Scott Adams, the cartoonist who created Dilbert, likes to say that there are only nine news stories, constantly re-written.
Every once in awhile I like to check the newspaper with his list in mind, to see if he is right. I'll start with his wording unmodified by examples.
1. EXTREME WEATHER BATTERS SOMEPLACE
2. IDIOTS KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE
3. POLITICIAN DOES SOMETHING ILLEGAL
4. PRIMATE ATTEMPTS INAPPROPRIATE SEX
5. EXPERTS WARN OF FINANCIAL CALAMITY
6. BIG COMPANY BUYS ANOTHER BIG COMPANY
7. FAMOUS PERSON DOES SOMETHING INTERESTING
8. A SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY MIGHT BE USEFUL IN TEN YEARS
9. GOVERNMENT FAILS TO ACHIEVE A GOAL
Does that break-down hold up for the news of the past week or so?
1. Extreme weather? Check.
2. I'm sure somebody's idiocy (or worse) will be found at the center of the fire that killed students at Marist College, my alma mater, this week.
3. A politician (specifically, a state legislator) is on trial in Harrisburg, PA for insisting that his egislative employees work on his campaigns on their taxpayer-paid time.
4. Primate attempts inappropriate sex? Perhaps such monkey business explains the need for newer tests for simian HIV, herpes, etc., chronicled here.
5. Experts warn of financial calamity. South Africa considers a carbon tax as its contribution to limiting global warming. Industries there ... warn of calamity.
6. Big Company Buys Another Big Company. Apache and Cordillera Energy Partners.
7. Famous Person, i.e. assassination-attempt survivor Gabrielle Giffords, does something interesting, i.e. she resigns her seat in the US House, in a moving video message.
8. The scientific discovery that might be useful in ten years? Sediments found at bottom of ocean near Straits of Gibraltar could help guide "future oil and gas exploration, the researchers believe."
9. Government fails to achieve a goal. Too easy, but let's go there. There have been recent reports that the various recipients of the US space program's moon rocks, mostly museums and labs with good connections, have been losing them. Can't governments even achieve the goal of storing rocks properly?
Yes, I think Scott Adams has a point. We're in a loop!
Showing posts with label evolutionary biology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label evolutionary biology. Show all posts
29 January 2012
29 October 2011
Hominid Hunting
This looks like a great new site, although new and still evolving.
http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/hominids/
http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/hominids/
03 June 2011
Hoyle and Wickramasinghe
More from the book I mentioned last week.
Some species have "evolutionary potential" and others don't. Some have come to an evolutionary dead end. That distinction has some support from Ohno.
Among those species with EP, the potential becomes actual when there is a shock from without, a benevolent infection.
"It is interesting that among birds those in which influenza virus has been found -- chicken, duck, turkey, quail, shearwater -- tend to be long-lived species. We remarked above that program changes which are not improvements show up as disease, from which it follows that species susceptible to program changes -- i.e. those stil with evolutionary potentisal -- must exhibit a greater tendency to disease than static spcies without evolutionary potential."
Some species have "evolutionary potential" and others don't. Some have come to an evolutionary dead end. That distinction has some support from Ohno.
Among those species with EP, the potential becomes actual when there is a shock from without, a benevolent infection.
"It is interesting that among birds those in which influenza virus has been found -- chicken, duck, turkey, quail, shearwater -- tend to be long-lived species. We remarked above that program changes which are not improvements show up as disease, from which it follows that species susceptible to program changes -- i.e. those stil with evolutionary potentisal -- must exhibit a greater tendency to disease than static spcies without evolutionary potential."
22 May 2011
Evolution From Space
I'm finally in possession of a copy of a book I've only heard about and read second-hand reports of until now. It is EVOLUTION FROM SPACE by Fred Hoyle and N.C. Wickramasinghe, published in 1981.
The late Fred Hoyle was of course a very prominent astronomer and astrophysicist, once the leading proponent of the steady-state theory of the cosmos, and renowned for his work on the evolution of stars.
Wickramasinghe is professor of applied mathematics and astronomy at Cardiff University.
Today, they spin out their theory of panspermia. It is a theory not only of the origins of life on earth, but in their hands (as the book's title implies) a theory of how life has developed since. For the arrival of new genetic material from the stars was not, for them, as it was for other advocates of panspermia, a one time event.
Let's take fairly recent history -- in terms of geological or biological time. Let us consider especially the span of time between the emergence of the first hominids and our own selves. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe quote a Japanese biologist, Susumu Ohno, thus:
"Did the genome of our cave-dwelling predecessor contain a set or sets of genes which enable modern man to compose music of infinite complexity and write novels with profound meaning? One is compelled to give an affirmative answer....It looks as though the early Homo was already provided with the intellectual potential which was in great excess of what was needed to cope with the environment of his time."
This seems to Hoyle et ux to mean that Ohno has given up on Darwinism. If the cave dwellers already had the capacity to compose like Bach, without an environment that would get them any natural advantage out of composing like Bach, or having that capacity, then ... something other than natural selection was clearly at work.
If new genetic material repeatedly rains down on the earth from space, and if it must be absorbed somehow, then it is easier (these authors think) to see how human develpment could get ahead of the environment to this degree.
At least ... I think that is what they are saying. I have only just dipped into the book.
The late Fred Hoyle was of course a very prominent astronomer and astrophysicist, once the leading proponent of the steady-state theory of the cosmos, and renowned for his work on the evolution of stars.
Wickramasinghe is professor of applied mathematics and astronomy at Cardiff University.
Today, they spin out their theory of panspermia. It is a theory not only of the origins of life on earth, but in their hands (as the book's title implies) a theory of how life has developed since. For the arrival of new genetic material from the stars was not, for them, as it was for other advocates of panspermia, a one time event.
Let's take fairly recent history -- in terms of geological or biological time. Let us consider especially the span of time between the emergence of the first hominids and our own selves. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe quote a Japanese biologist, Susumu Ohno, thus:
"Did the genome of our cave-dwelling predecessor contain a set or sets of genes which enable modern man to compose music of infinite complexity and write novels with profound meaning? One is compelled to give an affirmative answer....It looks as though the early Homo was already provided with the intellectual potential which was in great excess of what was needed to cope with the environment of his time."
This seems to Hoyle et ux to mean that Ohno has given up on Darwinism. If the cave dwellers already had the capacity to compose like Bach, without an environment that would get them any natural advantage out of composing like Bach, or having that capacity, then ... something other than natural selection was clearly at work.
If new genetic material repeatedly rains down on the earth from space, and if it must be absorbed somehow, then it is easier (these authors think) to see how human develpment could get ahead of the environment to this degree.
At least ... I think that is what they are saying. I have only just dipped into the book.
05 May 2011
More on Marc Hauser
In September I wrote about Marc Hauser director of the Behavior Program at Harvard University, now on leave.
As I noted, Hauser acquired some renown for experiments on the cognition of primates, especially cotton-top tamerin. His experiments were thought to contribute to evolutionary psycholigy, i.e. to an understanding of the biological roots of our behavior as humans. His results, though, are now regarded as presumptively tainted, due to "evidence of scientific misconduct" in connection with some of his reported data.
So ... what is new? One of his controversial results has been rehabilitated -- has been, if you will, cleansed of that taint. This is big news, now just for those other primates but for human beings, and for the study of psychology as a natural science.
Justin N. Wood was the first named author, and Hauser the second, on the original paper, published in September 2007.
It found that certain non-human primates can distinguish intentional gestures by human beings from merely accidental or random movements.
This rather confirms my view, expressed last week, that the most humanly important fact taught to laypeople in general by scientific work on evolution is that we are path dependent beings. Who we are depends upon our history. For a discussion of the notion of path dependence in the social sciences go here.
As I noted, Hauser acquired some renown for experiments on the cognition of primates, especially cotton-top tamerin. His experiments were thought to contribute to evolutionary psycholigy, i.e. to an understanding of the biological roots of our behavior as humans. His results, though, are now regarded as presumptively tainted, due to "evidence of scientific misconduct" in connection with some of his reported data.
So ... what is new? One of his controversial results has been rehabilitated -- has been, if you will, cleansed of that taint. This is big news, now just for those other primates but for human beings, and for the study of psychology as a natural science.
Justin N. Wood was the first named author, and Hauser the second, on the original paper, published in September 2007.
It found that certain non-human primates can distinguish intentional gestures by human beings from merely accidental or random movements.
This rather confirms my view, expressed last week, that the most humanly important fact taught to laypeople in general by scientific work on evolution is that we are path dependent beings. Who we are depends upon our history. For a discussion of the notion of path dependence in the social sciences go here.
23 April 2011
Not Scott Adams!!!
I'm a huge fan, But this news rather dismayed me.
Scott Adams is the wonderfully talented creator of "Dilbert." I am a fan not only of that strip but of some of Adams' other writings, as I've established on this blog by regularly employing his list of "tomorrow's headlines."
That has no very close connection to this ... Adams has described evolution as an established fact. But he has also said he expects the notion of "time" will be radically re-formulated in our lifetimes, and that the overthrow of any theory about biological evolution will be one consequence of that. This gives him an interestingly bifurcated view of the subject.
Who cares what a cartoonist thinks about evolution, or for that matter about the physics of time? Well ... nobody much.
Anyway, the minor brou-ha-ha about Adams' sock puppetry came to my attention because I checked Felix Salmon's blog Monday morning and saw this.
So I've been thinking about Adams, and this has led me in turn to think some more about evolution.
Insert some clever joke about the evolution of sock puppets here.
Scott Adams is the wonderfully talented creator of "Dilbert." I am a fan not only of that strip but of some of Adams' other writings, as I've established on this blog by regularly employing his list of "tomorrow's headlines."
That has no very close connection to this ... Adams has described evolution as an established fact. But he has also said he expects the notion of "time" will be radically re-formulated in our lifetimes, and that the overthrow of any theory about biological evolution will be one consequence of that. This gives him an interestingly bifurcated view of the subject.
Who cares what a cartoonist thinks about evolution, or for that matter about the physics of time? Well ... nobody much.
Anyway, the minor brou-ha-ha about Adams' sock puppetry came to my attention because I checked Felix Salmon's blog Monday morning and saw this.
So I've been thinking about Adams, and this has led me in turn to think some more about evolution.
Insert some clever joke about the evolution of sock puppets here.
10 September 2010
Stephen Jay Gould
It was on this day, September 10, in 1941 that Stephen Jay Gould was born.
Gould was both a paleontologist and a popularizer of science, who died of lung cancer in May 2002.
Above all, IMHO, Gould was a fine writer, and he had the good fortune of leaving a Magnum Opus behind -- The Structure of Evolutionary Theory (2002)-- its publication date preceding his death by only two months.
In this work, Gould described evolutionary theory as a tripod. One leg is the agency of the individual organism. The second leg is the efficacy of natural selection in bringing about changes in form. The final leg is the full sufficiency of the first two legs, as a mode of explanation.
That third leg, Gould calls "scope." For critics of Darwin often make some concession to the effect that his theory has some value, but only if its scope is confined to "microevolution." Darwin's view, and Gould's, was that "extended through the immensity of geological time," natural selection and the agency of individuals make up a mechanism "fully capable of generating the entire pageant of life's history."
What is that "agency of the individual" thing, though? It is only worth listing this as a "leg" if there are other possible units of selection that might do some or all of the work. For example, Dawkins looks inside the individual, and speaks of individual genes are agents. The whole biological organism is too large a proposed "agent" on that view. Another point of view might be that the individual is too small an entity -- one ought to think of flocks or herds, social units, as the relevant agent.
Finally, let us note that Gould himself had a fairly complicated attitude toward both of those proposed agents -- the social unit and the gene. But as a historian of science, insisting on what Darwin thought, Gould wrote this: "Darwin insisted upon a virtually exceptionless, single-level theory, with organisms acting as the locus of selection."
Gould was both a paleontologist and a popularizer of science, who died of lung cancer in May 2002.
Above all, IMHO, Gould was a fine writer, and he had the good fortune of leaving a Magnum Opus behind -- The Structure of Evolutionary Theory (2002)-- its publication date preceding his death by only two months.
In this work, Gould described evolutionary theory as a tripod. One leg is the agency of the individual organism. The second leg is the efficacy of natural selection in bringing about changes in form. The final leg is the full sufficiency of the first two legs, as a mode of explanation.
That third leg, Gould calls "scope." For critics of Darwin often make some concession to the effect that his theory has some value, but only if its scope is confined to "microevolution." Darwin's view, and Gould's, was that "extended through the immensity of geological time," natural selection and the agency of individuals make up a mechanism "fully capable of generating the entire pageant of life's history."
What is that "agency of the individual" thing, though? It is only worth listing this as a "leg" if there are other possible units of selection that might do some or all of the work. For example, Dawkins looks inside the individual, and speaks of individual genes are agents. The whole biological organism is too large a proposed "agent" on that view. Another point of view might be that the individual is too small an entity -- one ought to think of flocks or herds, social units, as the relevant agent.
Finally, let us note that Gould himself had a fairly complicated attitude toward both of those proposed agents -- the social unit and the gene. But as a historian of science, insisting on what Darwin thought, Gould wrote this: "Darwin insisted upon a virtually exceptionless, single-level theory, with organisms acting as the locus of selection."
09 September 2010
Marc Hauser
Marc Hauser seems to be in some trouble, although it is rather difficult to get a fix on how much.
Hauser is a big name in the field of evolutionary psychology. He's the co-director of the Mind, Brain, and Behavior Program at Harvard University, Director of its Cognitive Evolution Lab, and adjunct Professor in the Graduate School of Education and the Program in Neurosciences.
In 2002 his paper, “Rule learning by cotton-top tamarins,” was published by the journal Cognition. Of course he has written much else, but I mention that paper because it is at the heart of the still developing scandal. Here's some info about the cotton-top tamarin. It's a small monkey, the sort of animal one would want to study if one were trying to prove, say, that humans are distinctive vis-a-vis moral/cognitive development even compared to other primates. Or that humans aren't that distinctive.
Hauser's experiments appear to have involved hidden loudspeakers within the living environment of these monkeys. The monkeys would, not surprisingly, sometimes turn about to look toward the loudspeakers when they started talking. But how frequently they turned around was used as a measure of whether they thought the loudspeakers were saying something interesting. After all, if the same-pld-stuff kept coming from the loudspeakers, then over time it would just become ambiant noise, and the monkeys would learn to ignore it.
By videotaping the environment, and carefully watching the tape for monkey turn-arounds, and correlating all that to what was coming out of those speakers at diferent times, one can presumably draw some conclusions about the recognition of speech by monkeys, and even (if the data set is large enough) about whether monkeys notice things like grammatical errors.
This is all founded on experiments that Elizabeth Spelke has run with human infants, as David Dobbs has explained in SLATE.
Here's what the Chronicle of Higher Education said on August 13. The findings published in Cognition in 2002 can not be relied upon. The conclusions are not supported by the data. So ... what happened? Did someone else look at the videotape and see monkeying around inconsistent with what the paper reported?
I suspect there are some big issues that are at stake here, and I wish Harvard were more forthcoming about its investigation.
Hauser is a big name in the field of evolutionary psychology. He's the co-director of the Mind, Brain, and Behavior Program at Harvard University, Director of its Cognitive Evolution Lab, and adjunct Professor in the Graduate School of Education and the Program in Neurosciences.
In 2002 his paper, “Rule learning by cotton-top tamarins,” was published by the journal Cognition. Of course he has written much else, but I mention that paper because it is at the heart of the still developing scandal. Here's some info about the cotton-top tamarin. It's a small monkey, the sort of animal one would want to study if one were trying to prove, say, that humans are distinctive vis-a-vis moral/cognitive development even compared to other primates. Or that humans aren't that distinctive.
Hauser's experiments appear to have involved hidden loudspeakers within the living environment of these monkeys. The monkeys would, not surprisingly, sometimes turn about to look toward the loudspeakers when they started talking. But how frequently they turned around was used as a measure of whether they thought the loudspeakers were saying something interesting. After all, if the same-pld-stuff kept coming from the loudspeakers, then over time it would just become ambiant noise, and the monkeys would learn to ignore it.
By videotaping the environment, and carefully watching the tape for monkey turn-arounds, and correlating all that to what was coming out of those speakers at diferent times, one can presumably draw some conclusions about the recognition of speech by monkeys, and even (if the data set is large enough) about whether monkeys notice things like grammatical errors.
This is all founded on experiments that Elizabeth Spelke has run with human infants, as David Dobbs has explained in SLATE.
Here's what the Chronicle of Higher Education said on August 13. The findings published in Cognition in 2002 can not be relied upon. The conclusions are not supported by the data. So ... what happened? Did someone else look at the videotape and see monkeying around inconsistent with what the paper reported?
I suspect there are some big issues that are at stake here, and I wish Harvard were more forthcoming about its investigation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
