The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) has a new log by graphic artist Andrew Conti. Do you know what it depicts? [NCSE Logo Contest Winner]. [Hat Tip: John Pieret]
One of my offspring—who shall remain nameless—has decided to make fun of my Monday's Molecule feature. Go to her blog and tell her to behave herself [The Monday Molecule - Belgium Version].
Today's molecule may seem very simple but your task is to give it a complete IUPAC name as well as the common name. You also have to identify the origin of the common name. Pay close attention to the structure before you venture a guess.
BarryA has posted the following comment on Uncommon Descent [Reading Level Comparison].Thanks to one of our commenters for pointing out this website that calculates the reading level of blogs. Just for fun I inserted UD and it came back “High School,” which means that the general discussion at this blog is at a high school level. I then inserted Pandas Thumb and it came back “Elementary School.”This seems curious so I tried it myself. Here's the result for "www.uncommondescent.com."
Make of this what you will.
The Salem Conjecture was proposed by Bruce Salem on the newsgroup talk.origins [The Salem Conjecture]. Here's how he described it on Sept. 5, 1996.My position is not that most creationists are engineers or even that engineering predisposes one to Creationism. In fact, most engineers are not Creationists and more well-educated people are less predisposed to Creationism, the points the statistics in the study bear out. My position was that of those Creationists who presented themselves with professional credentials, or with training that they wished to represent as giving them competence to be critics of Evolution while offering Creationism as the alternative, a significant number turned out to be engineers.This should not be confused with the "hard" version of the Salem Conjecture (Hypothesis), which says that engineers are more likely to be creationists. Both versions are described in the Wikipedia entry [Salem Hypothesis].
[Photo Credit: I pretty sure this is a photograph of Bruce Salem.]
By all accounts this year's Beyond Belief symposium in San Diego was a lot less exciting than last year's [Beyond Belief II: Enlightenment 2.0]. Perhaps it's because Richard Dawkins wasn't there. On the other hand, PZ Myers was there [Speakers]. The first firebrand is lobbed into the audience by Edward Slingerland, an expert on ancient Chinese thought and human cognition at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. "Religion is not going away," he announced. Even those of us who fancy ourselves rationalists and scientists, he said, rely on moral values - a set of distinctly unscientific beliefs.Oops. I've got news for you, Prof. Slingerland, you can't count yourself as a rationalist if you think that morality requires religion. And you can't lay claim to being a scientist if you think that moral values are unscientific. That's two strikes.
Where, for instance, does our conviction that human rights are universal come from? "Humans' rights to me are as mysterious as the holy trinity," he told the audience at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies. "You can't do a CT scan to show where humans' rights are, you can't cut someone open and show us their human rights," he pointed out. "It's not an empirical thing, it's just something we strongly believe. It's a purely metaphysical entity."Strike three. It's a good thing Dawkins wasn't there or this kind of sloppy thinking would have been exposed.
Who said we all have a conviction that human rights are universal? Not me, that's for sure. I can't think of a single "human right" that qualifies. Furthermore, those human rights that we generally agree upon in the 21st century are not mysterious to me. They're mostly common sense designed to maximize our ability to live in groups. It's an empirical thing—and we're still working on the best compromises between absolute rights and qualified ones.The mood at this follow-up conference was different. Last year's event was something of an "atheist love fest" said some, who urged a more wide-ranging discourse this time round. While all present agreed that rational, evidence-based thinking should always be the basis of how we live our lives, it was also conceded that people are irrational by nature, and that faith, religion, culture and emotion must also be recognised as part of the human condition. Even the title of this year's meeting, "Beyond Belief II: Enlightenment 2.0", suggested the need for revision, reform and a little more tolerance.Hmmm ... I guess I can go along with that. I've known for some years that people are attracted to irrationality and superstition—we call it religion. We tolerate those who ignore rationality and evidence-based thinking but that doesn't mean we shouldn't criticize those who think that way, right? Tolerance doesn't mean the same as acceptance, does it?
Such was the message from evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson of Binghamton University, New York. He suggested that humans' religious beliefs may have evolved over time, thanks to the advantages they conferred as a sort of social glue holding together groups that developed them.Hmmm ... if irrationality and superstition are hard-wired into our brains then how come it's so easy for many of us to escape from this sort of thinking?
Wilson was not saying religion is good or bad, simply that it has evolved to be hard-wired into our brains, and therefore cannot be ignored. "Adaptation is the gold standard against which reality must be judged," he said. "The unpredictability and unknown nature of our environment may mean that factual knowledge isn't as useful as the behaviours we have evolved to deal with this world."
I often wonder whether people like Wilson have thought seriously about what they're saying. Does he imagine a time when primitive humans didn't have religion because it hadn't yet evolved? How did those groups manage to survive? I wonder what went on in their brains when they couldn't think about supernatural explanations?Chemist Peter Atkins of the University of Oxford, one of the more hard-line atheists in the room, did not let this go unchallenged. He chided fellow participants for not being sufficiently proud about what science can accomplish. Given time and persistence, science will conquer all of nature's mysteries, he said.I'm glad to see there was at least one rationalist present.
So can scientific and religious world views ever be reconciled? Harris, author of The End of Faith, declared that they could not, and provided an uncompromising exposition on the evils of religion.Maybe there were more rationalists present than the author of the piece is willing to admit?
Away from the meeting, philosopher Daniel Dennett of Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts, told New Scientist that as irrational as human minds may be, calm, firm introduction of reason into the world's classrooms could over time purge them of religion.
[PhotoCredits: Beyond Belief II: Enlightenment 2.0, Meerkats]
Greta Christina has a blog called Greta Christina's Blog (naturally). She posts lots of interesting stuff about atheism and other things. Today she strayed into science and posted a video about macroevolution (see below) [Macro-evolution" Vs. "Micro-evolution": More Video Fun]. Greta introduced it with ...First, just so everyone's clear: "Macro-evolution" and "micro-evolution" are made-up words concocted by creationists to make themselves sound scientific. Biologists don't use them. They're scientifically meaningless. They're just different stages in the evolutionary process; "macro" is just "micro" over a longer period of time.I posted this comment on her blog.
I'm afraid you have been mislead. Microevolution and macroevolution are perfectly good scientific terms and they are used by evolutionary biologists all the time.
There is legitimate scientific debate about whether macroevolution is more than just lots of microevolution or whether macroevolution encompasses mechanisms not seen in microevolution. It's the sufficiency of microevolution argument.
I happen to be one of those scientists who agree with Stephen Jay Gould that there are many levels of evolution (hierarchical theory). Thus, macroevolution cannot be sufficiently explained by lots of microevolution. There are other things going on at the higher levels [Macroevolution].
The video is very misleading because it assumes a simplistic version of macroevolution. There aren't any evolutionary biologists who believe in that kind of macroevolution. Thus, I have to conclude that the makers of the video are as ignorant of evolution as the creationists they mock.1
1The video was made by cdk007 who claims to have a Masters degree in Biology and a Ph.D. in Molecular Neuroscience.
[The science book covers pictured are:
Macroevolution: Diversity, Disparity, Contingency: Essays in Honor of Stephen Jay Gould
At the Water's Edge: Macroevolution and the Transformation of Life
Genetics, Paleontology, and Macroevolution]
Photosynthesis is a process where light energy is captured and converted to chemical energy in the form of ATP. The basic process is similar to that in membrane-associated electron transport. In both cases an energy source (light or reducing equivalents respectively) is used to create a proton gradient across a membrane. The dissipation of this gradient as protons move back into the cell drives the synthesis of ATP.
[Hat Tip: Jim Lippard]
Here's a simplified overview of the main biosynthesis pathways. The important ones are gluconeogenesis (the biosynthesis of glucose) and the citric acid cycle. Various intermediates in the citric acid cycle are used for synthesis of amino acids. One of them, oxaloacetate, is the substrate for PEPCK in a reaction that converts oxaloacetate to phosphoenolpyruvate.
Hakimi, P., Yang, J., Casadesus, G., Massillon, D., Tolentino-Silva, F., Nye, C.K., Cabrera, M.E., Hagen, D.R., Utter, C.B., Baghdy, Y., Johnson, D.H., Wilson, D.L., Kirwan, J.P., Kalhan, S.C. and Hanson, R.W. (2007) Overexpression of the Cytosolic Form of Phosphoenolpyruvate Carboxykinase (GTP) in Skeletal Muscle Repatterns Energy Metabolism in the Mouse. J Biol Chem. 282:32844-32855. [PubMed]
Some people, who shall remain nameless, sleep with a bar of Ivory soap in their beds. Now why in the world would anyone do this? Well, it turns out that the bar of Ivory soap prevents you from having leg cramps at night. [Photo Credit Wikkepedia]
Matt Nisbet is still puzzled over opposition to framing. He doesn't understand why some of us don't like the idea very much. Personally, I don't think it's much different than "spin."If the blog debate that ensued after publication of our article at Science showed anything, it was just how widely misunderstood the concept of framing might be. Not surprisingly, many bloggers offer strong opinions about framing and its relationship to science communication but have very little actual knowledge or expertise in the area.Yes, that must be the answer. We don't understand framing but as soon as we do we'll get right to it. Not.
Frame devices are used strategically in almost any policy debate. Consider just a few prominent and successful examples of such devices that have been used to alter the focus of policy:I get it. I don't want any part of that kind of "framing."
1. Republicans have used the frame device "death tax" to recast estate tax policy in populist terms and to trigger wider public concern.
2. Democrats have used the phrase "gun safety" to shift the traditional debate over "gun control" away from a focus on civil liberties and instead toward an emphasis on public health.
3. Greenpeace has used the term "frankenfood" to redefine food biotechnology in terms of unknown risks and consequences rather than the industry-promoted focus on solving world hunger.
4. Religious conservatives have relabeled the medical procedure know as "dilation and extraction" as "partial birth abortion," pushing decision-making on whether to use the procedure away from doctors and into the hands of Congress and the courts.
5. Anti-smoking advocates have promoted the term "big tobacco," a headline-friendly phrase that immediately emphasizes considerations of corporate accountability and wrongdoing.
6. Anti-evolutionists have coined the slogan "teach the controversy," which instantaneously signals their preferred interpretation that there are holes in the theory of evolution and that teaching rival explanations for life's origins is really a matter of intellectual freedom.
Is framing just false spin? What may have led to this misperception is that several examples of highly effective messaging have originated from groups or individuals with special interests. While the content of some of these messages such as Greenpeace's "Frankenfood" is debatable, these messages have been more effective in reaching key audiences than many efforts that originated from the scientific community.In other words; yes, successful framing can be the same as false spin. Thanks for explaining that, Matt.
