What You Ought To Know About Autism

I just thought I'd throw this out at ya. Enjoy!

Lessons from the Scablands

Last night, I watched an intriguing episode of NOVA called Mystery of the Megaflood which provided the scientific evidence that the Scablands were formed by a catastrophic flood that was caused by the abrupt (brittle?) failure of an ice dam thousands of years ago. I would encourage everyone to watch this very education and eye-opening show.

Watching Mystery of the Megaflood also made me think of the evolution/ID debates and what lessons can be applied from this:

1. Gradualism is not always the answer. Geology has been dominated by gradualism: geological formations are best explained by erosion via water and/or wind or other mechanism over large periods of time. Catastrophic events were shunned. In fact, when J. Harlen Brentz presented his hypothesis of how the Scablands were formed in 1923, he was ridiculed. However, his hypothesis was later vindicated.

Just as Catastrophism was/is frowned upon by the geological establishment, so is a similar hypothesis frowned upon by the majority of evolutionary biologists: saltationism. Could saltationism be vindicated sometime in the future?

2. A qualifier to point 1 is that Brentz's hypothesis was vindicated due to a large amount of scientific investigation over a period time. Brentz wrote his paper in 1923, his insights were vindicated by the 1950's, and the details were filled in around the 1990's. The point: Catastrophism needed a wealth of scientific experimentation and verification, something that ID is sorely lacking at present. The term "Less talk and more action" seems appropriate.

3. How Brentz's hypothesis was accepted is a great example of how to go through the Explanatory Continuum as proposed by Mike Gene in The Design Matrix: it started as a possibility in 1923 (a remote one); then circumstantial evidence was gathered and the hypothesis progressed to being plausible (1950's); details were filled in such that the hypothesis is now seen as probable (1990's). Note that almost 70 years were needed to progress from possible to plausible to probable. See Chapter 2 of the Design Matrix for more on the Explanatory Continuum.

On an engineering side note, I found the small-scale models presented interesting and educational. However, as any engineer knows, what works at a small scale does not completely translate to a larger scale. This is called "scale effect", and I'd be interested in knowing what scale effects there are in this research.

The Altenberg Sixteen and The EES

Suzan Mazur has been writing on the so-called Altenberg 16 Summit that occured last week. Now she is writing an e-book on the summit, and she has some harsh words regarding the current synthesis (Neo-Darwinian Evolution or NDE) and natural selection:

Evolutionary science is as much about the posturing, salesmanship, stonewalling and bullying that goes on as it is about actual scientific theory. It is a social discourse involving hypotheses of staggering complexity with scientists, recipients of the biggest grants of any intellectuals, assuming the power of politicians while engaged in Animal House pie-throwing and name-calling: "ham-fisted", "looney Marxist hangover", "secular creationist", "philosopher" (a scientist who can’t get grants anymore), "quack", "crackpot". . .

In short, it’s a modern day quest for the holy grail, but with few knights. At a time that calls for scientific vision, scientific inquiry’s been hijacked by an industry of greed, with evolution books hyped like snake oil at a carnival.

Perhaps the most egregious display of commercial dishonesty is next year’s celebration of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species – the so-called theory of evolution by natural selection, i.e., survival of the fittest, that was foisted on us almost 150 years ago.

Scientists agree that natural selection can occur. But the scientific community has known for some time that natural selection has nothing to do with evolution. ...

I broke the story about the Altenberg affair last March with the assistance of Alastair Thompson and the team at Scoop Media, the independent news agency based in New Zealand. ... But will the A-16 deliver? Will they help rid us of the natural selection "survival of the fittest" mentality that has plagued civilization for a century and a half, and on which Darwinism and neo-Darwinism are based, now that the cat is out of the bag that selection is politics not science? That selection cannot be measured exactly. That it is not the mechanism of evolution. That it is an abstract rusty tool left over from 19th century British imperial exploits.

Or will the A-16 tip-toe around the issue, appease the Darwin industry and protect foundation grants?

-Suzan Mazur

Eeeyikes! Just think what she would have wrote if the topic were creationists!

All kidding aside, there does seem to be, at the very least, a degree of frustration with the role natural selection plays in evolution. Suzan reports that cytogeneticist, Antonio Lima-de-Faria, author of "Evolution Without Selection", "sees any continuance of the natural selection concept as 'compromise'." She also accuses science blogs of "stonewalling" new ideas such as self-organisation:

...one of the stars of the symposium, New York Medical College cell biologist Stuart Newman, hypothesizes that all 35 animal phyla self-organized at the time of the Cambrian explosion (a half billion years ago) without a genetic recipe or selection (hardwiring supposedly followed). Emphasis mine

Allow me to address two items. First, I can see why the science blogs* are bristling at either setting aside or demoting natural selection. Take away NS and all you are left with is one big game of Yahtzee. IOW, evolution without the contingency of NS becomes a framework of chance. If this is true, then I think it's obvious that the new synthesis will be weaker than the one it replaces. What would you prefer: pure chance or chance coupled with contingency?

Second, this could very well be a case of a reporter "glamorising" a simple symposium to sell her article and get her name out there. Take the words of Massimo Pigliucci (HT to Todd Berkebile @ TT):

So, what are the Altenberg 16 going to do in Altenberg next week? ... The agenda is to discuss the current status of evolutionary theory, with a particular emphasis on developments -- some of them under intense debate -- that have occurred since the last version of it has been in put in place back in the 1930s and ‘40s. ...

In the 1930s and ‘40s it became clear that one had to integrate the original Darwinism with the new disciplines of Mendelian and statistical genetics. Such integration occurred through a series of meetings where scientists discussed the status of evolutionary theory, and through the publication of a number of books by people like Theodosius Dobzhansky, Ernst Mayr, George Gaylor Simpson, George Ledyard Stebbins and others. The result was an updated theoretical framework known as the Modern Synthesis (MS). But of course evolutionary biology has further progressed during the last eight decades (unlike, one cannot help but notice, creationism). So for a few years now several evolutionary biologists have suggested that it may be time for another update, call it evolutionary theory 3.0 or, as many of us have begun to refer to it, the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES)**.

A number of authors, including Stephen Gould, Mary Jane West-Eberhard, Eva Jablonka, Stuart Kauffman, Stuart Newman, the above mentioned Gerd Müller, and myself, have published papers and books recently attempting to articulate what an EES might look like, and which elements of the MS will need to be retained, modified or discarded (just like the MS had retained, modified or discarded individual components of the original Darwinism). The goal of the Altenberg workshop is to get some of these people around the same table for three days and trade ideas about these sorts of questions.

So is this a case of tip-toeing to "appease the Darwin industry and protect foundation grants", or is Suzan Mazur exaggerating the outcome of the summit?

The asylum is now open for comments.

HT to Grandma O'Leary @ Post-Darwinist

*I am sure that not all of the science blogs are "stonewalling". This is likely a generalisation on Suzan Mazur's part that isprobably accurate for the majority of the science blogs out there.

**I would encourage everyone to read this pdf file describing the framework for the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (myself included). After all, this is the potential new synthesis many anticipate will come from meetings like Altenberg. Time will tell whether the EES survives or not.

A Tip O' The Beer Mug To Mike Gene

This is sad news. Mike Gene is retiring from Telic Thoughts to spend more time with his family.

Mike is that unique voice in the ID/evolution debate who will not be pigeonholed into an extreme position and whose views are well-thought and demand to be taken seriously on their merits alone. Mike's posts at TT have helped to influence my views; his inputs will be sorely missed.

(raising a mug of Grasshopper)

Here's to Mike Gene. May God bless your time with your family and allow to keep following the Rabbit wherever it goes.

Should We REALLY Be Surprised???

On second third thought, perhaps I was right the first time around: PZ's Pharyngula definitely should have been rated lower than high school:

But then again, based on this (HT: FtK), that would be an insult to elementary kids. Maybe "High School Bathroom Wall" is more appropriate.

The real surprise is that any one is shocked at this. This is just PZ being PZ. Cut him loose already, sez I.

"Readability" of EE

According to this site, EE has a reading level of Undergrad.

What this means exactly, I have no clue and I don't put much stock in it either. However, it is nice to have one's ego stroked once in a while (oh yeah! Right there! Ahhhhhhh!)

UPDATE 09July2008: Results from the other blogs were deleted.

Grandma's Universe

The "grandma" of ID, Denyse O'Leary, has "recently" created a new blog called "Colliding Universes" to complement a book project of hers on multiple universes. Seeing as how astronomy is of special interest to me*, I have spent some time checking it out, and Grandma O'Leary has some cool posts there**.

While I am more interested in the articles she refers to, Grandma's comments are interesting too. Take for example a recent post on the recent findings on Mercury by the MESSENGER probe (not only does Mercury appear to have an active magnetic field, but it also appears like it has volcanic vents!):

"Does the planet Mercury need to exist? - I mean in the business sense. Does it do anything? Or is it like those souvenir shells that persist forever on the mantelpiece? They have no use, but that's not the same thing as saying that they are not there for a reason. There is a difference between use and reason."

I like Grandma O'Leary. Everyone should have a grandma like her. That said, I don't think Mercury is "useless". To provide one possible answer, perhaps Mercury is there to increase our understanding of how the solar system and universe works and thereby employing many talented nerds astronomers to gather data and interpret. Granted, there is no physical law that demands Mercury be there, but there it be, so I sez let's examine it and learn from it.

One thing I must note from the referred article: why are astronomers always surprised that the solar system/universe is different than expected? The Voyager missions should have taught us by now to expect the unexpected.

*When I was a kid, I wanted to be an astronomer; can you say "NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRD!!!"? But hey, nerds are OK and are sometimes cool. There, that's the extent of my olive branch. Take it or be swatted by it ;)

**Some other interesting Colliding Universes posts with article links can be found here, here, and here.

Reflections on Body Worlds

Well, despite all nagging concerns I had, I went to Body Worlds (BW) on Monday.

Before I comment on the actual display, I wish to address the concerns I had:

1. I found the allegations that BW received human bodies through suspicious means groundless. No concrete evidence was uncovered since the allegations were made. On top of that, BW went out of their way to show the process and consent forms for accepting bodies via donations to science. In short, I was satisfied the donors had given their informed consent.

2. The consent forms include a box to check if the donor consents to his/her organs being sold to educational institutions, with proceeds going to covers the costs of the plastination process, not for profit. I found this to be a reasonable request.

3. The BW display did not show the donors in a demeaning fashion. The poses were mainly for educational purposes, although I would recommend not taking children under 12 to the show (of which there were quite a few, unfortunately).

To sum up, I am satisfied most of my concerns were adequately met and I felt more comfortable viewing most of the displays.

That said, for those who feel comfortable, I fully recommend seeing Body Worlds. The exhibit I went to organised the displays by the different systems of the body which included (not an inclusive list) skeletal, muscular, nervous, circulatory, respiratory, digestive, urination and kidneys, reproductive, etc. The only room I didn't spend a lot of time in was the fetal development room. I took a quick scan, found I wasn't entirely comfortable with viewing it, and waited outside for my wife (who found it very interesting and would recommend all teenage girls see it in order to give them a more complete picture of what goes on during pregnancy).

Also included were banners showing the history of anatomy. One of the most intriguing (IMO) was the viewing theatres from Renaissance times were the rich and poor would mingle amongst each other while viewing autopsies/dissections (I would have thought there would have been a section set aside for the rich and another for the poor).

The displays showed both a "normally functioning" body and how diseases affect the function (there were a lot of smokers who donated their bodies!). The "normal" bodies displayed many impressive features, including (and forgive me for not remembering the proper names) four arteries going from the heart to the brain that connect in a circle at the base of the brain, helping to ensure sufficient blood flow in the event one of the arteries gets blocked.

The main thing I took from this is that a "normally functioning" body gives the strong appearance of an efficiently designed system*. By efficient, I mean that each discrete system (i.e. skeletal, circulatory, etc.) appeared "designed" to provide optimum function of that system given certain constraints and requirements from other discrete systems and/or the larger system (i.e. the human body). Each discrete system works together to provide a larger multi-functional and adaptive system. Take away or significantly change a component of a local system, the larger system can still function, but not at the efficiency of the "normal" body.

All in all, I found Body Worlds to be a fascinating exhibit that treated the donated bodies with dignity and respect while providing an educational aspect that the layman can grasp.

*Efficient System Design is a concept I will be dealing with in more detail in the near future, but feel free to comment on it. I enjoy and appreciate everyone's point of view (thus far).

Random Thoughts About Body Worlds

I am going to see the Body Worlds exhibit on Monday. It has piqued my curiosity and interest and I am expecting a fascinating display.

From the website:

"The BODY WORLDS exhibitions are first-of-their-kind exhibitions through which visitors learn about anatomy, physiology, and health by viewing real human bodies, using an extraordinary process called Plastination a groundbreaking method for specimen preservation invented by Dr. von Hagens in 1977.

"Each exhibition features more than 200 real human specimens, including whole-body plastinates, individual organs, organ configurations and transparent body slices. The specimens on display stem from the body donation program that Gunther von Hagens established in 1983.The exhibitions also allow visitors to see and better understand the long-term impact of diseases, the effects of tobacco consumption and the mechanics of artificial supports such as knees and hips. To date, more than 25 million people around the world have viewed the BODY WORLDS exhibits."

It is apparent that this exhibit is not for everyone. As for myself, I love watching live operations, can tend to be a violence junkie, and don't get queazy very easily, so Body Worlds should be right up my alley.

Or will it?

There is something bugging me about this, and I believe C.S. Lewis puts it best in Abolition of Man:

"...a similar price is exacted for our analytical knowledge and manipulative power, even if we have ceased to count it. We do not look at trees either as Dryads or as beautiful objects while we cut them into beams: the first man who did so may have felt the price keenly, and the bleeding trees in Virgil and Spenser may be far-off echoes of that primeval sense of impiety. The stars lost their divinity as astronomy developed, and the Dying God has no place in chemical agriculture. To many, no doubt, this process is simply the gradual discovery that the real world is different from what we expected, and the old opposition to Galileo or to `body-snatchers' is simply obscurantism. But that is not the whole story. It is not the greatest of modern scientists who feel most sure that the object, stripped of its qualitative properties and reduced to mere quantity, is wholly real. Little scientists, and little unscientific followers of science, may think so. The great minds know very well that the object, so treated, is an artificial abstraction, that something of its reality has been lost.

"From this point of view the conquest of Nature appears in a new light. We reduce things to mere Nature in order that we may `conquer' them. We are always conquering Nature, because `Nature' is the name for what we have, to some extent, conquered. The price of conquest is to treat a thing as mere Nature. Every conquest over Nature increases her domain. The stars do not become Nature till we can weigh and measure them: the soul does not become Nature till we can psychoanalyse her. The wresting of powers from Nature is also the surrendering of things to Nature. As long as this process stops short of the final stage we may well hold that the gain outweighs the loss. But as soon as we take the final step of reducing our own species to the level of mere Nature, the whole process is stultified, for this time the being who stood to gain and the being who has been sacrificed are one and the same. This is one of the many instances where to carry a principle to what seems its logical conclusion produces absurdity. It is like the famous Irishman who found that a certain kind of stove reduced his fuel bill by half and thence concluded that two stoves of the same kind would enable him to warm his house with no fuel at all. It is the magician's bargain: give up our soul, get power in return. But once our souls, that is, ourselves, have been given up, the power thus conferred will not belong to us. We shall in fact be the slaves and puppets of that to which we have given our souls. It is in Man's power to treat himself as a mere `natural object' and his own judgements of value as raw material for scientific manipulation to alter at will. The objection to his doing so does not lie in the fact that this point of view (like one's first day in a dissecting room) is painful and shocking till we grow used to it. The pain and the shock are at most a warning and a symptom. The real objection is that if man chooses to treat himself as raw material, raw material he will be: not raw material to be manipulated, as he fondly imagined, by himself, but by mere appetite, that is, mere Nature, in the person of his de-humanized Conditioners." (emphasis mine)

Before commenting, I would encourage you to read Lewis's lecture, The Abolition of Man (and for the adventurous, the previous two lectures: Men Without Chests and The Way) so you can get a better idea of his overall argument.

Don't get me wrong. This looks like a fascinating exhibit from which one can learn a lot. The donors gave consent, so that is not the issue either. IMO, the tie-in to Abolition of Man is whether charging people a fee to see human corpses and body parts on display is part of the process of humankind becoming raw material.

Football Season Is About To Start

I bet most of you are going, "What football? It ain't September yet!" Ah, that is a great time of year when I have four teams (at max) playing any given weekend.

But for the end of June, that means the Canadian Football League 2008 season is about to start! The official start is Thursday, June 26th, but the real start is Saturday when the Edmonton Eskimos visit the DEFENDING GREY CUP CHAMPIONS, SASKATCHEWAN ROUGHRIDERS!

RiderNation is alive and kicking and still recovering from that hangover from last year's Grey Cup.