Most awesome Google logo ever

June 9, 2011 • 4:03 pm

If you go to the Google home page today, you’ll see something that looks like this:

You can pluck the strings and play some awesome electric guitar, and even record what you play (the site gives you a URL for playback.)  The NPR blog tells you how to use it, and shows a guy playing a passable version of “Hey Jude.” (Press the black rectangle at lower right to activate “record,” and then use your keys to play the strings.)

The explanation: today is Les Paul’s 96th birthday (though he died in 2009).

“Evolution becomes revolution”

June 9, 2011 • 9:57 am

That’s the motto for the new prequel, “Rise of the Planet of the Apes,” which opens August 11.  The terribly novel premise is that genetic engineering of chimpanzees turns them into a race of super-primates, hell-bent on destroying humanity.  You can see the trailer here.

Here’s a screenshot:

I’ll sure be seeing this one come August–NOT!

Eric MacDonald: A memorial to Elizabeth

June 9, 2011 • 9:11 am

Eric MacDonald’s wife Elizabeth died four years ago yesterday, a victim of multiple sclerosis who decided to undergo assisted suicide at the Dignitas facility in Switzerland.  His memorial post is a mixture of love for his wife and rancor at the people who put obstacles in the path of her assisted suicide.  I defy you to read it without tears welling up in your eyes.

The obsequies we pay to our beloved dead are our earnest of a future — not our future, but one in which what we value can live on in others’ lives, not ours — as the poem says. That is the human hope. We can only hope that those who succeed us will place value on those things we most aspired to, and things greater than these. The real disaster of religion is placing value in another world, and despairing of this one. While we need to be aware of the limitations of our sympathies and abilities, we also need to strive to achieve those things which people have most valued in this life, forgetting about religious dreams and delusions.

Well said, old man.  And best wishes to you.

Jellyfish are smarter than you think

June 9, 2011 • 7:49 am

I mourn the dearth of science columns by Natalie Angier in the New York Times.  Maybe I’m wrong, but they seem to have been much more frequent in past years.  At any rate, she had a good one on jellyfish in Tuesday’s Times, “So much more than plasma and poison.”  Scientists are starting to discover that jellyfish are neurologically much more complex than previously suspected.  Some even think that they have the equivalent of a “brain.”

Angier’s piece led me to a nice paper in a recent Current Biology (reference below) on the box jellyfish (Tripedalia cystophora), which lives in Caribbean mangrove swamps.  Like all jellyfish, it’s carnivorous, and depends for food on copepods that live in water beneath the mangrove canopy.  These jellyfish are famous for having 24 eyes of four different types: upper and lower lens eyes, pit eyes, and slit eyes.  The upper and lower lens eyes have a lens, cornea, and retina, and so resemble vertebrate eyes. The other two eyes can distinguish light and dark. You can see some of the eyes in this photo:

The box jellyfish (from NYT article): photo by Anders Garn and Jan Bieckeki.

The upper lens eyes are unusual, since the eyestalk contains a heavy crystal that keeps the stalk upright at all times, even when the jellfish is sideways or upside down.

Here’s a picture of the upper lens eyes, with captions from the paper:

“In freely swimming medusae, the rhopalia maintain a constant vertical orientation. When the medusa changes its body orientation, the heavy crystal (statolith) in the distal end of the rhopalium causes the rhopalial stalk to bend such that the rhopalium remains vertically oriented. Thus, the upper lens eye (ULE) points straight upward at all times, irrespective of body orientation.” Scale bar is 5 mm.

This always-upright position of the eyestalks, plus the observation that jellyfish displaced away from areas of mangroves swam back to them, led the authors to suggest that these eyes are image-forming, and are used to guide the displaced jellyfish back to the mangroves and their food. In other words, these jellyfish might use terrestrial navigation.  This idea was supported by two lines of research.  First, the authors did optical modeling of the eyes (combined with simulations from cameras), and concluded that “The approximately 5 m tall mangrove canopy can be readily detected at a distance of 4 m from the lagoon edge and, with some difficulty, can be detected even at a distance of 8 m. . .”

Second, they put jellyfish in floating cylinders full of water and then moved those cylinders away from the mangrove edge.  They found that there was no directional preference for swimming if the cylinder was under the mangrove canopy, but when it was displaced away in any compass direction, the jellyfish swam toward the edge of the cylinder nearest the mangroves.  (This ability was lost if the cylinder was moved 12 m or farther away.)  The authors conclude, “Visual detection of the mangrove canopy by the upper lens eye is the only plausible explanation for the behavioral results.  Chemical or mechanical cues cannot have guided the medusae because of the enclosed experimental tank.”  They can also rule out celestial cues since they can orient even when the sun is at its zenith.

It seems very likely, then, that this is the first case of a jellyfish being able to navigate using terrestrial landmarks.  Ten to one further work is going to find out that jellyfish are far more complex in other ways than we ever suspected.

And here are two other notable jellyfish.  First, the deadliest one—the box jellyfish or “sea wasp”, Chrionex fleckeri.  It’s been called the most venomous animal on earth, since it supposedly contains enough toxin to kill 60 people. Most people who are stung do survive, but those who don’t can die within four minutes of the sting, faster than any snakebite.

And the world’s largest jellyfish, the lion’s mane jelly (Cyanea capillata) from the Arctic.  As Wikipedia notes, “The largest recorded specimen found, washed up on the shore of Massachusetts Bay in 1870, had a bell (body) with a diameter of 7 feet 6 inches (2.29 m) and tentacles 120 feet (37 m) long.”

__________

Garm, A. M. Oskarsson, and D.-E. Nilsson.  2011.  Box jellyfish use terrestrial visual cues for navigation. Current Biology 21:798-803.

Biologos clarifies non-position on Adam and Eve

June 9, 2011 • 6:01 am

BioLogosis still tripping over its underwear trying to deal with the Adam and Eve problem (were they real? were they metaphors?).  The organization has long insisted that they take no official position on the existence of a historical Adam and Eve. Reader Nancy, understandably confused, then asks President Darrel Falk for clarification (comment 62245 on Falk’s post on the issue):

Dr.Falk – I really don’t understand what you mean when you say “BioLogos does not take a position on the historicity of Adam and Eve” if you are  then, as president of BioLogos, endorsing an editorial [a piece in Christianity Today] that insists upon it. Can you please clear this up for me? Thanks.

Falk has further explained their position in a comment (#62248) on his recent post:

I want to further clarify the point of my piece today.BioLogos does not take a position on a historical Adam and Eve.  This means we do not agree with any view which suggests that the gospel hinges on their historicity, just as we do not support any view that non-historicity is the only appropriate view for the Church to take. The editorial in Christianity Today does not represent our position of openness on this question.  However, surely we can all see that the fact that Christianity Today has written such an editorial is a huge step forward…they are seeking various ways of thinking about important doctrines of the faith in a manner that is consistent with the scientific data as it relates to human biological origins.

Well that sure clears it up!  BioLogos don’t agree with Adam and Eve’s Biblical historicity (or with the view that that historicity is important), but neither do they support the view that “non-historicity” is appropriate, either.  This is, of course, a prime example of the intellectual cowardice of theology in the face of science.  Adam and Eve were not historical figures—science has already settled the issue. The rest is pilpul.

This, of course, gives reader Sigmund a prime opportunity for sarcasm at his Sneer Review:

It has come to the notice of those of us on the writing team at the Sneer Review that there exists, at present, a variety of viewpoints within the Sneer community regarding the question of whether the story of Santa is based on a real historical individual or is simply a metaphor.

While many of us are content to view the tale as a comforting fantasy, symbolising the act of giving to others, there remains a committed core of believers, specifically Vincent, aged seven, to whom the literal interpretation remains the most valid. Notwithstanding the recent advances in aerodynamic science and the greatly increased knowledge of the biology of reindeers, Vincent points out that objections to Santa’s ability to deliver presents to every good child in the world on Christmas eve has a simple and rational explanation: Santa is magic. Recognizing the diversity of opinions on this matter we would like to publicly declare that Sneer Review does not take a position on a historical or literal Santa Claus*

*We reserve the right to amend our statement based on future circumstances, such as Vincent spotting his parents ‘helping’ Santa by purchasing, wrapping or placing his present beneath the Christmas tree, or due to Vincent changing his mind in future – due to him not being seven any more.

One quibble with Sigmund here.  Unlike the Sneer Review’s take on the Santa question, BioLogos’s position on Adam and Eve is impervious to future scientific findings.

________

I haven’t forgotten the Adam and Eve contest. I’ll judge the theological solutions as soon as I feel well enough to wade through the many entries!

There’s no free will

June 8, 2011 • 4:26 pm

On Sam Harris’s website, he’s just put up a short but cogent piece on free will—or rather, its absence, “You do not choose what you choose.”  One excerpt:

For [many people], freedom of will is synonymous with the idea that, with respect to any specific thought or action, one could have thought or acted differently. But to say that I could have done otherwise is merely to think the thought, “I could have done otherwise” after doing whatever I, in fact, did. Rather than indicate my freedom, this thought is just an epitaph erected to moments past. What I will do next, and why, remains, at bottom, inscrutable to me. To declare my “freedom” is tantamount to saying, “I don’t know why I did it, but it’s the sort of thing I tend to do, and I don’t mind doing it.”

And this is why the last objection is just another way of not facing up to the problem. To say that “my brain” has decided to think or act in a particular way, whether consciously or not, and my freedom consists in this, is to ignore the very reason why people believe in free will in the first place: the feeling of conscious agency. People feel that they are the authors of their thoughts and actions, and this is the only reason why there seems to be a problem of free will worth talking about.

Indeed. I’ve done quite a bit of reading about free will in the past few months, and the literature is characterized by two strains: it’s tendentious, motivated by the fact that many philosophers find the idea of determinism distasteful. And it also tries to solve the problem by redefining “free will” so that it becomes far removed from what most people think it is (see my discussion of Dan Dennett’s Freedom Evolves).

If “free will” is to mean anything, it must mean what Sam insists it does: the notion that we could have done or thought something other than we did.  There is not the slightest evidence for that proposition, and there is plenty of evidence against it, including the palpable fact that thoughts and choices arise from a materialistic body and brain, demonstrations that physical and chemical manipulations of our brain can change our thoughts and actions, and recent experiments showing that our decisions are made in our brain well before we feel that we’ve made a choice.

How can we ever show that we could have “chosen” other than we did? We can’t. And if we can’t, then assertions about free will leave the realm of the empirical and enter the realm of philosophy. There is no free will.

Physics art

June 8, 2011 • 1:38 pm

This lovely dance of the pendulums is used as a natural science demonstration at Harvard:

From the Harvard website:

What it shows: Fifteen uncoupled simple pendulums of monotonically increasing lengths dance together to produce visual traveling waves, standing waves, beating, and random motion. One might call this kinetic art and the choreography of the dance of the pendulums is stunning! Aliasing and quantum revival can also be shown.

How it works: The period of one complete cycle of the dance is 60 seconds. The length of the longest pendulum has been adjusted so that it executes 51 oscillations in this 60 second period. The length of each successive shorter pendulum is carefully adjusted so that it executes one additional oscillation in this period. Thus, the 15th pendulum (shortest) undergoes 65 oscillations. When all 15 pendulums are started together, they quickly fall out of sync—their relative phases continuously change because of their different periods of oscillation. However, after 60 seconds they will all have executed an integral number of oscillations and be back in sync again at that instant, ready to repeat the dance.

Setting it up: The pendulum waves are best viewed from above or down the length of the apparatus. Video projection is a must for a large lecture hall audience. You can play the video below to see the apparatus in action. One instance of interest to note is at 30 seconds (halfway through the cycle), when half of the pendulums are at one amplitude maximum and the other half are at the opposite amplitude maximum.

h/t: Matthew Cobb

I iz ill

June 7, 2011 • 1:16 pm

Posting may be, as they say, “light” over the next day or two.  I’m suffering from an severe allergic reaction to Bactrim, an antibiotic I’m taking for sinusitis, and am temporarily in non-writing condition.  Let us just say that I spent all last night in bed with a back-scratcher so I could reach the every square millimeter of my body that was on fire.  There are other symptoms, too, but I won’t go into detail.

I spent all day on the floor of my office (I foolishly thought I should go to work) ensconced in my North Face down sleeping bag, until a friend kindly drove me home.

It is a testimony to my tenacity—or stupidity—that I put up three posts this a.m.  There’s a lot more to say, but it must wait until I return to work.  Ceiling Cat willing, that will be tomorrow.  There is no time to be ill!