At this morning’s Ugly Christmas Sweater 5k, I told Bill Holmes that, when I run, I always look for (and try to appreciate) something I wouldn’t see if I were sitting in my house, on my butt. He responded along the lines of, “Well, I often see some pretty good spandex.” I told him he was channeling Ollie.
Why oh why would anyone say this about me? 🙂 Why would someone who once blogged this say that about me? 😉
Ever hear of the term “living fossil”? That might be a useful term for most of us; it represents an animal that hasn’t undergone many “visible” evolutionary changes over tens to hundreds of millions of years (e. g., it looks the same, has the same external features, hunts and reproduces the same way, etc.). But not all evolutionary change can be observed in this manner, as Larry Moran points out. There are biochemical changes that occur as well, which means that many evolutionary changes have little to do with natural selection.
Note: in the world of mathematics, we would merely formalize the definition of “living fossil”. 🙂
I am taking a break between segments of a pop-science video on quantum mechanics. I’ll probably write a short blurb on my mathematics blog about how the Taylor series is used in Plank’s law (which yields the Rayleigh-Jeans blackbody radation law at low frequencies).
I’ll post some stuff that I found interesting.
Remember all of the uproar about the “why black women are ugly” article that appeared in Psychology Today (online) and then was pulled? Much of the push-back against the article was lame; it was “I don’t like it” and that was about it. This is a typical reaction, though the TITLE of this counter article “says who?” actually gets to the point rather quickly.
Of course, there are many problems with the article; for one the measurement of attractiveness was basically the opinion of a small number of people. So what the data (supposedly) said was “a tiny percentage of people seem to think that black women are less attractive than other women.”…that’s it.
2. Kanazawa interprets his findings in terms of adult attractiveness yet the majority of his data were based on the ratings of attractiveness of the participants when they were teenagers. If many of us (including the authors of this post) were judged throughout our lives based on our physical attractiveness as a teenager, a lot of us would be in trouble!
Add Health currently has four “waves,” […]
Note that only Wave IV actually consists of “Adults.” In fact, the range of ages for Wave I and Wave II is 12-22, with an average age of about 16 for both waves.
Imagine the scenario. Adult researchers (unfortunately we couldn’t find out information about the actual interviewers themselves) went into the homes of these participants and rated their own subjective view of the physical attractiveness of the study participants on a scale from 1 to 5 (ranging from “very unattractive” to “very attractive”). For Waves I and II in particular, the ratings couldn’t possibly (we hope!) be referring to ratings of the sexual attractiveness of these kids. So discussions of this topic using data from the dating website OK Cupid really aren’t appropriate here.
Only in Waves 3 and 4 were the participants old enough on average (M = 22.2, SD = 1.9 and M= 29.00 SD = 1.8, respectively) to be actually called “women” and “men” instead of girls and boys. If one looks at the data from the waves (3 and 4) in which all of the interviewees reached legal adulthood, the pattern of results no longer supports Kanazawa’s main conclusion.
In Wave 3, we did find a very slight difference in attractiveness ratings in favor of European women, but this is effect is no longer significant after we take into account the random variation due to the raters.
However, only data from Wave 4 is relevant for the issue that Kanazawa wants to address simply because this is the only Wave consisting of adults (they were collected when all of the participants were adults aged 25-34). Unfortunately, Kanazawa does not include presentation of these Wave 4 results, despite the fact that he uses Add Health data in most of his studies and these data have been available for over a month.
Focusing just on Wave 4, it is obvious that among the women in the sample, there is no difference between the ethnicities in terms of ratings of physical attractiveness. Differences in the distributions for females when tested with a regular (and slightly liberal) test of independence is non-significant and hence can be attributed to chance (Pearson’s Chi-Square=15.6, DF=12, p =.210). Here’s the graph that shows the distribution of ratings (in percentages) for 1564 European Americans, 553 African Americans, 97 Native Americans, and 96 Asian American females (with arithmetic means below each group):
There is much more there, but the counter-argument is easy to sum up: it is an incompetent analysis of data which represents the opinions of a small number of people. THAT is how one critiques such shoddy “studies”.
I freely admit that this study attracted such attention because it offended so many, and I wonder how much junk is out there that hasn’t attracted such scrutiny? I also wonder what the article referee was doing when he/she reviewed this article. That this passed some sort of a “review process” does not speak well for Psychology Today.
Note: before you start screaming “oh, you are just being PC”; it is possible to, say, do a competent survey of American heterosexual males on what they find sexually attractive, and it is possible that one group of women (say, Asian or Mexican) be found more or less attractive than some other group of women. My honest guess is that the results would be all over the map, especially if one took into account things like health, wealth, obesity, etc. But who knows?
BUT…I doubt if there would be any “evolutionary” reason aside from people having some tendency to select for the signs of good child bearing potential in women and perhaps being more attracted to one’s own “race” (on the average….MAYBE). Remember that some homo sapiens carry Neanderthal genes….so evidently sexual attraction is quite varied!!!! 🙂
What I know for sure is that the Psychology Today article was pathetic and it sure appears to me as if the author has some sort of racial ax to grind, but I can’t be sure of that. It could be that the author of the Psychology Today is driven by some desire to be anti-PC and iconoclastic for its own sake.
Progress in the United States
I have to beware of passing along things that are “what I want to hear”:
I want to hear this message. BUT…becoming right wing might well be a sign of wealth; that is, as more racial minorities become more affluent, they too might turn into right wingers.
And remember that people who are discriminated against often have no problem discriminating against others; though this comes from a satire blog, it sure hammers home the point:
(cut and paste if you want to read the post; I don’t want the track-back)
Warning: the language is not what I’d use on the blog:
I am so proud of the West Coast blacks! I didn’t think they had it in them. They disproved the liberal concept of “prejudice.” So-called “enlightened” people often claim those of us who recognize that different people have different places in society — and not everyone is “equal” — are prejudiced. They criticize our claims that colored people are destined to serve rather than lead as evidence of “prejudice.” Well, the California coloreds proved them wrong. Even though these people support their own “rights,” they voted overwhelmingly in favor of Proposition 8, which prohibits homosexuals from having the same kind of relationships the rest of us have (i.e., marriage). Exit polls show that the majority of normal people (Caucasians) voted against the proposition. It was the blacks who ensured it passed.
This, of course, just shows that claims of “prejudice” involve nothing more than self-interest. Blacks pushed hard for the right to be viewed the same as whites, and actually got one of their own kind elected President. But when it came to homos seeking the same so-called “rights,” they voted to recognize that not everyone is equal. They single-handedly defeated homo equality in California. Thank you, California coloreds, not just for putting homos in their place, but for showing that claims of “injustice” and “prejudice” really just involve self-interest. After all, as soon as you got what you wanted, you abandoned all pretense of supporting equality. Clever. LOL!
Yes, I know; one can correct for education, religiosity and age.
Bottom line: I don’t see racial minorities as being more altruistic than anyone else; remember that my ancestors (Aztecs if you go back far enough) ruthlessly dealt with the people that they conquered. They weren’t really any more moral than my Spanish ancestors; they were merely less efficient at killing and enslaving.
Ok, I’ll look at it this way: conservatism is more about keeping order than anything else:
And if minorities become the new majority, we’ll probably see “conservative” minorities trying to preserve the new order at the expense of others.
Workout notes: 1200 yards of swimming:
12 x (25 drill, 25 swim) drills were kicking (front, side, side)
8 x (25 drill, 25 swim) drills were 2 sfs, 2 were 3-g (three strokes then glide), 4 were “fist” 25s.
4 x 50 on the 1:10; I actually got the feeling that I was swimming on the last one.
I admit that I sometimes do things just to start a conversation. Example: I’ll sometimes wear a race or an event t-shirt just to see if there are any others who have either ran (or walked) the race or participated in the event. It is fun!
I’ve done that too with my Obama t-shirt, but there was one occasion in which some old tea party type tried to get in an argument with me; I merely told him that he was wrong and blew him off.
There are conversation starters on the internet too; I’ve found the biggest ones have been on facebook and other websites.
But here is one conversation starter that I did not expect:
(in each case, click the thumbnail to see the full sized version)
What do these people have in common?
I’ve had back channel conversations with every one of them; topics have ranged from athletics, yoga, psychology, science, social issues, travel and humor. All of them have seen photos of me and my family and knows at least a little about me and my life, and I know at least a bit about theirs
And….I met every one of them because they posted a spandex butt-shot of themselves!
Who would have guessed that a spandex wrapped butt would be a conversation starter? 🙂
Oh well…back to my math paper.
Update I found one of my references online; it saved me a trip to the library! 🙂
Blog It has taken me 1499 days (first post was on 10 December 2006) but now I’ve finally reached half a million hits. Sure, that is perhaps one day for, say, Daily Kos. I started by averaging 20 hits per day or so; right now 500-600 is typical; that is tiny compared to many.
So, if you are reading this, thank you. 🙂
When I wrote about this issue a couple years ago, the National Football League’s Vice President of Officiating, Mike Pereira, had this to say:
The whole issue is, you can’t go to the ground on your knees or with your hand or anything. There’s only one time that you’re going to be allowed to go on your knee after you score like this, and that’s when you want to praise the Lord. If you do that, then I’m going to allow that, because I do not want to be struck by lightning, I promise you that. We will allow that.
The NFL is a private organization, of course. They can issue (or not issue) fines however they would like. But some consistency in the rules would be nice. If they want to allow Christian prayers after a touchdown, why not just come out and say it?
I admit that this is a good business decision; my guess is that many fans are ok with people giving gratitude to their invisible friend. 🙂
Our book Reasonable Atheism does not publish until April, yet we have already been charged with
accommodationism, the cardinal sin amongst so-called New Atheists. The charge derives mainly from the subtitle of our book, “a moral case for respectful disbelief.” Our offense consists in embracing idea that atheists owe to religious believers anything like respect. The accusation runs roughly as follows: “Respect” is merely a euphemism for soft-pedaling one’s criticisms of religion; but religion is a force of great evil, and thus must be fought with unmitigated vigor. Atheist calls for respect in dealing with religion simply reflect a failure of nerve, and must be called out. Anything less than an intellectual total war on religion is capitulation to, and thus complicity with, irrationality.
In our case, the charge of accommodationism as a failure of critical nerve is misplaced; anyone who actually reads our book will find that we pull no punches. But we also think that, as it is commonly employed in atheist circles, the idea of accommodationism involves a conflation between two kinds of evaluation which should be kept distinct. Some clarification is in order. […]
You can read the rest of the post. But, accommodationism is more about making the claim that religion, as understood by most western believers anyway, is compatible with current science. Sorry, but it isn’t; after all current mainstream religious thought has humans being the intentional outcome of a creative process and science has shown that evolution is an undirected process.
There are two points to be made here. First, even the “tolerant” official views of religion can be anti-science. While the Catholic church officially accepts evolution, it accepts theistic evolution, in which God guided the process and casually slipped an immortal soul into the hominin lineage. And theistic evolution, in which God has a role in the process, is not acceptance of evolution as we biologists understand it. So yes, the true biological view of evolution as a materialistic, unguided process is indeed at odds with most religions. Organizations that promote evolution, such as the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), prefer to avoid this critical point: all they care about is that evolution get taught in the schools, not whether believers wind up accepting the concept of evolution as it’s understood by scientists. (If all they want is evolution to be taught, that, I suppose is fine. But it’s not fine if they want public understanding of evolution.)
Second, if you construe “religion” as “what religious people believe,” then there certainly is opposition to evolution among members of all religions. For example, despite the position of their church, many Catholics adhere to the form of young-earth creationism accepted by 40% of Americans. That 40% does not comprise only Bible-waving fundamentalist Protestants.
When we’re totting up resistance to evolution, then, we have to do more than look at official church positions: we have to see what religious people actually think. And we should stop claiming that theistic evolutionists are fully on the side of science, because they aren’t. They’re on the side of the angels (whose existence, by the way, is accepted by 75% of Americans). These theists see evolution as involving miracles at one point or another.
Only about 20% of Americans agree both that humans evolved and that this process wasn’t guided by God. If you’re a naturalist, those are our real allies. The rest are what Anthony Grayling calls “supernaturalists.”
Of course people should be respected and of course, there are intelligent believers. But accepting that doesn’t make one an accommodationist. Accommodationism is pretending that there is no logical incompatibility between science and mainstream religion.
We went to the Thanksgiving day brunch at Wildlife Prairie Park; my wife, her nephew, her daughter and grandson were also there.
The bartender was wearing very tight hip-huggers…I wonder if her tip jar was full. 🙂
Sandwalk talks more about the “science is cool” campaign:
This poster is from Rock Stars of Science. There are six people in the photo: one of them is a rock star (I’m told) and five of them are famous scientists (I’m told).
Is this a good way to promote science? Martin Robbins doesn’t think so: ‘Rockstars of Science’ should be ‘Scientists of Rock’.
I could be wrong. Maybe this is a good way of reaching out to people. Maybe GQ’s readers are getting out their dictionaries and picking through those descriptions, stopping occasionally to stare at the blurry, bearded interloper in the background of Bob’s photograph. And maybe those readers are now more inspired by science as a result. If so, I’d like to see some evidence of it – maybe a poll of readers?
But I still can’t help but feel that if you have to resort to rockstars make science cool, you’re really not very good at communicating science. Because science is way cooler than rock stars.
You won’t be surprised to learn that Chris Mooney likes this campaign and ERV doesn’t. Jerry Coyne doesn’t like it either. Does anyone notice a pattern here? … The one person who isn’t a scientist is the one who thinks he knows how to promote science.
I love it. But Larry Moran does have a sense of humor; check out his post about “how to protect yourself from wi-fi radiation”. It isn’t everyday that you see a middle aged biochemist in a tinfoil hat (thumbnail links to Dr. Moran’s post):
Thanksgiving: here is some thanks that physics problems in the large (macroscopic) can be solved without know much (or at all?) about the small (microscopic). Example: you can solve a motion problem using Newtonian mechanics without knowing what is going on at the quantum level…or one can do fluid mechanics without knowing about the Brownian motion of the molecules.
Is Schizophrenia caused by a retrovirus that most of us have immunity to? There is a mainstream conjecture that this is the case:
chizophrenia is usually diagnosed between the ages of 15 and 25, but the person who becomes schizophrenic is sometimes recalled to have been different as a child or a toddler—more forgetful or shy or clumsy. Studies of family videos confirm this. Even more puzzling is the so-called birth-month effect: People born in winter or early spring are more likely than others to become schizophrenic later in life. It is a small increase, just 5 to 8 percent, but it is remarkably consistent, showing up in 250 studies. That same pattern is seen in people with bipolar disorder or multiple sclerosis.
“The birth-month effect is one of the most clearly established facts about schizophrenia,” says Fuller Torrey, director of the Stanley Medical Research Institute in Chevy Chase, Maryland. “It’s difficult to explain by genes, and it’s certainly difficult to explain by bad mothers.”
The facts of schizophrenia are so peculiar, in fact, that they have led Torrey and a growing number of other scientists to abandon the traditional explanations of the disease and embrace a startling alternative. Schizophrenia, they say, does not begin as a psychological disease. Schizophrenia begins with an infection.
The idea has sparked skepticism, but after decades of hunting, Torrey and his colleagues think they have finally found the infectious agent. You might call it an insanity virus. If Torrey is right, the culprit that triggers a lifetime of hallucinations—that tore apart the lives of writer Jack Kerouac, mathematician John Nash, and millions of others—is a virus that all of us carry in our bodies. “Some people laugh about the infection hypothesis,” says Urs Meyer, a neuroimmunologist at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich. “But the impact that it has on researchers is much, much, much more than it was five years ago. And my prediction would be that it will gain even more impact in the future.” […]
Perron learned from their failures. “I decided that I should not have an a priori idea of what I would find,” he says. Rather than looking for one virus, as others had done, he tried to detect any retrovirus, whether or not it was known to science. He extracted fluids from the spinal columns of MS patients and tested for an enzyme, called reverse transcriptase, that is carried by all retroviruses. Sure enough, Perron saw faint traces of retroviral activity. Soon he obtained fuzzy electron microscope images of the retrovirus itself.
His discovery was intriguing but far from conclusive. After confirming his find was not a fluke, Perron needed to sequence its genes. He moved to the National Center for Scientific Research in Lyon, France, where he labored days, nights, and weekends. He cultured countless cells from people with MS to grow enough of his mystery virus for sequencing. MS is an incurable disease, so Perron had to do his research in a Level 3 biohazard lab. Working in this airtight catacomb, he lived his life in masks, gloves, and disposable scrubs.
After eight years of research, Perron finally completed his retrovirus’s gene sequence. What he found on that day in 1997 no one could have predicted; it instantly explained why so many others had failed before him. We imagine viruses as mariners, sailing from person to person across oceans of saliva, snot, or semen—but Perron’s bug was a homebody. It lives permanently in the human body at the very deepest level: inside our DNA. After years slaving away in a biohazard lab, Perron realized that everyone already carried the virus that causes multiple sclerosis.
Other scientists had previously glimpsed Perron’s retrovirus without fully grasping its significance. In the 1970s biologists studying pregnant baboons were shocked as they looked at electron microscope images of the placenta. They saw spherical retroviruses oozing from the cells of seemingly healthy animals. They soon found the virus in healthy humans, too. So began a strange chapter in evolutionary biology. […]
Viruses like influenza or measles kill cells when they infect them. But when retroviruses like HIV infect a cell, they often let the cell live and splice their genes into its DNA. When the cell divides, both of its progeny carry the retrovirus’s genetic code in their DNA.
In the past few years, geneticists have pieced together an account of how Perron’s retrovirus entered our DNA. Sixty million years ago, a lemurlike animal—an early ancestor of humans and monkeys—contracted an infection. It may not have made the lemur ill, but the retrovirus spread into the animal’s testes (or perhaps its ovaries), and once there, it struck the jackpot: It slipped inside one of the rare germ line cells that produce sperm and eggs. When the lemur reproduced, that retrovirus rode into the next generation aboard the lucky sperm and then moved on from generation to generation, nestled in the DNA. “It’s a rare, random event,” says Robert Belshaw, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Oxford in England. “Over the last 100 million years, there have been only maybe 50 times when a retrovirus has gotten into our genome and proliferated.”
Read the whole article; it is fascinating.
- 2008 Election
- 2010 election
- 2012 election
- 2014 midterm
- Aaron Schock
- affirmative action
- Agricultural Commisioner
- alternative energy
- April 1
- Barack Obama
- barback obama
- Barbara Boxer
- big butts
- bill maher on mosque
- bill richardson
- blog humor
- blood donation
- Bobby Jindal
- business & economy
- Cheri Bustos
- civil liberties
- Claire McCaskill
- climate change
- college football
- d k hirner
- dark energy
- dave koehler
- Dick Durbin
- Dick Morris
- dk hirner
- draw Mohammad day
- draw Muhammad day
- Fox News Lies Again
- free speech
- glenn beck
- glenn hubbard
- green news
- ground zero mosque
- gwen ifill
- haunting songs
- health care
- Herman Cain
- High Speed Rail
- hillary clinton
- human sexuality
- if rich people have to pay taxes
- immigration. racial profiling
- internet issues
- interstate highways
- Intrade Prediction
- jan brewer
- jim lehrer
- Joe Biden
- John McCain
- jon stewart
- Judicial nominations
- knee rehabilitation
- laughing at myself
- michelle bachmann
- Mid Life Crisis
- Middle East
- Mike Huckabee
- mike's blog round up
- Mitt Romney
- national disgrace
- Navel Staring
- Newt Gingrich
- north america
- north carolina
- NSFW humor
- Olympic Spandex
- Personal Issues
- Political Ad
- political humor
- public policy and discussion from NPR public radio program Science Friday with host Ira Flatow. Science Videos
- rebulican party
- republican party
- republican senate minority leader
- republicans political/social
- republicans politics
- rick perry
- rick santorum
- Rush Limbaugh
- sarah palin
- Science Friday teachers
- Science Friday teens.
- shoulder rehabilitation
- Spineless Democrats
- stem cells
- stephen colbert
- tax cuts
- the colbert report
- Tim Pawlenty
- time trial/ race
- war on drugs
- weight training
- wise cracks
- world events