I don't plan to die any time soon if I can help it, so I decided to publish it here for anybody who might be interested.
This was an email I wrote to a group of people last March in response to a previous email from another member of the same group. I decided to post it here with only very slight editing to be my first post on this blog.
