A BBC article compares the number of Nobel prizes won by countries. It is rubbish. The list they produced was;
1. US 323
2. UK 117
3 Germany 103
4 France 57
5 Sweden 28
The article suggests that this information produces "a definitive list of the nations with the biggest brains". Hmm.
It certainly produces a list showing which country generates the most Nobel prizes. It may even point to which country overall is producing the highest number of top scientists. But it doesn't in anyway allow us to compare the countries on a like for like basis because of the widely different populations of each country.
A fairer comparison would be to ask how many Nobel prizes each country produces on a per capita basis. This is a much better indicator of how well each country taps into the potential of it's population ( assuming that Nobel prizes actually measure that which is another issue of course.)
Comparing populations we get
1. US Pop 307M
2. Germany Pop 82M
3. France Pop 62M
4. UK Pop 61M
5. Sweden Pop 9M
( rounded figures )
Now we can calculate the number of Nobels awarded per Million head of population
1 Sweden 3.1 NpM
2 UK 1.92 NpM
3 Germany 1.26 NpM
4 US 1.05 NpM
5 France 0.92 NpM
What emerges is a very different picture. Sweden tops the list by a long way for the number of Nobel prizes per capita of population. One wonders if the origins of the Nobel prize are playing any influence here? Interestingly the UK has gained more Nobels per capita than the US which now trails in fourth place behind Germany.
This is still a very rough and ready approach of course. Population sizes are not static but it certainly gives a more accurate picture than the BBC one.
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Oct 8, 2010
Sep 22, 2010
An E-Prime Challenge
When we express our thoughts in writing or speech the actual words that we choose to use clearly make a big difference to the quality of our communications. But what if there exist certain words in our language, indeed certain language concepts, expressed by particular words, that obscure good communication, clarity of thought and constructive debate?
The proponents of E-Prime appear to suggest that we should avoid using the verb "to be" because of this . Writing and speaking English without the use of the verb "to be" delivers our arguments with more clarity and transparency suggest the proponents of this form of English.
For anyone who hasn't come across E Prime Wikipedia has a good primer on the subject here and you can find another good article and links here. ( The article at the second link goes into more depth about the psychology, linguitics and philosophy of why using E-Prime improves clarity)
I pose a challenge to bloggers reading this article as follows. In your next post, on any subject, you should attempt to write the whole article using the E Prime approach. In other words you must not use the verb "to be", in any of its forms, in your article. I would ask that you then post a link back to your article here and leave a comment here. This will allow readers to see what sort of results you achieve when you follow the E Prime approach.
You will note that I have written this post using the E Prime approach and that the verb "to be" does not appear in this post except when quoted.
EDIT: I thought I had managed to write this whole post without using the verb to be and immediately after posting it I found two errors. I found it harder writing in this way than I imagined.
EDIT 2: Aagh ! I found yet another and had to amend again. Those "to be" verbs hide all over the place.
The proponents of E-Prime appear to suggest that we should avoid using the verb "to be" because of this . Writing and speaking English without the use of the verb "to be" delivers our arguments with more clarity and transparency suggest the proponents of this form of English.
For anyone who hasn't come across E Prime Wikipedia has a good primer on the subject here and you can find another good article and links here. ( The article at the second link goes into more depth about the psychology, linguitics and philosophy of why using E-Prime improves clarity)
I pose a challenge to bloggers reading this article as follows. In your next post, on any subject, you should attempt to write the whole article using the E Prime approach. In other words you must not use the verb "to be", in any of its forms, in your article. I would ask that you then post a link back to your article here and leave a comment here. This will allow readers to see what sort of results you achieve when you follow the E Prime approach.
You will note that I have written this post using the E Prime approach and that the verb "to be" does not appear in this post except when quoted.
EDIT: I thought I had managed to write this whole post without using the verb to be and immediately after posting it I found two errors. I found it harder writing in this way than I imagined.
EDIT 2: Aagh ! I found yet another and had to amend again. Those "to be" verbs hide all over the place.
The end of God? Horizon
The end of God? A Horizon guide to Science and Religion is a special programme produced in the famous BBC Horizon series tradition that appears to have been made to link with the Pope's visit to Britain. I'm not sure when this was first aired in the BBC schedule but I am about to watch it on BBC four in the rather early hours of the morning after completing some work.
The program is fronted by historian Dr Thomas Dixon and the write up blurb on the BBC site for the programme suggests that he has used BBC archive material to explore the developing relationship between science and religion over the years. He will apparently look at the development of science over the years and ask whether the expansion of scientific knowledge still leaves room for God. Should be interesting.
Here is the link to the BBC iPlayer page for the programme. I'm not sure if overseas readers will be able to use the iPlayer to view the programme.
Review / Update: The end of God? was an hour long trip through the archives of some of the most memorable Horizon programmes over the years put together as a reasonably good overview of the range of issues that the development of science has posed for religion over the centuries. The program ranged from the challenge posed by Aristotle to the geocentric view through the challenges posed by evolution and the attempts by fundamentalists to resist this particularly in the US through their insistence on Biblical creation and the whole Behe irreducible complexity of the flagellum nonsense and its defeat when challenged in a US court.
Towards the final part of the programme Dr Dixon presented the grander view of God which religions have adopted to avoid the pitfalls of the God of the gaps approach. This is the God as grand designer of the Universe approach. The need for such a grand designer God as an explanation was again recently challenged by Stephen Hawking so even here we seem to be driven towards a God of the gaps.
In the final part of the programme Dr Dixon looked at issues relating to the biological basis for religious belief. It was in this area that there was , if anywhere, some small comfort for believers in a God.
The programme showed excerpts from an older Horizon programme which looked at research which had used a "God Helmet". This helmet - which appeared to be simply a motorbike helmet with some electrical gubbins taped on it - produces a magnetic field across specific portions of the brain. These same portions of the brain have been noted to shut down during Buddhist meditation and when nuns undertake devout prayer.
The explanation was that this area of the brain is linked to our sense of time and place - our rootedness - and that the religious experience in many different cultures has the common feature that it tends to result in less activity in this area. The result is a sense of otherness, religious aura and often an sense of the "presence" of something outside oneself. The god helmet at the flick of a switch was able to reproduce this experience in around 80% of volunteers. They recruited Richard Dawkins to try it out but it didn't work on him. It was hard to tell if he was relieved or disappointed !
In his end note Dr Dixon suggested that because of our cultural history, our desire for grand explanations and meaning and possibly because of such biological proclivities we may never see the final disappearance of religious belief systems. In that sense it was a programme to cheer both the atheists and the believers among us. It showed the logical non-necessity for god belief and how science is by the year squeezing the gaps within which god can hide. At the same time there was some comfort for believers that science isn't yet about to demolish the cultural edifice we call religion.
The program is fronted by historian Dr Thomas Dixon and the write up blurb on the BBC site for the programme suggests that he has used BBC archive material to explore the developing relationship between science and religion over the years. He will apparently look at the development of science over the years and ask whether the expansion of scientific knowledge still leaves room for God. Should be interesting.
Here is the link to the BBC iPlayer page for the programme. I'm not sure if overseas readers will be able to use the iPlayer to view the programme.
Review / Update: The end of God? was an hour long trip through the archives of some of the most memorable Horizon programmes over the years put together as a reasonably good overview of the range of issues that the development of science has posed for religion over the centuries. The program ranged from the challenge posed by Aristotle to the geocentric view through the challenges posed by evolution and the attempts by fundamentalists to resist this particularly in the US through their insistence on Biblical creation and the whole Behe irreducible complexity of the flagellum nonsense and its defeat when challenged in a US court.
Towards the final part of the programme Dr Dixon presented the grander view of God which religions have adopted to avoid the pitfalls of the God of the gaps approach. This is the God as grand designer of the Universe approach. The need for such a grand designer God as an explanation was again recently challenged by Stephen Hawking so even here we seem to be driven towards a God of the gaps.
In the final part of the programme Dr Dixon looked at issues relating to the biological basis for religious belief. It was in this area that there was , if anywhere, some small comfort for believers in a God.
The programme showed excerpts from an older Horizon programme which looked at research which had used a "God Helmet". This helmet - which appeared to be simply a motorbike helmet with some electrical gubbins taped on it - produces a magnetic field across specific portions of the brain. These same portions of the brain have been noted to shut down during Buddhist meditation and when nuns undertake devout prayer.
The explanation was that this area of the brain is linked to our sense of time and place - our rootedness - and that the religious experience in many different cultures has the common feature that it tends to result in less activity in this area. The result is a sense of otherness, religious aura and often an sense of the "presence" of something outside oneself. The god helmet at the flick of a switch was able to reproduce this experience in around 80% of volunteers. They recruited Richard Dawkins to try it out but it didn't work on him. It was hard to tell if he was relieved or disappointed !
In his end note Dr Dixon suggested that because of our cultural history, our desire for grand explanations and meaning and possibly because of such biological proclivities we may never see the final disappearance of religious belief systems. In that sense it was a programme to cheer both the atheists and the believers among us. It showed the logical non-necessity for god belief and how science is by the year squeezing the gaps within which god can hide. At the same time there was some comfort for believers that science isn't yet about to demolish the cultural edifice we call religion.
Apr 8, 2010
New Homind Fossil
Another part of the jigsaw that is the Hominid fossil record may have been completed with the finding of an apparently new fossil hominid in South Africa.
The new hominid has been dubbed Australopithecus sediba and it is reported to have both human and ape traits. The estimated age for the new hominid is between 1.78 to 1.95 million years ago when australopithecines and early species of Homo seem to have been contemporaries.
The exact significance of the new fossils ( a boy and a woman) may not be clear for some time as is often the case with new finds but the fossils appear to be causing considerable interest and speculation.
Further reports are available at National Geographic and The New York Times
The new hominid has been dubbed Australopithecus sediba and it is reported to have both human and ape traits. The estimated age for the new hominid is between 1.78 to 1.95 million years ago when australopithecines and early species of Homo seem to have been contemporaries.
The exact significance of the new fossils ( a boy and a woman) may not be clear for some time as is often the case with new finds but the fossils appear to be causing considerable interest and speculation.
Further reports are available at National Geographic and The New York Times
Mar 1, 2010
AGW Sceptics line up for poison and explosives here please
While the debate about Global Warming and it's causes has become more heated in recent months that doesnt always mean that there is a great deal more light being shed on the whole subject. One of the most infuriating things is reading comments by people who clearly haven't thought about the logic of what they are saying.
Reading the comments on Global Warming stories can be a particularly depressing experience when you see people taking strong stances on the basis of arguments which are sometimes so patently ludicrous that you wonder how the person failed to understand this.
I came across the following comment in an online newspaper today
"Despite any increase, carbon dioxide remains less than one percent of the greenhouse gas content of the atmosphere. Increases in carbon dioxide are more a symptom of a warming trend than a cause."
I'm sure my readers being the smart bunch that they are will immediately see at least one fallacy in this statement but I'll lay it out anyway because this argument is trotted out so often by Global Warming scpetics that it's become a bit of a mantra.
I dont know if you have ever heard of something called Ricin - if you havent then its basically one of the most poisonous substances known to man. At the present moment I am fairly safe in saying that if you are reading this then you have no Ricin in your body at the moment.
If you will allow me to then I will adminsister to you ( virtually of course) a dose which is so small that it will not amount to even a fraction of 1 percent of the weight of your body. Anyone who thinks the Global Warming scpetics argument is a logical one must of course accept that there can be danger in me giving them such a small dose of Ricin. After all its going to be much much less that 1% of their body mass - so why worry?
CO2 is indeed a small fraction of the atmosphere but it is clearly a fallacy to conclude from this that it cannot have major effects on the way the atmosphere works.
But that is not the only thing implied by the sceptics statement above. There is also the implication that not only is the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere very small but that the changes to those levels that man is causing are a small amount of that already small fraction - so why worry? This also is illogical reasoning.
It is a trivial thing to find examples where a very small change in something can set off catastrophic changes. In nature there are many examples of state changes where only a very small change in for example the heat content of a material will lead to a sudden state change. As a more dramatic example consider (virtually) placing a small amount of high explosives in your basement. No problem there of course because the high explosive will only be a fraction of the volume of your house. Now we will apply a tiny increase in the energy of the high explosive. Here is the match. Just light it and apply it to the high explosive. I will be standing well back at the other end of the street of course. If you are a Global Warming sceptic who thinks that small increases in small things pose no dangers then I am sure you will be happy to stand there alone and apply the match yourself. No?
Reading the comments on Global Warming stories can be a particularly depressing experience when you see people taking strong stances on the basis of arguments which are sometimes so patently ludicrous that you wonder how the person failed to understand this.
I came across the following comment in an online newspaper today
"Despite any increase, carbon dioxide remains less than one percent of the greenhouse gas content of the atmosphere. Increases in carbon dioxide are more a symptom of a warming trend than a cause."
I'm sure my readers being the smart bunch that they are will immediately see at least one fallacy in this statement but I'll lay it out anyway because this argument is trotted out so often by Global Warming scpetics that it's become a bit of a mantra.
I dont know if you have ever heard of something called Ricin - if you havent then its basically one of the most poisonous substances known to man. At the present moment I am fairly safe in saying that if you are reading this then you have no Ricin in your body at the moment.
If you will allow me to then I will adminsister to you ( virtually of course) a dose which is so small that it will not amount to even a fraction of 1 percent of the weight of your body. Anyone who thinks the Global Warming scpetics argument is a logical one must of course accept that there can be danger in me giving them such a small dose of Ricin. After all its going to be much much less that 1% of their body mass - so why worry?
CO2 is indeed a small fraction of the atmosphere but it is clearly a fallacy to conclude from this that it cannot have major effects on the way the atmosphere works.
But that is not the only thing implied by the sceptics statement above. There is also the implication that not only is the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere very small but that the changes to those levels that man is causing are a small amount of that already small fraction - so why worry? This also is illogical reasoning.
It is a trivial thing to find examples where a very small change in something can set off catastrophic changes. In nature there are many examples of state changes where only a very small change in for example the heat content of a material will lead to a sudden state change. As a more dramatic example consider (virtually) placing a small amount of high explosives in your basement. No problem there of course because the high explosive will only be a fraction of the volume of your house. Now we will apply a tiny increase in the energy of the high explosive. Here is the match. Just light it and apply it to the high explosive. I will be standing well back at the other end of the street of course. If you are a Global Warming sceptic who thinks that small increases in small things pose no dangers then I am sure you will be happy to stand there alone and apply the match yourself. No?
Dec 30, 2009
Light From Day to Night
There's an interesting article in The Guardian which reports some developments in the field of new forms of lighting and display called OLED ( Organic Light Emitting Diode).
OLED is a leading edge technology that is being developed for the next generation of PC and TV screens but it has other potential uses for example as home lighting - an idea that Lomox, a small UK company is developing.
OLED is built upon the principle of exciting organic molecules by the application of a small electrical voltage. It is potentially a very flexible technology because of the prospect that OLED displays can be printed by laser jet technology. The most efficient form of OLED is Phophorescent OLED technology or PHOLED . OLED produces light very efficiently but at present OLED displays are still costly and have relatively short lifetimes.
Lomox reckon that their approach which is backed by seven patents deals with these problems and will let them produce lighting displays for indoor or outdoor use and deal with both of these problems.
There is an interesting convergence of two technologies now happening. More efficient Solar panels(1) together with increasingly commercial and efficient light production system means that it may soon be possible to realistically provide indoor or outdoor illumination at night from power collected from the sun during the day.
The day looks closer when it will become attractive to build these types of technologies into new build houses. The buyers will have the prospect of cheap and probably very flexible low voltage lighting systems. We may for example be able to buy GlowPaper to replace our wall coverings with flat panel lighting.
What will the house designer of the future do with these new forms of lighting I wonder?
How about a "forest" wallpaper that stretched around your room that glowed to give you the impression of sitting in a sunlight forest clearing?
If you had the chance to design your own wallpapers or panels what would you put on them?
(1) There were for example recent reports that good progress has been made on producing solar panels that collect nearer to the infrared and which are less dependent on direct sunlight.
Here's an Amazon link to the Sony OLED TV
OLED is a leading edge technology that is being developed for the next generation of PC and TV screens but it has other potential uses for example as home lighting - an idea that Lomox, a small UK company is developing.
OLED is built upon the principle of exciting organic molecules by the application of a small electrical voltage. It is potentially a very flexible technology because of the prospect that OLED displays can be printed by laser jet technology. The most efficient form of OLED is Phophorescent OLED technology or PHOLED . OLED produces light very efficiently but at present OLED displays are still costly and have relatively short lifetimes.
Lomox reckon that their approach which is backed by seven patents deals with these problems and will let them produce lighting displays for indoor or outdoor use and deal with both of these problems.
There is an interesting convergence of two technologies now happening. More efficient Solar panels(1) together with increasingly commercial and efficient light production system means that it may soon be possible to realistically provide indoor or outdoor illumination at night from power collected from the sun during the day.
The day looks closer when it will become attractive to build these types of technologies into new build houses. The buyers will have the prospect of cheap and probably very flexible low voltage lighting systems. We may for example be able to buy GlowPaper to replace our wall coverings with flat panel lighting.
What will the house designer of the future do with these new forms of lighting I wonder?
How about a "forest" wallpaper that stretched around your room that glowed to give you the impression of sitting in a sunlight forest clearing?
If you had the chance to design your own wallpapers or panels what would you put on them?
(1) There were for example recent reports that good progress has been made on producing solar panels that collect nearer to the infrared and which are less dependent on direct sunlight.
Here's an Amazon link to the Sony OLED TV
Dec 19, 2009
Your learning style is hokum
If you have ever spent any time with training consultants it is almost certain that you will have been exposed to the various ways in which they love to categorise us all into little boxes. You will be told you have this or that "emotional IQ" or that you are a person with a particular "learning style".
One trainer, used by an organisation I worked for, packaged his training pitch up with esoteric American Indian hokum. He basically took common sense notions such as learning to remain relaxed and focused in problematic leadership scenarios and packaged them up in "earth wind and fire" shamanic nonsense.
It may have been hokum - but it was very good paying hokum - something he seemed uncomfortable about acknowledging when I pointed it out while also informing him that what he was teaching was basically a variation of standard relaxation techniques.
Some recent research has now highlighted that another training theory used by many consultants has virtually no scientific evidence to support it.
Are you a Visual Learner or an Auditory Leaner? Which of these is your learning style? Well , if a report on a recent review of the literature on learning styles is to be believed you are simply just a learner - there is no evidence to support the view that people are mainly Visual or Auditory Learners.
Consultants have built whole careers around these types of "Learning Models", often claiming that their training material is artfully crafted to deal with peoples different learning styles.
I have even heard people in learning events claiming " I am a visual learner" or "I am an Auditory style person" as though this was some excuse for failing to grapple with material that had to be learned.
I don't suppose this research will stop training consultants peddling their "Learning models" and neither will it stop people claiming that the reason they didn't learn something was because it was presented in the "wrong" learning style.
Good trainers will I guess also continue to do what they have always done and try to present their material in an interesting and stimulating way.
I would be interested to hear what experiences readers have had with trainers and their teaching approaches.
One trainer, used by an organisation I worked for, packaged his training pitch up with esoteric American Indian hokum. He basically took common sense notions such as learning to remain relaxed and focused in problematic leadership scenarios and packaged them up in "earth wind and fire" shamanic nonsense.
It may have been hokum - but it was very good paying hokum - something he seemed uncomfortable about acknowledging when I pointed it out while also informing him that what he was teaching was basically a variation of standard relaxation techniques.
Some recent research has now highlighted that another training theory used by many consultants has virtually no scientific evidence to support it.
Are you a Visual Learner or an Auditory Leaner? Which of these is your learning style? Well , if a report on a recent review of the literature on learning styles is to be believed you are simply just a learner - there is no evidence to support the view that people are mainly Visual or Auditory Learners.
Consultants have built whole careers around these types of "Learning Models", often claiming that their training material is artfully crafted to deal with peoples different learning styles.
I have even heard people in learning events claiming " I am a visual learner" or "I am an Auditory style person" as though this was some excuse for failing to grapple with material that had to be learned.
I don't suppose this research will stop training consultants peddling their "Learning models" and neither will it stop people claiming that the reason they didn't learn something was because it was presented in the "wrong" learning style.
Good trainers will I guess also continue to do what they have always done and try to present their material in an interesting and stimulating way.
I would be interested to hear what experiences readers have had with trainers and their teaching approaches.
Nov 30, 2009
Royal Society Trailblazing Online archive
If you are interested in Science and the history of science then you should check out the new online website from the Royal Society who have made some key papers available from the archive of the Journal Philosophical Transactions available. There are lots of fascinating papers available from very early papers in 1666 right up to more recent times.
One of the papers that caught my eye is by R A Fischer entitled "On the Mathematical Foundations of Theoretical Statistics". Fischer was a giant in the field of statistics and contributed significantly to the statistical foundations of modern biology.
There is also an interesting 1822 article ( Buckland) on the discovery of Elephant, Rhino and other fossilised remains in a cave in Yorkshire. Buckland was apparently a believer in the Noah Flood Bible story. He compares the findings to discoveries in other caves in the UK and on the continent.
This site is well worth a visit.
One of the papers that caught my eye is by R A Fischer entitled "On the Mathematical Foundations of Theoretical Statistics". Fischer was a giant in the field of statistics and contributed significantly to the statistical foundations of modern biology.
There is also an interesting 1822 article ( Buckland) on the discovery of Elephant, Rhino and other fossilised remains in a cave in Yorkshire. Buckland was apparently a believer in the Noah Flood Bible story. He compares the findings to discoveries in other caves in the UK and on the continent.
This site is well worth a visit.
May 3, 2009
creationist science a contradiction in words
This is a good video addressing so called creationist "science"
Feb 13, 2009
Does Morality come from religion or nature?
Does morality come from religion or is it a product of evolution and culture?
This video looks at the issue of where morality comes from and shows how illogical arguments can be used to suggest morality requires the existence of a God. It shows how basic morality can flow from natural evolutionary pressures. It demonstrates the sleight of hand logic that religionists use to argue that moralty must flow from a supernatural being.
This video looks at the issue of where morality comes from and shows how illogical arguments can be used to suggest morality requires the existence of a God. It shows how basic morality can flow from natural evolutionary pressures. It demonstrates the sleight of hand logic that religionists use to argue that moralty must flow from a supernatural being.
Feb 11, 2009
What is Darwin day for?
Tomorrow marks the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin and what is known as Darwin Day. This is not an official celebration but you will find scientists, TV stations, newspapers and other channels around the world publishing articles and programmes on Darwin and his work.
So what exactly is the point of Darwin Day? It's a good idea to start with what Darwin Day is not. It's not like Christmas Day when Christians celebrate the birth of their saviour, a messiah who brought them, they think, the ultimate truth. Not everything Darwin wrote was correct. He got some things wrong. There were other things, such as the existence of DNA, that would only be revealed by later research. His work provides a foundation for modern biology but has been much refined and built upon.
Some of the ideas that Darwin used to forge his theory of Evolution through Natural Selection were even already "in the air" among naturalists long before Darwin. The idea that life might be ancient and that living things change over time already had some currency but these ideas were loose and ill-formed.
Darwin's greatness lies in part in the example he sets us about the application of the scientific method. He was incredibly attentive to detailed observation and experiment, to the accumulation of evidence and in the way he linked evidence to conclusions. He was able to marshall facts that at first seemed overwhelmingly complex and to forge from them a coherent explanatory theory. For the first time there was a theory about the processes that governed life on this Earth.
The impact of Darwin's theory of Evolution on our conception of ourselves can not be overstated. Before Darwin people thought of the Human race as somehow divinely distinct and separated from the other life on this planet. After Darwin this view has no credibility except among more fundamental christian sects mostly in the US and with some Islamic fundamentalists. Even the Catholic Church has stated without quibble that it accepts the scientific merit of the theory of evolution. One Pope described it with understatement as "more than a hypothesis".
Darwin Day then is in part about celebrating the life of a great scientist. But it is much more than that. It is about celebrating the opening of our eyes to the reality of our existence on this planet. We were forged in the ancient fires of this world and we come from the lowly and less complex life which once lived here. You and I each have a long line of ancestry that goes back through to these ancient life forms. We are all connected in this most profound way.
The true meaning of Darwin Day is to remind us of this truth that Darwin laid before us - that all life comes from the same root and that we owe our existence and abilities to lines of ancestors that stretch back down the tree of life and through the incredible age of the Earth. This is an immense and awe inspiring truth and Darwin Day reminds us of this.
So what exactly is the point of Darwin Day? It's a good idea to start with what Darwin Day is not. It's not like Christmas Day when Christians celebrate the birth of their saviour, a messiah who brought them, they think, the ultimate truth. Not everything Darwin wrote was correct. He got some things wrong. There were other things, such as the existence of DNA, that would only be revealed by later research. His work provides a foundation for modern biology but has been much refined and built upon.
Some of the ideas that Darwin used to forge his theory of Evolution through Natural Selection were even already "in the air" among naturalists long before Darwin. The idea that life might be ancient and that living things change over time already had some currency but these ideas were loose and ill-formed.
Darwin's greatness lies in part in the example he sets us about the application of the scientific method. He was incredibly attentive to detailed observation and experiment, to the accumulation of evidence and in the way he linked evidence to conclusions. He was able to marshall facts that at first seemed overwhelmingly complex and to forge from them a coherent explanatory theory. For the first time there was a theory about the processes that governed life on this Earth.
The impact of Darwin's theory of Evolution on our conception of ourselves can not be overstated. Before Darwin people thought of the Human race as somehow divinely distinct and separated from the other life on this planet. After Darwin this view has no credibility except among more fundamental christian sects mostly in the US and with some Islamic fundamentalists. Even the Catholic Church has stated without quibble that it accepts the scientific merit of the theory of evolution. One Pope described it with understatement as "more than a hypothesis".
Darwin Day then is in part about celebrating the life of a great scientist. But it is much more than that. It is about celebrating the opening of our eyes to the reality of our existence on this planet. We were forged in the ancient fires of this world and we come from the lowly and less complex life which once lived here. You and I each have a long line of ancestry that goes back through to these ancient life forms. We are all connected in this most profound way.
The true meaning of Darwin Day is to remind us of this truth that Darwin laid before us - that all life comes from the same root and that we owe our existence and abilities to lines of ancestors that stretch back down the tree of life and through the incredible age of the Earth. This is an immense and awe inspiring truth and Darwin Day reminds us of this.
Feb 9, 2009
Creation Science Major Breakthrough
Creation "science" has long been criticised for a complete absence of any actual scientific merit, research or evidence. However it seems that the rest of us who subscribe to the notion of real science are going to have to eat our words.Creation scientists have just released a new line of consumer products based on years of top secret Bible research. One of the major breakthroughs has been these fully energy efficient light bulbs that are powered by faith alone. Just think - no more electricity bills!
( Please note that these bulbs are not suitable for use in Atheist households)
Check out the full creation science consumer product range now.
Feb 4, 2009
Whale evolution transitional fossil evidence
It has been known for some time that whales evolved from land dwelling animals. The most recent DNA studies had suggested that their distant ancestral relationships are among the ungulates - a hoofed animal group. Their ancestry however appears to lie far back in this group when the ungulates appear to have been at least partly carnivorous or scavenging.
Further evidence about the steps that the Cetaceans ( whales, dolphins and porpoises) took on their long evolutionary journey from land to water has been revealed by a paper in PLosOne. The paper reports the find of a pregnant fossil Protocetid ( the group that was ancestral to the whales).
The Protocetids still had four legs and show evidence of having been semi aquatic. What is exciting is that in the fossilised pregnant female the foetus presents in a way that can only be interpreted as indicating that this species gave birth on land. This adds further evidence to the theorised evolutionary history of the Cetaceans. A male specimen was also found and comparison of the female and male shows evidence of sexual dimorphism ( Significant differences in body shape or form between the sexes).
Further evidence about the steps that the Cetaceans ( whales, dolphins and porpoises) took on their long evolutionary journey from land to water has been revealed by a paper in PLosOne. The paper reports the find of a pregnant fossil Protocetid ( the group that was ancestral to the whales).
The Protocetids still had four legs and show evidence of having been semi aquatic. What is exciting is that in the fossilised pregnant female the foetus presents in a way that can only be interpreted as indicating that this species gave birth on land. This adds further evidence to the theorised evolutionary history of the Cetaceans. A male specimen was also found and comparison of the female and male shows evidence of sexual dimorphism ( Significant differences in body shape or form between the sexes).
Jan 14, 2009
Darwin 200 Links Australia and Fishing
February 12th 2009 marks the 200th anniversary of the birth of the man who would justifiably be called the father of modern Biology - Charles Darwin. Over this year I intend to make a series of short posts collecting links to news items, scientific reports and other posts which illuminate the history of Darwin and his thinking on Evolution and that show how his writings have been taken up and are central to much modern scientific discovery in Biology.
The Sydney Morning herald had a short article the other day about Darwin's connections with locations in Australia such as Sydney Harbour and the Blue Mountains. The article points out that although most of us think of Darwin as an older man with a distinguished white beard, he was in fact a fresh faced young man of 27 when he arrived in Australia. The idea that there was such a thing as Evolution was not new to the scientific world but Darwin was beginning to grapple with the work that would end with him showing the main mechanism that drove evolution.
The other story which has caught my eye is about the impact that Fishing is having on the evolution of fish stocks. When animals are subject to natural predation usually the weakest get preyed on. With Human fishing however our techniques, and preference, results in us tending to take the largest fish. There is evidence emerging that suggests that this selective pressure is causing an evolution in these species towards reducing size. This is a developing field of research and it is not yet entirely clear if the changes are reflected in measurable changes in the genetic make up of the species . However this is the direction that would be predicted if such selective pressure continues and if selection does indeed result in a shift in the traits in a species.
The problem is that if this is indeed going on then it suggests that even more major problems will occur in the future with fish species that are the most heavily fished for commercially. See story also at for example National Geographic and Fox News
The Sydney Morning herald had a short article the other day about Darwin's connections with locations in Australia such as Sydney Harbour and the Blue Mountains. The article points out that although most of us think of Darwin as an older man with a distinguished white beard, he was in fact a fresh faced young man of 27 when he arrived in Australia. The idea that there was such a thing as Evolution was not new to the scientific world but Darwin was beginning to grapple with the work that would end with him showing the main mechanism that drove evolution.
The other story which has caught my eye is about the impact that Fishing is having on the evolution of fish stocks. When animals are subject to natural predation usually the weakest get preyed on. With Human fishing however our techniques, and preference, results in us tending to take the largest fish. There is evidence emerging that suggests that this selective pressure is causing an evolution in these species towards reducing size. This is a developing field of research and it is not yet entirely clear if the changes are reflected in measurable changes in the genetic make up of the species . However this is the direction that would be predicted if such selective pressure continues and if selection does indeed result in a shift in the traits in a species.
The problem is that if this is indeed going on then it suggests that even more major problems will occur in the future with fish species that are the most heavily fished for commercially. See story also at for example National Geographic and Fox News
Nov 30, 2008
Starlight and Young Earth Creationism
Young Earth Creationism is probably the most bizarre of the various strands of "Intelligent" Design religious fundamentalist beliefs. Young earth Creationists believe that the earth is little more than around 6,000 years old and that ancient life forms, such as the dinosaurs, all lived within this timescale. They take a literal view of the Biblical Genesis account. Even those creationists who don't flaunt a Young Earth creationist view tend to hum and haw about their real views about the age of the Earth because fundamentalists generally have a problem squaring the biblical account with an Earth that is around 4.5 Billion years old. Scratch at the surface of any fundamentalist creationist or believer in "Intelligent Design" and there is often a Young Earth Creationist just under the surface.
Trying to read Genesis as a literal account of creation is of course problematic because it flies in the face of so much scientific evidence not least the fossil record. I was thinking about this whole issue again recently and a major problem with the Genesis account struck me. Lets call it The Creationist Starlight problem.
Young earth creationists are quite literal in their interpretation of the supposed seven days of creation in the Bible. They see them as seven actual days.
According to the Bible on the fourth day;
14: And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16: And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17: And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18: And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19: And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Ok so God made the sun and the moon and the stars on the fourth day. We will ignore the problem that he actually made light a few days earlier ( where did that come from then?).
Lets just think about the Stars that he made for a moment.
Lets take a fundamentalist view and assume that he did make all the stars on the fourth day.
So he makes the Sun, and the light from the sun takes say eight minutes to get from the Sun to the Earth. No problem so far.
And he also makes the nearest star to us, Proxima Centauri , which is approximately 4.3 light years from us.... so the light from the nearest star arrives ... Just a minute... hang on! There is a bit of a problem here isn't there? If Proxima Centauri is 4.3 light years from the Earth then the light from that star takes 4.3 years to reach the Earth. So there couldn't have been any stars twinkling in the sky at the end of the fourth day because the light was still on its way. Funny that there is no mention of this.
Now most stars are much much further away from the earth so there would be no way that any appreciable star light would have reached the earth for many many years after the supposed Biblical creation. So how is it that again that there is no mention of this in the Bible?
Some creationists like to try to get around this by trying to argue that the speed of light has changed in the six thousand years that they say have passed since the Earth was created. This would still leave the problem that over those six thousand years more and more stars would be appearing in the sky as their light gradually reached Earth. Again, no mention of this in the Bible. Surely someone must have noticed given that we know the ancients were obsessed with the stars.
It's a real problem for the fundamentalists this one I think.
Trying to read Genesis as a literal account of creation is of course problematic because it flies in the face of so much scientific evidence not least the fossil record. I was thinking about this whole issue again recently and a major problem with the Genesis account struck me. Lets call it The Creationist Starlight problem.
Young earth creationists are quite literal in their interpretation of the supposed seven days of creation in the Bible. They see them as seven actual days.
According to the Bible on the fourth day;
14: And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16: And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17: And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18: And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19: And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Ok so God made the sun and the moon and the stars on the fourth day. We will ignore the problem that he actually made light a few days earlier ( where did that come from then?).
Lets just think about the Stars that he made for a moment.
Lets take a fundamentalist view and assume that he did make all the stars on the fourth day.
So he makes the Sun, and the light from the sun takes say eight minutes to get from the Sun to the Earth. No problem so far.
And he also makes the nearest star to us, Proxima Centauri , which is approximately 4.3 light years from us.... so the light from the nearest star arrives ... Just a minute... hang on! There is a bit of a problem here isn't there? If Proxima Centauri is 4.3 light years from the Earth then the light from that star takes 4.3 years to reach the Earth. So there couldn't have been any stars twinkling in the sky at the end of the fourth day because the light was still on its way. Funny that there is no mention of this.
Now most stars are much much further away from the earth so there would be no way that any appreciable star light would have reached the earth for many many years after the supposed Biblical creation. So how is it that again that there is no mention of this in the Bible?
Some creationists like to try to get around this by trying to argue that the speed of light has changed in the six thousand years that they say have passed since the Earth was created. This would still leave the problem that over those six thousand years more and more stars would be appearing in the sky as their light gradually reached Earth. Again, no mention of this in the Bible. Surely someone must have noticed given that we know the ancients were obsessed with the stars.
It's a real problem for the fundamentalists this one I think.
Nov 29, 2008
Order from disorder and Liars for Jebus
I was reading and commenting on a couple of Liars for Jebus (tm) blogs recently and among the grab bag of misrepresentations and distortions there were the usual comments about how evolution supposedly can't happen because somehow it is supposed to run counter to the second law of thermodynamics.
Now the usual rebuttal to this is to simply point out to IDiots that the second law only applies to closed systems and that it is not applicable therefore, in the simplistic way they use it, to looking at life on earth. Why? Well to put it at its simplest life on earth does not function within a closed system because the earth receives a constant supply of energy from the sun. There are, in addition plenty of examples of order arising from disorder. If you gave your wife a diamond engagement ring then the diamond itself is proof of this.
Over at Pharyngula P.J.Meyers has however posted about a specific mathematical approach to the issue of evolution and entropy which addresses a paper by the physicist Daniel Styer on "Entropy and Evolution". The paper makes quantitative estimates of how much entropy might be decreased by the process of evolution. Worth checking out. Any reader wishing to suggest that evolution is not possible due to the second law might care to enter into the debate over at P.J.Meyers blog.
Now the usual rebuttal to this is to simply point out to IDiots that the second law only applies to closed systems and that it is not applicable therefore, in the simplistic way they use it, to looking at life on earth. Why? Well to put it at its simplest life on earth does not function within a closed system because the earth receives a constant supply of energy from the sun. There are, in addition plenty of examples of order arising from disorder. If you gave your wife a diamond engagement ring then the diamond itself is proof of this.
Over at Pharyngula P.J.Meyers has however posted about a specific mathematical approach to the issue of evolution and entropy which addresses a paper by the physicist Daniel Styer on "Entropy and Evolution". The paper makes quantitative estimates of how much entropy might be decreased by the process of evolution. Worth checking out. Any reader wishing to suggest that evolution is not possible due to the second law might care to enter into the debate over at P.J.Meyers blog.
Nov 10, 2008
Mars Phoenix rover is dead RIP
In Martian fields of red blown dust and rock,
there lies a Phoenix bird, t'was neither hen nor cock,
but metal, cold and lifeless, now it cannot fly,
with the fading of a distant sun it's time for it to die.
The song it sang through Martian summer days
through black and empty space where radiation plays
was heard by men who made the bird by hand
then turned to wonderous pictures of that distant Martian land.
The Phoenix is dead, and will not rise again in flame.
The Phoenix is dead, and though it dies alone there is no shame.
The Phoenix is dead, cold on martian soil it lays to rest.
The Phoenix is dead, of human will it demonstrates the best.
there lies a Phoenix bird, t'was neither hen nor cock,
but metal, cold and lifeless, now it cannot fly,
with the fading of a distant sun it's time for it to die.
The song it sang through Martian summer days
through black and empty space where radiation plays
was heard by men who made the bird by hand
then turned to wonderous pictures of that distant Martian land.
The Phoenix is dead, and will not rise again in flame.
The Phoenix is dead, and though it dies alone there is no shame.
The Phoenix is dead, cold on martian soil it lays to rest.
The Phoenix is dead, of human will it demonstrates the best.
Oct 28, 2008
What future for Arctic nations?
Reading the latest reports about record Arctic ice shrinkage and disappearing Arctic ice sheets on the BBC leaves me wondering about the future of the Arctic region and the relations between those states that border this de-frosting wilderness.
A little while back the BBC also did a news report on a new map showing the claims by various nations on the Arctic region. What is striking about this map are the enormous potential claims that countries such as Russia, Canada, Denmark and Norway have over the Arctic Region. The potential claims by the US are in comparison extremely small.
The second thing apparent from the map is just how much of the Arctic area is likely to be the subject of competing claims. with potential disputes among many of the potential claimants.
Historically most of the countries involved in the Arctic have treated the area as somewhere primarily to be explored and to some extent protected. The USA and Russia both engaged in some military manoeuvring in the region but there was little direct hostility.
The prospect of the Arctic becoming essentially open navigable water for large parts of the year however seems likely to change all this. Oil, mineral supplies and fish stocks will continue to be in great demand but are dwindling elsewhere. As a result the potential exploitation of the Arctic area now seriously beckons the countries that fringe the area.
The stakes will be high not only for the countries involved but also for the fragile wildlife. Canada and Russia both appear to have already woken up to the changes that are taken place. The Russians planted a flag on the sea bed under the Arctic ice sheet to show their claim and the Canadians have been more forcefully patrolling their once frozen waters and the now increasingly open North West Passage.
Claims on mineral and other commodities are not all that is at stake. In an era when transport costs are significant the prospect of using the Arctic waters as a shorter route between countries is enticing. But who will control these routes?
In military terms each country will start to become nervous if others start to actually develop any size of operational base in the claimed regions. Again this arises because of the shorter travelling distances involved.
In short it would appear that the Arctic region has all the seeds sown ready for conflict to spring up between the nations that have claims in the area. How long it will be before serious conflict does occur? Or will the nations involved manage to accommodate to each other and ensure that any development protects the fragile ecosystem of the Arctic?
A little while back the BBC also did a news report on a new map showing the claims by various nations on the Arctic region. What is striking about this map are the enormous potential claims that countries such as Russia, Canada, Denmark and Norway have over the Arctic Region. The potential claims by the US are in comparison extremely small.
The second thing apparent from the map is just how much of the Arctic area is likely to be the subject of competing claims. with potential disputes among many of the potential claimants.
Historically most of the countries involved in the Arctic have treated the area as somewhere primarily to be explored and to some extent protected. The USA and Russia both engaged in some military manoeuvring in the region but there was little direct hostility.
The prospect of the Arctic becoming essentially open navigable water for large parts of the year however seems likely to change all this. Oil, mineral supplies and fish stocks will continue to be in great demand but are dwindling elsewhere. As a result the potential exploitation of the Arctic area now seriously beckons the countries that fringe the area.
The stakes will be high not only for the countries involved but also for the fragile wildlife. Canada and Russia both appear to have already woken up to the changes that are taken place. The Russians planted a flag on the sea bed under the Arctic ice sheet to show their claim and the Canadians have been more forcefully patrolling their once frozen waters and the now increasingly open North West Passage.
Claims on mineral and other commodities are not all that is at stake. In an era when transport costs are significant the prospect of using the Arctic waters as a shorter route between countries is enticing. But who will control these routes?
In military terms each country will start to become nervous if others start to actually develop any size of operational base in the claimed regions. Again this arises because of the shorter travelling distances involved.
In short it would appear that the Arctic region has all the seeds sown ready for conflict to spring up between the nations that have claims in the area. How long it will be before serious conflict does occur? Or will the nations involved manage to accommodate to each other and ensure that any development protects the fragile ecosystem of the Arctic?
Oct 23, 2008
National Academy of Sciences Evolution pamphlet
I came across a useful pdf pamphlet from the US National Academy of Sciences today which sets out some of the issues around Evolution and Creationism.
It's a shortened version of a longer book that they have published. The book itself explains the fundamental methods of science and documents the overwhelming evidence in support of biological evolution. The book also evaluates the alternative perspectives of various kinds of creationism, including "intelligent design" and sets out the scientific and legal reasons for not teaching creationist ideas in public school science classes.
The pamphlet is a much shortened version of the book but gives an excellent short summary of the powerful case for Evolution as a set of facts and as an explanatory theory. It's well worth a read both by those who understand the theory and those creationists who either don't or who still have their fingers in their ears while shouting "la, la,la not listening..." National Academy of Sciences Evolution and Creationsm pamphlet
Update: I just came across this great quote from Albert Einstein;
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."
It's a shortened version of a longer book that they have published. The book itself explains the fundamental methods of science and documents the overwhelming evidence in support of biological evolution. The book also evaluates the alternative perspectives of various kinds of creationism, including "intelligent design" and sets out the scientific and legal reasons for not teaching creationist ideas in public school science classes.
The pamphlet is a much shortened version of the book but gives an excellent short summary of the powerful case for Evolution as a set of facts and as an explanatory theory. It's well worth a read both by those who understand the theory and those creationists who either don't or who still have their fingers in their ears while shouting "la, la,la not listening..." National Academy of Sciences Evolution and Creationsm pamphlet
Update: I just came across this great quote from Albert Einstein;
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."
Oct 17, 2008
Just an average right handed Ape
Your average creationist has a great deal of difficulty accepting the evidence of the biological relationship between the Apes and Humans. The problem with the creationist position however is that the scientific evidence just keeps piling up by the week. Another nail was hammered into the coffin of creationism recently with yet more evidence of the biological similarity between Apes and humans.
A recent study shows that just like with humans gorillas are predominantly right handed and their communication is left brain localised as it is in humans. Given the ton of other evidence about the way that chimps, gorillas and other apes behave and their biological make up it seems impossible that any creationist could still attempt to claim that there is no common descent, that somehow we can pretend that we don't know that Apes and humans have common ancestry.
Creationist fundamentalists will of course continue to be wilfully un-persuadable in the face of the blindingly obvious as they cling fearfully to Genesis stories in their holy books
A recent study shows that just like with humans gorillas are predominantly right handed and their communication is left brain localised as it is in humans. Given the ton of other evidence about the way that chimps, gorillas and other apes behave and their biological make up it seems impossible that any creationist could still attempt to claim that there is no common descent, that somehow we can pretend that we don't know that Apes and humans have common ancestry.
Creationist fundamentalists will of course continue to be wilfully un-persuadable in the face of the blindingly obvious as they cling fearfully to Genesis stories in their holy books
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
