Part of the MABTW blog network - Last Updated Blog - El Chauvinisto

Archive for the ‘science’ Category

Silicone Breast Implants Legal again! Whoo-hoo!

Monday, November 20th, 2006

This is going to be very long, and it won’t feature a picture of any breasts. Much though I’m tempted.

Am I happy silicone implants are legal again? Actually, yes and no.

Having implants — even the relatively simple inflatable ones where they go in through the belly-button — seem like a really, really bad idea.

In my view, no one should get cosmetic surgery, unless it’s to repair some form of damage. (Mind you, damage can be in the eye of the beholder, there’s the rub).

If a woman is a victim of breast cancer, and has had a mastectomy, then, yeah, I don’t disagree with her desire to “repair the damage”. I also don’t disagree with her if she wants to be as she is.

And any man who pressures his wife to ‘restore’ her breast(s) because of a mastectomy is scum. Much less a man who pressures her to have implants/restore them to youth.

We love who we love. And while I wouldn’t love a grossly fat body of a woman who let herself go, I wouldn’t care a nanosecond about her appearance were she hit with cancer. I hope, though am not convinced, that the converse would be true.

So why do I go whoo-hoo! on this?

Simple. I value science over litigation.

Democrats — and the left in general — argue that Republicans don’t value science.

There’s a tiny modicum of truth there — conservatives, for example, did staunchly — and some do today — resist evolution. I don’t know why. To me it’s a no brainer that a) a loving God created us and; b) something akin to evolution occurred; and, c) where is my PS3?

But the converse holds true at least as strongly. If you don’t hold to the right views on Climate change (see State of Fear, for example), then, well, you’re on the wrong track.

And litigators love abusing science. I have as much contempt for the Democrats for running John Edwards, litigation lawyer, as their VP candidate in ‘04, as I would for the Republicans digging out Scope’s opponent’s out of the grave.

Edwards, and his ilk made a horrible argument. There were babies being born with Cerebral Palsy, he said (and he even channeled a baby’s thoughts via a seance like approach in front of a jury) and so women had to have Cesarean sections. To not do so was to condemn the baby to CP.

Never mind that it created more scarring, more vectors for infection, higher costs, and, arguably, longer recovery for women.

It made the lawyers billions.

Literally.

And so, the science is in. C-sections are mostly a bad idea.

Yet they’re done, overwhelmingly, in any country that has contact with the US. Sometimes the patient has to fight strongly to prevent her doctors from doing this! There’s no scientific evidence for it, but the pressure of Edwards (winner of hundreds of millions in (IMO) specious damages) and his ilk made it happen.

Silicone breast implants?

Same thing.

Asinine in that case, and involved the bankruptcy of Dow Corning.

And finally, the FDA said “Oops”.

Make no mistake.

I don’t think women should worry at all about their breasts, other than to wear a good sports-bra while exercising, and be well-fitted. And, sure, wear a push-up bra on a date, we men are simple creatures at times. I rock at giving boobie advice. Borat High-fived me.

But the annihilation of companies by lawyers and terror of women based on utter nonsense? Well that’s crap.

And, ultimately, the same thing — how do we read science — comes down to climate change. And there’s where it may kill us or brutally destroy our welfare, as a society.

If you’re a woman, and you read through this, post away, please. Otherwise I might just do only boobie pics.

Respectfully submitted,

-wolfe

Evolution?

Friday, October 20th, 2006

I’ve talked about evolution news and criticized intelligent design on scientific grounds. (I happen to believe in it, but I agree it’s not very good science). Now here’s something really nutty from someone who claims to be an “evolutionary theorist” and works for the London School of Economics. Granted, Mick Jagger’s, Cherie Blair’s and James Hacker’s alma mater may not be the sine qua non of intellectualism, but can it really be that bad?

Apparently yes.

Humanity may split into two sub-species in 100,000 years’ time as predicted by HG Wells, an expert has said.

Evolutionary theorist Oliver Curry of the London School of Economics expects a genetic upper class and a dim-witted underclass to emerge.

lseevolution4.jpg
Go gay (for male readers), and date the ‘genitals removed’ 7′ tall guy that looks like Adolf Hitler with two mouths, or the troglodyte possibly female creature? Decisions, decisions for our descendants in 100,000 years, according to this chap from the LSE. Image credit:BBC News.

The human race would peak in the year 3000, he said - before a decline due to dependence on technology.

People would become choosier about their sexual partners, causing humanity to divide into sub-species, he added.

The descendants of the genetic upper class would be tall, slim, healthy, attractive, intelligent, and creative and a far cry from the “underclass” humans who would have evolved into dim-witted, ugly, squat goblin-like creatures.

Race ‘ironed out’

But in the nearer future, humans will evolve in 1,000 years into giants between 6ft and 7ft tall, he predicts, while life-spans will have extended to 120 years, Dr Curry claims.

Physical appearance, driven by indicators of health, youth and fertility, will improve, he says, while men will exhibit symmetrical facial features, look athletic, and have squarer jaws, deeper voices and bigger penises.

Women, on the other hand, will develop lighter, smooth, hairless skin, large clear eyes, pert breasts, glossy hair, and even features, he adds. Racial differences will be ironed out by interbreeding, producing a uniform race of coffee-coloured people.

The BBC thinks this is worth reporting on?

Peak in the year 3000? (For, presumably, evolutionary reasons)?

Look, I’m all for pert breasts, glossy hair and if I get upgraded to be a big swinging dick, great, but, given that every feature ascribed to women (and men) can be replicated via drugs/surgery/cosmetics today, it seems somewhat unlikely that we’ll have a big evolutionary push in this direction.

And in a mere 1000 years technology will be our downfall? This is an awfully weak argument.

“Science” like this, is roughly as valid as a faculty member of the LSE saying “Jesus will return again, as prophesized, by the year 3000″. Yeah, it could happen. And it is at least a falsifiable prediction, if we wait long enough. But it’s basically made up out of whole cloth.

NB- They do call him “Dr Curry” and, unless the English have changed radically over the last 10 years, that’s a hat tip that he’s not yet a recognized professor, academic or scholar. Or sloppy journalism, which, given the rest of the article, may well be the case. The BBC is generally a reliably left-wing outfit though, with passable science journalism.

Hat tip: Pharyngula, self described as a blog on “Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations [I shan't go there] from a godless liberal”, namely associate professor at University of Minnesota, Morris. [For non-US readers, U of M (twin cities) is generally reasonably well regarded as a general scientific/engineering university. I've little idea how their Morris campus -- 250 km from the twin cities -- stacks up in biology or anything, but it certainly can't be terrible... unlike the LSE!].

I do suspect reception of any ID/conservative people there would be quite hostile, judging by how he’s been quoted in the media.

In any event, there’s my boring science post of the day. Next up, if I’ve time… Friday boobies!

-wolfe

Calling Smallville

Wednesday, October 18th, 2006

Short shrift for most posting this week, as I’m very busy with work, but I found this story interesting.

Ground-Penetrating Radar locates buried meteorite in Kansas farm field.

“It validates the technique so we can use something similar to that instrument when we go to Mars,” said Patricia Reiff, director of the Rice Space Institute.

Such GPR systems had been used in the past to locate smaller meteorites through the ice in Antarctica. But until the Kansas dig, the technology had not been successfully used for ground detection in heavy soils — like on Mars — to find meteorites or water there.

The dig was likely the most documented excavation yet of a meteorite find.

Meteorite buried below a Kansas farm? Hmm… below, an ultra-scientific reconstruction of what the meteorite may have looked like:

superman-meteorite1.jpg
Image via Planete-Smallville; Warner Brothers image.

In related news, small boy lifts car over his head.

-wolfe

Friday Boobies

Friday, October 13th, 2006

This has fun pics, but please look at my post below on what the Israeli Ambassador said.

I have no choice. I’m very sorry. But Zogmama has forced me to post this. She said something about frequency of twin-headed snakes — which is high — and the requirement to post boobie pics.

I might be very slightly mischaracterizing what she said. Only slightly though. Surely.

So here we go. Boobie pics.

Blue Footed Boobie

Blue Footed Boobie:

These aren’t antarctic, but Galapagos in origin. They look kind of cross-eyed when viewed head on, and they have a peculiar mating dance. As a result, the Spanish characterized them as ‘bobos’ (clowns), hence ‘boobies’. That said, they dive spectacularly, have some red-footed cousins, and are generally very good hunters.

Boobies!

Oh. You wanted something else? Pfft, I’ve a number of female readers so they are less excited by boobies than you and I. Err… You and me, ladies!!!

OK, OK, here’s a boobie pic.

Caucasian brunette woman breastfeeding baby

Credit: Schools of Public Health; FolicAcid.net

Boobies!!!

Oh. Ok.

 

Caprice

 

 

Boobies!

-wolfe

Eyes from above

Tuesday, October 10th, 2006

I doubt many readers came of age before Sputnik; we grew up with the idea of ‘eyes overhead’. Indeed, in recent years, Google Earth has “open-sourced” satellite photography to nearly everyone.

So in one sense, this satellite photo of a desert area with some raised dunes in fascinating patterns in the middle is nothing special, though it is possessed of an incredible stark beauty.

Oddly, I can’t think of an exact antonym in the English language for ‘plateau’. Depression, lowland, or even crater will have to do and that does give a bit of a hint.

Victoria Crater (recompressed by wolfe)
To me, that pattern in the middle looks almost like the folds in a cerebral cortex. Of course it’s not, but our brains do love to recognize patterns — even false or misleading ones.

Closer examination of the incredibly hi-res version of this picture reveals a vehicle, complete with tire tracks, stopped near the edge of the depression.

Mars Rover at Victoria Crater (recompressed)

Big deal? Well, kind of. It’s a human-made satellite — technically an orbiter — in orbit around Mars. Watching a vehicle sent from Earth years ago driving around on the Martian surface. Now that’s just so many kinds of cool.

Photo Credits: HiROC. Hat tip: Phil Plait (Bad Astronomy) and Huffington Post.

I’m about a week late with the news (It happened on the 3rd of October), and Phil Plait’s blog, via the Huffington Post, was where I first stumbled across the story. I actually intended to post some different HiRISE (the name of the camera on the satellite — called the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter — MRO) shots to not be quite such a copycat, but alas, these were the only color ones I’ve found to date.

This is the homepage for the HiRISE camera Operations Center (HiROC); I’m sure they’ll have lots of fascinating photos there as time unfolds.

As Dr. Phil Plait says at his amusingly named blog, Bad Astronomy, “imagine what we’ll see in coming weeks”.

-wolfe

“Respectfully submitted”

Wednesday, September 27th, 2006

This is a wonderful phrase that I’ve used in the past, and, to my great pleasure, one commenter on this site used.

You put forth a bunch of ideas, and close with this.

Why do I love it so as a phrase? For several reasons.

First, there’s a degree of courtesy to it. This is valuable in this wicked world.

Second, there’s an engineering/scientific echo to it that I just love.

The person saying it isn’t saying “My ideas are perfect and you are a moron”, she/he [I will henceforth use he to indicate both masculine and feminine] is saying:

“I respect your intelligence and your capacity for peer review. I am submitting this for intelligent peer review and discussion. I have faith that you will treat my ideas and writing with the same respect I am now treating you.”

He’s not saying “I am submissive”. Submitted does not imply that (unless you’re a moron). Neither does respect.

Now, I definitely don’t want to see a rash of “respectfully submitted’s” on this blog. I really, really, don’t. Most of you should use it no more than a few times a year. Of course, those of you that are scientists may use it whenever you want.

For the rest, if you say something that you think is extremely controversial, or might hurt someone’s feelings, GO BACK. Make sure your arguments are logical. Make sure you make your perspective clear. Then, sure, consider “respectfully submitted” as a closing.

Most importantly, in the immortal words of Bill and Ted, “Be excellent to each other”.

Best, the sometimes excellent
-wolfe

Home and Dry

Thursday, September 21st, 2006

Atlantis landing early in the am
Chris O’Meara, AP.

 

Landing in darkness, the space shuttle Atlantis returned safely to earth today, bringing home her 6 astronauts. There likely won’t be shuttle flights beyond 2010, and there will be, at most, only a few more landings in darkness between now and then. Treasure the sight.

 

-wolfe

Good for him.

Thursday, September 21st, 2006

the faint call of distant kin, across the deep-time of human pre-history
-wolfe

Looking resolutely backwards, today’s post is, in some ways, the opposite of yesterday’s, though both concern explorers. Here we speak of a man who, six years ago, made a startling find that’s only recently received attention.

Dr. ZERESENAY Alemseged [NB- where the 'surname' or formal name of someone is not the final name, I try to all-CAPS the first reference of it] has lead an investigatory team in Ethiopia for 7 years now. Back at the end of the 20th century, they set off for the north-eastern deserts of the country, the Afar region. They discovered something quite startling. They came to realize their discovery was the most complete fossil record of someone almost — but not quite — human ever discovered.

Dr. Zeresenay and the skull of 'Selam' [Pax, Peace]
Dr. Zereseany holds up the skull of ‘Baby Lucy’ aka Selam.
Photo credit: Max Planck Institute via BBC.

We’ve all heard, I’m sure, of Lucy, that most famous putative ‘missing link’ discovered in the 1970’s. Australopithecus afarensis, dwelling 3 to 4 million years ago in eastern Africa, bipedal (walking upright) and probably partly arboreal (tree-climbing and dwelling) is widely believed to be a common ancestor of all mankind.

There are several catches though. Well, heck, just see Lucy’s fossilized remains, below:

Lucy
Photo: Daniel Acosta.
Released to Public Domain. Via Wikipedia.

There’s not much of the skull there. Oh, there’s a fair bit, but we’re depending upon a lot of guesswork and reconstruction.

No hands, no toes. The torso and shoulders are at best thin gruel. Some have legitimately complained that this is pretty weak beer to base a ‘missing link’ (or even portion thereof) upon.

Dr. Zeresenay’s discovery is startling, though. Here’s the skull, and a sketched reproduction of the skeleton indicating what parts were ‘guessed at’ and what were actually found:

Selam's (Baby Lucy's) skull
Photo Credit: apparently Zeresenay Alemseged
via journal Nature and then Globe and Mail.

(Note that the top of the skull — the darker bits — is ‘estimated’. That said, the curvature is a superb fit, and I have extremely high confidence. Yes, the girl could have been a conehead. No, I don’t think she was. Unlike Lucy, this is a rather astonishingly complete skull, legs and torso).

 

Image from Patricia J Wynne via Scientific American of Selam's (Baby Lucy) Skeleton recovery and reconstruction
Image by Patricia J. Wynne. via Scientific American.
The brown bits indicate actual fossil recovery. The white bits indicate best guess/estimate reconstruction.

 

This is amazing. We’re receiving the faint call of distant kin, across the deep-time of human pre-history. Across millions of years, a poor, three-year-old girl tells us a great deal.

As for Dr. Zeresenay? It needs to be said: There aren’t enough Ethiopians that are investigating their country’s glorious ancient past (in this case not merely ancient, but pre-historic). He’s one. I’m sure he had to go through some tough times to succeed. Good for him. In this case, assistance credit goes to France where he studied and Germany where he nominally works (MPI).

sources used: BBC, Nature, Scientific American, Globe and Mail, Max Plank Institute, Wikipedia.

-wolfe

Good for her.

Wednesday, September 20th, 2006

Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth
And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;
Sunward I’ve climbed and joined the tumbling mirth of sun-split clouds…

And, while with silent lifting mind I’ve trod
The high, untrespassed sanctity of space,
Put out my hand and touched the face of God.

– John Magee, RCAF pilot and poet.
Died in high flight, 11 December 1941.

Anousheh Ansari, the world’s fourth “space tourist”, and the first woman to pay her way into space lifted off Monday, heading for the International Space Station and fulfilling a life-long dream.

Anousheh Ansari
Anousheh Ansari, AFP via CNN.

As a young girl in Tehran, she gazed out at a field of stars against the darkness of night. She wished to look the other way, and see the shining earth against that dark veil, pierced by the light of stars.

She’s got her wish.

A global story.

She left Iran at the age of 16 just a few years after the Islamic Revolution, in part because her family wanted her to pursue her passion for the sciences to the fullest extent possible.

When she arrived, she knew next to no English except for a few verses from the song “My Favorite Things,” from the film “The Sound of Music.”

But within the next several years, Ansari had taught herself English, earned a university degree and landed a job at MCI earning just over $26,000. There she met her husband. Soon, she and her husband quit their jobs at MCI, cashed in their retirement savings, and ran up their credit cards to finance a telecommunications company they opened.

And they succeeded. They sold their company for a nominal half-billion dollars.

Then Anousheh Ansari helped fund the Ansari X-Prize. Good stuff.

Some disparage space tourism. As she points out, she went through 6 months of training to be able to fly, so it’s not exactly your typical tourism.

Leaving that aside, if people are willing to pay to ride to orbit, and know the risks; let them. Let someone other than taxpayers subsidize the space program.

For all my mabtw posts, societies that don’t value individual human beings (male or female), art, and don’t permit those individual human beings to ‘pursue happiness’ and fulfil their potential (male or female) … well they’re not very civilised societies. (Yeah, note I tossed in ‘art’ in the middle. That’s important too.)

This is the antithesis of the sort of woman that gets robustly criticized on mabtw. Oh, sure, I think she did much, much better for herself because she married well. But she’d have been a highly successful woman regardless.

The US (and capitalism in Russia!) made it possible for her to do something extraordinary that she could never have done in the theocracy of Iran. Good for her; good for her parents for seeing the need to emigrate. May Iran’s other sons and daughters be one day as free as she.

And may we all, at some point in life, slip the surly bonds of earth, reach out, and touch the face of God.

-wolfe

Science: Men are More Intelligent than Women

Monday, September 18th, 2006

At long last a light-hearted post. I trust most readers of this site know my views differ to some modest degree from those generally expressed upon mabtw.com. [note: suffering from mild pain following minor surgery, and some dental surgery (booked it all at once) and adamantly refusing to take painkillers. Blogging may vary; responses may be curter than usual. Hopefully not though.]

So I view this as a light-hearted topic, and I hope readers will as well.

Science now tells us that men are smarter than women by about 3.6 IQ points.

The findings, which held true for all classes and levels of parental education, overturn a 100 year consensus that men and women average the same in general mental ability. They also conflict with evidence that girls do better in school exams than boys.

But Prof Rushton, who was born in Bournemouth and obtained his doctorate in social psychology from the London School of Economics, argues that the faster maturing of girls leads to them outshining boys in the classroom.

My reaction, honestly, is “is that all”? How surprisingly small a difference on average. And yet, how surprising that there should be a difference, on average, as well.

Let’s make no mistake. It’s clear, to anyone of reasonable intelligence, that the number of highly intelligent (and highly stupid) men is far greater than the number of highly intelligent (and stupid) women.

That there’s a difference in the averages, which I’ve seen people talk about, but never seen a credible paper… that’s something different. And odd.

Why should the male of the species be faster, stronger, and very slightly more intelligent? It makes no sense. It’s also, frankly, not quite fair. Indeed, it goes against a lot of what we assume about men and women — at least in jocular form.
In this case, two years of peer-reviews passed Rushton’s paper. It looks incredibly controversial, but I suspect his methods and maths are sound. (And, yes, Female, he did control for income, class, etc).
That said, some of his conclusions seem dubious indeed. For example:

the finding could explain why so few women make it to the top in the workplace.

He claims the ‘glass ceiling’ phenomenon is probably due to inferior intelligence, rather than discrimination or lack of opportunity.

That’s crap. A 3.6 IQ point average IQ difference doesn’t explain that at all.

Indeed, the idea of ‘inferior intelligence’ is troublingly offensive. And I’m a right-wing misogynist. Well, ok, not really, but I still do find the word ‘inferior’ to be rather unpleasant.
One study showed that there’s about a 5 point IQ difference between babies that were breast-fed and those that weren’t.

This clearly dwarfs this putative difference between male and female IQ. So bottle-fed babies have a glass ceiling? None’s ever been shown.

The glass ceiling does exist because:

a) brilliant women are much less common than brilliant men (so are stupid women in prisons less common that stupid men in prisons);
b) there remains some residual bias against women here and there in the west (I believe this is net-zero or more probably in favor of women, because of the favoritism to women shown elsewhere, but it still should be mentioned)
c) women tend, overwhelmingly to either choose the ‘mommy track’ or a less stressful career path than men.

What do you think? About the glass ceiling, about intelligence… about whatever?

-wolfe