Tangled Bank #92

 
The latest version of the Tangled Bank has been posted on _Paddy K_ [Tangled Bank #92].

Welcome welcome one and all, to the eighty-twelfth edition of the ancient and worthy Tangled Bank Blog Carnival. And let the games begin…

---

Fixing a Bad Design

 
Mark Hoofnagle on denialism blog has posted an interesting article on how to fix badly designed humans [Ask A Scienceblogger - Which parts of the human body could you design better?]. I agree with most of his suggestions but he left out some.

Childbirth is definitely a serious problem as Mark points out. It's one of the important proofs of evolution 'cause no intelligent designer would ever come up with the mechanism we have now. Another problem is menopause. Very few people who have lived through it (wives and husbands) think it's a good thing. Let's get rid of it entirely. I doubt very much that we would see a massive increase in fifty-year-old mothers.

I'm not a big fan of our immune system. Sure, it has some good points but a real intelligent designer could do a much better job. It looks like it was designed by Rube Goldberg or some drunken sailer. The only thing it's really good at is generating Immunology Departments and thousands of scientific papers.

Let's fix it so that it doesn't get confused by peanut antigens and other ridiculous things that can kill you. We don't want no more asthma and auto-immune diseases. How hard can it be? There's got to be a more simple way of doing the same job.

---

[Hat Tip: John Dennehy, who has other suggestions for improvement.]

[Photo Credit: A rough diagram of the Immune system]

A Global Moritorium on the Death Penalty

 
The United Nations Human Rights Commission has voted every year from 1998 to 2005 on a resolution calling for a moratorium on the death penalty. Canada has been a sponsor of this resolution every single time along with countries such as the United Kingdom, France, and Australia and 71 other countries. I'm proud of Canada's leadership on this important issue.

This leadership is about to end according to CTV [Feds won't sponsor UN anti-death-penalty resolution].

OTTAWA -- The Conservative government will not co-sponsor a United Nations resolution calling for a global moratorium on the death penalty, breaking with a nearly decade-old tradition.

An official with the Foreign Affairs Department says Canada will vote in favour of the resolution when it comes to the floor of the UN General Assembly in December, but will not sponsor it.

"There are a sufficient number of co-sponsors already, and we will focus our efforts on co-sponsoring other resolutions within the UN system which are more in need of our support,'' said Catherine Gagnaire.

Yeah, right. This represents a substantial shift in policy for the Canadian government. It's consistent with another change recently announced whereby Canada will no longer oppose the execution of Canadian citizens in foreign countries.

Last week, Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day surprised the House of Commons by announcing that Canada will not oppose the execution of a Canadian citizen on death row in Montana for two murders. Day said the new policy will apply to "murderers'' such as Ronald Allen Smith who have had a fair trial in a democratic country. (Doesn't the idea of Stockwell Day as "Public Safety Minister" just want to make you cry? )

The government has not specified which countries it considers democracies.

One of those countries is surely the United States of America. A country that executes Canadian citizens and has voted against the UN Human Rights resolution every single time.

The UN resolution has never passed thanks to the USA and other nations that still have a death penalty (e.g. Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia). Canada abolished the death penalty in 1976 and there haven't been any executions in this country since 1962. Let's hope Stephen Harper doesn't try and bring back the death penalty remove us from the list of enlightened liberal democracies.

---

[Photo Credit: see Abolish the Death Penalty for the significance of the photo.]

[Hat Tip: Canadian Cynic, Harper, Porcine Copulater]

The Logic of the IDiots

 
Intelligent Design Creationists are really upset that their views aren't taken seriously by real scientists. They want to claim that Intelligent Design Creationism is science. So far they haven't succeeded but that doesn't stop them from trying again and again.

The latest attempt by DaveScot has just been posted on Uncommon Descent [P. falciparum - No Black Swan Observed]. Let's look at this stunning example of creationist logic.

DaveScot says that scientific statements have to be capable of falsification in order to qualify as science. That's one view of what science is all about (Popperian) but it's not the only one. Nevertheless, let's run with this definition and see where it takes us.

DaveScot gives us an example of a falsifiable statement, "All swans are white." The discovery of a single black swan would falsify that statement. That's correct. Now he goes on to make a statement about intelligent design, "All complex biological systems are generated by intelligent agents."

Hmmm .... that's an interesting statement isn't it? There are no known examples of complex biological systems that have been generated by intelligent agents. From a logical perspective, it's like saying that Pluto is made of green cheese. But, what the heck, let's see where he's going with this.

What we don’t know is whether any non-intelligent means can generate complex biological systems. A single observation of a complex biological system generated by a non-intelligent cause will falsify the biological ID hypothesis.

Now I see the logic. All the evidence for the natural evolution of complex biological systems doesn't count for a damned thing. You have to actually see something like that evolve with your own eyes before you can believe it. If you don't actually witness the thing then it's logical to assume that it doesn't exist. Right?

What's the data? Well, according to DaveScot, scientists have given it their best shot and no complex biological system sprang into being. The experiment was performed with Plasmodium falciparum the protozoan that causes malaria [Plasmodium falciparum Causes Malaria].

P.falciparum replicating billions of trillions of times in the past few decades represents the largest search to date for a “black swan”. This is orders of magnitude more replications than took place in the evolution of reptiles to mammals wherein there are many exceedingly complex biological systems that separate them. If P. falciparum had been seen generating any complex biological systems such as those that distinguish mammals from reptiles then it would have falsified the ID hypothesis. None were observed. This doesn’t prove ID but it certainly lends strong support to it. All perfectly scientific.

Don't you just love creationist logic? Just because we haven't seen any complex biological systems spring naturally into existence in Plasmodium falicparum it follows that it's impossible for such thing to happen. Therefore Intelligent Design Creationism is strongly supported. QED.^1.

WARNING!!!

This experiment could be harmful to your brain. Don't try this at home.
Let's try using this logic ourselves. P. falciparum has replicated trillions of times and not once did we see an Intelligent Designer making anything. This scientific observation lends strong support to the idea that Intelligent Designers don't make complex biological systems, right? It means that evolution is correct.

Furthermore, after hundreds of years of observation involving billions of people, we haven't got a single documented case of anyone actually seing God. This doesn't prove the non-existence of God but it certainly lends strong support to it. All perfectly scientific. At least that's what DaveScot would say, I assume.

---

1. The argument would make some sense if evolution predicted that complex biological systems should evolve in protozoa every few hundred years. Since evolution predicts no such thing then nothing has been demonstrated except that Intelligent Design Creationists are IDiots. But we already knew that.

[Photo Credit: photo by Graham Stephinson at canberabirds]

Monday's Molecule #50

 
Today's molecule may seem very simple but be careful. Pay close attention to the structure before you venture a guess. You need to give as complete a name as possible.

There's an indirect connection between this molecule and Wednesday's Nobel Laureate(s). The Nobel Prize winner(s) didn't know about this particular structure but its effects were detected.

The reward goes to the person who correctly identifies the molecule and the Nobel Laureate(s). Previous winners are ineligible for one month from the time they first collected the prize. There are two ineligible candidates for this week's reward. The prize is a free lunch at the Faculty Club.

Send your guess to Sandwalk (sandwalk(at)bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca) and I'll pick the first email message that correctly identifies the molecule and the Nobel Laureate(s). Correct responses will be posted tomorrow along with the time that the message was received on my server. This way I may select multiple winners if several people get it right. This one is easy. Get your response in quickly.

Comments will be blocked for 24 hours. Comments are now open.

UPDATE: The molecule is triiodothyronine (2-amino-3- [4- (4-hydroxy-3-iodophenoxy)-3,5-diiodophenyl] propanoic
acid). We have a winner.

---

Mendel's Garden: November Edition

 
The 20th version of Mendel's Garden has just been posted on VWXYNOt? [November Kickabout in Mendel's Garden]. CAE started her blog to satisfy her frustrated inner scientist but now that she's back in academia she continues to post good science articles. She lives in Vancouver, British Columbia (Canada) but we try not to hold that against her.

---

"Animal Rights" Is a Complicated Issue

 
Ryan Gregory has put up an interesting posting on Genomicron [On speciesism]. He points out that most of the so-called "debate" about animal rights is at the level of 8th graders. Personally, I think he's being generous.

Ryan asks the following questions,

And so I ask, on what basis do you draw the sharp moral line between "humans" and "animals", "human rights" and "animal rights", "us" versus "them"? What rational argument do you bring in defense of speciesism? Perhaps you argue that only humans are capable of suffering, or that our intellectual capabilities are of a different kind from those of other animals. As Dawkins has noted, neither is compatible with what we understand about evolutionary history.

I don't have an answer to these questions even though I've been thinking about them far longer than youngsters like Ryan Gregory.

Swatting mosquitoes does not pose an ethical dilemma for me. Nor does eating beef, chicken, fish and shrimp. On the other hand, I don't fish and I don't hunt. I don't lose sleep over gorillas in a zoo but I do when they are killed in Africa.

There doesn't seem to be an easy answer to why some animals don't matter while others do.

I'd like to go beyond Ryan's question and include plants. What is the justification for caring about some animals and not about the weeds in your garden or the wheat plants that feed you? I don't think there is a rational basis for doing so. This seems to be one of those issues where rationality doesn't work. That makes me very uneasy.

---

[Photo Credit: Smithsonian National Zoological Park]

Gene Genie #19

 

The 19th edition of Gene Genie has just been published on ScienceRoll [Gene Genie #19: Geneticalization].

---

Goodbye Daylight Saving Time

 
Today we stopped using Daylight Saving Time in Canada.

Last Spring I posted an article about time zones [Happy Daylight Saving Time!]. It included the photograph shown here of a strange thing right outside my building on the University of Toronto campus. If you don't know what it is, follow the link.

---

Note to students at the University of Toronto: This could be on the The University Exit Exam].

Are You Liberal or Conservative?

 
Today we start a new poll of Sandwalk readers. See the sidebar on the left of this posting.

Try and answer according to where you see yourself on the political left-right spectrum without paying too much attention to the labels. The "left wing" category isn't meant to imply radical Marxism; it's meant to encompass the views of most socialists in Europe. "Liberal" doesn't mean that you have to be a member of a "Liberal" (upper-case L) party. It just means somewhat left-of-center.

Similarly, "right-wing' doesn't mean you share the point of view some evil dictator. It means you have more in common with very conservative points of view than with more moderate conservatives.

---

Happy Birthday Sandwalk!

 
Today is the first anniversary of this blog. My first posting on November 4, 2006 was Welcome to My Sandwalk. Since then there have been 1282 other postings for an average of 3.5 per day (whew!). My original goal was to average one science-related article per day and I think I've come close to that average. The others are just for fun.

I was told when I began that you have to attract hundreds of views per day in order to generate interesting comments and discussions. That seems to be about right. When I started I saw this blog as an experiment and I intended to re-evaluate after six months. When the six months was up I had not met many of my goals so it was a time of soul searching [My Six Months Are Up!]. What happened was I avoided making a decision so I just kept going by default. I'm glad I did. There are now lots of interesting discussions going on in the comments sections.

All of us science bloggers have discovered one important feature of science blogging. You hardly ever get comments about science. If you check those articles where I talked about science, there are almost no comments or discussion. On the other hand, as soon as you mention politics, religion, or racism, there are dozens of readers who want to speak up.

It's a puzzling phenomenon. That's not to say it isn't fun to talk about those non-science issues—it clearly is a lot of fun or we wouldn't be doing it. The puzzling thing is why there aren't more comments about the science.

From time-to-time I asked for photographs of readers who have walked the real sandwalk. I'd like to acknowledge those who sent in pictures.

Cody
The God Delusion
T. Ryan Gregory
PZ Myers
John Wilkins

I hope I haven't forgotten anyone. Send photographs if you're not on the list already.

For those of you who are interested in the numbers, here are the statistics for Sandwalk. What they mean is that Sandwalk is on the verge of making the transition from a low popularity blog to a medium popularity blog. For comparison, Pharyngula gets one million views a month or 20X more than Sandwalk. In terms of the Top100Science Sites Bad Astronomy is 468th, Pharyngula ranks 794th, and Sandwalk is 1006th

Sandwalk has a long, long way to go. I think I'll try for quality instead of quantity!

Here are the top five postings in terms of number of comments: [Arguing Against God] [The Evolution Poll of Sandwalk Readers] [Propaganda Techniques: Shift the Burden of Proof] [Genomics Is Dead! Long Live Systems Biology!] [Dennett on Adaptationism].

Sandwalk readers are a diverse group in terms of geography. Yes, it's true that a majority of readers come from USA addresses, but there's still a large number of you from Europe, Asia, and Australia. There are even a handful of readers from South America and Africa. Oops ... I almost forget—there are Canadian readers as well.

On other issues the Sandwalk readers are less diverse. About 70% of you are atheists and almost all of you accept evolution—even though it may be the wrong version of evolution.

Next month's poll is going to ask about education. I suspect that most readers have been to university. This month the poll will be about your political views, e.g. where you position yourself on the left-right spectrum. I'll be surprised if most readers don't lean to the left.

Anyway, thanks for reading so far. And please, keep those comments coming—that's the most fun part of blogging.

P.S. If you have any suggestions for improving the looks or content of Sandwalk this is your chance to mention them.

---

You Gotta See This ...

 
Jason Rosenhouse says you gotta see this. I agree. It's how I feel every time I try and use Adobe Photoshop.

---

The Peace Tower Clock Does Not Fall Back Tonight

 
Canada likes to think of itself as a progressive country—always moving forward. But this seems to be going to extremes. The clock on the Peace Tower (Parliament Buildings) does not go backwards. Thus, according to CBCNews [Time stops annually on Parliament Hill as Peace Tower clock falls back]...

While most Canadians scurry around their homes changing their clocks back to standard time this weekend, the clock-keepers of Parliament Hill will only sit and wait.

At 2 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time on Sunday, a Public Works employee will open a glass housing and flip a switch, bringing the 50-year-old mechanism that runs the Peace Tower clock, with its four faces, to a halt....

For 60 minutes, the technician will just wait and then will restart the 1950s-era electric motor drive that runs the big clock, several levels overhead, at exactly 2 a.m. Eastern Standard Time, according to the National Research Council time signal

They need to wait out the hour because the old motor drive only goes forward, says Brian Cook, the Public Works property manager for Parliament Hill.

At the risk of sounding stupid, why doesn't the technician just advance the clock eleven hours?

---

You poor Amercans ....

 
I love the wit and humor of Canadian Cynic. From time to time he comes up with some very funny lines. Today is one of those times [ Suddenly, the parallels are starting to creep me out].

You poor Americans -- you have a leader whose party doesn't even have a majority, who's submitting one vile bit of legislation and one horrendous nomination after another, and you have an "opposition" that just rolls over and plays dead on all of it. I feel so sorry for you. Now up here in Canada, we ... we ... um ... actually, never mind.

I should have thought about that argument a bit harder, really.

---

Dawkins on Watson

 
There's a lengthy article on the Guardian website about the Watson affair [Disgrace: How a giant of science was brought low]. It contains quotations from Richard Dawkins and Oxford neurologist Colin Blakemore,

In the end, Watson's decided to return home, so no meetings occurred, a move that has dismayed many scientists who believed that it was vital Watson confront his critics and his public. 'What is ethically wrong is the hounding, by what can only be described as an illiberal and intolerant "thought police", of one of the most distinguished scientists of our time, out of the Science Museum, and maybe out of the laboratory that he has devoted much of his life to, building up a world-class reputation,' said Richard Dawkins, who been due to conduct a public interview with Watson this week in Oxford.

Dawkins's stance was supported by Blakemore. 'Jim Watson is well known for being provocative and politically incorrect. But it would be a sad world if such a distinguished scientist was silenced because of his more unpalatable views.'

I agree with Dawkins. Watson was stupid to make those remarks but they were perfectly consistent with a lifelong career of being as politically incorrect as possible in today's society. Does that make him a racist whose career should be terminated?

Nor is it at all clear that Watson is a racist, a point stressed last week by the Pulitzer-winning biologist E O Wilson, of Harvard University. In his autobiography, Naturalist, Wilson originally described Watson, fresh from his Nobel success, arriving at Harvard's biology department and 'radiating contempt' for the rest of the staff. He was 'the most unpleasant human being I had ever met,' Wilson recalled. 'Having risen to fame at an early age, [he] became the Caligula of biology. He was given licence to say anything that came into his mind and expected to be taken seriously. And unfortunately he did so, with casual and brutal offhandedness.'

That is a fairly grim description, to say the least. However, there is a twist. There has been a rapprochement. 'We have become firm friends,' Wilson told The Observer last week. 'Today we are the two grand old men of biology in America and get on really well. I certainly don't see him as a Caligula figure any more. I have come to see him as a very intelligent, straight, honest individual. Of course, he would never get a job as a diplomat in the State Department. He is just too outspoken. But one thing I am absolutely sure of is that he is not a racist. I am shocked at what has happened to him.'

This is a clear case of political correctness out of control. I'm embarrassed to be associated with the people who attacked Watson and I admire Dawkins (and Blakemore) for standing up to them.

---