Gell-Mann on Languages

The great physicist Murray Gell-Mann has a hobby of studying the origins of languages.

Here is a two minute interview from March 2007 where he talks of his interest at a TED conference:



And here is an hour long talk he gave at CERN in 2011:



The study of anthropology, genetics, and language evolution are helping us to understand the spread of modern man out of Africa. Fascinating stuff.

The Mixing of Human and Neanderthal Genes

Here is a nice, short, but informative video on the brief interchange of genes between modern humans and Neanderthals:



There is more by Lynn Fellman at her web site. Her blog, the Sci Art blog, looks interesting.

Richard C. Francis' "Epigenetics: The Ultimate Mystery of Inheritance"

This is an exciting topic and I had high hopes for this book. The book does include some wonderful "attention grabbing" stories of some biological facts that don't fit the traditional genetics story. It did introduce me to several areas of research where epigenetics his giving new insight into biology. But I felt the author could have provided more detail on the science and more a "lay of the land" review. The specific examples were interesting but without more background it is hard to appreciate them in the overall context of epigenetics as a scientific theory.

My lament may not be a fault of the author. I notice than when I look through the Wikipedia article on epigenetics I find much detail but not a solid sense of an over-arching scientific theory. I see many mechanisms discussed, but I feel the glue is missing, the stuff that makes these mechanisms all part of a coherent scientific theory. Maybe I'm asking for too much. But it feels as if "physics" is introduced as statics, dynamics, kinematics, etc. An assortment of subfields grouped under "physics". But what is the rational for physics as a scientific field and how do these subfields fit together into a whole? Presumably the glue and the coherent overarching theory is "epigenesis" but Francis' book doesn't make me comfortable that I understand this theory. I'm left seeing the trees but not the forest.

The author goes to great pains to make clear that epigenetics isn't just a new development in genetics. He wants to emphasize that the "genetics" in epigenetics derives from "genesis" and not "genes". It is a story of developmental biology. I especially enjoyed the section where he discussed "preformationism" and "epigenesis". I found this an excellent motivation for understanding why epigenetics as a new science is so important. It provides the scientific mechanisms to support epigenesis.

I found the material on "genetic imprinting" murky. He did labour mightily to make it clear, but I think I'm a victim of terminology. The word "imprinting" kept throwing me for a loop. There was nothing to imprint with imprinting. And it certainly has nothing to do with ethology's "imprinting". It is simply a deplorable lack of imagination in coming up with a technical term that adequately captures the concept.

The chapter on cancer and epigenetics was exciting. I can see great hope in dealing with cancer by changing the paradigm from genetics and disease to inter-cellular communication and control over gene expression.

He makes it very clear that the traditional story of genes are the blueprint and proteins are the resulting organism is far too shallow a story. The book makes it clear that something quite exciting is happening with discoveries of how inter-cellular communication is controlling gene expression through epigenetics and that the story of epigenetics is quite complex. I just wish he has expanded the book to cover more of the story.

I was disappointed in the book because it was written with a whiff of dry academic style. He needs to put more effort into using words to paint pictures and build up a story that can carry the average reader along. I found myself having to refer to the index far too often to keep straight terminology. Only specialists want to learn the opaque terminology of modern science. I'm happy to be acquainted with the words, but I need something more descriptive to hang my hat on. I need more of "tell me what you are going to say, say it, and then tell me what you just said to me" storyline so that I can get comfortable with new concepts and get confidence that I understand them.

You can get a sense of the dryness of the text from the postscript where he is reviewing the "themes" that his book covered:

The first theme concerns the nature of epigenetic processes: a form of gene regulation. Epigenetic gene regulation is long-term gene regulation, hence epigenetic alterations have long-term effects on gene behavior. Indeed, epigenetic alterations of gene behavior can be longer lasting than mutational alterations of gene behavior, epigenetic alterations of gene behavior are generally reversible.

I can vouch that the book supports the factual truth of all of the above, but you can see how turgid the style can be. That's a lot of dense prose that will put most readers to sleep with too much repetition of fairly opaque terms. You have to be motivated to want to wade through that kind of writing to understand what the author is trying to tell you. Sure, from an insider's viewpoint, all of that is obvious. But from an outsider's view there is that deadly repetition of $100 words labouring a point that is hard to discern.

I do recommend this book. It is an important field. You will find some interesting examples of epigenetics and get an appreciation of how it works. But it will mostly leave you desperate for a better text to more properly introduce you to the field. Something that goes beyond examples and presents a well rounded theory with all the examples safely embedded into a structure that makes sense of the field.

Tim Harford's "Adapt: Why Success Always Starts with Failure"

This is an excellent survey of adaptation as a strategy to deal with complex environments in which a top-down rational planning simply can't find solutions. There are many excellent stories, but this one bit speaks to me, a 1960s generation person:

When the US Army faced the 'disruptive innovation' of guerrilla warfare in Vietnam, there was great reluctance to accept that it had changed the nature of the game, making obsolete the Army's hard-won expertise in industrial warfare. As one senior officer said, "I'll be damned if I permit the United States army, its institutions, its doctrine, and its traditions to be destroyed just to win this lousy war."

That ranks up there with the infamous statement by a US Major "It became necessary to destroy the town to save it." as reported by Peter Arnett.

This book is richly illustrated with examples of how an evolutionary strategy can find a solution where managerial dictum or top-down planning fails miserably. Some of the best examples are from business.

He does a very good job of reviewing:

• The disaster of the US invasion of Iraq and how a bottom-up effort by rebellious colonels and captains finally changed the US military tactics off their dangerous track and toward a more successful approach.


• The regulatory failures and coupled risks that led a meltdown in a constrained "sub-prime real estate" market to the globe straddling collapse of financial markets in 2008. He walks the reader through the failure to listen to whistle-blowers and the reluctance to effectively change the banking rules to prevent another catastrophe.


• The mindless simplifications of a greenhouse gas enthusiast compared to the known complexities of trying to identify a proper "green strategy". He walks through a day's choices of "green alternatives" and shows why each and every one was wrong because the underlying reality is far more complex than the simplistic green enthusiast ever could imagine.


• He examines nuclear safety and shows how the various catastrophes were waiting to happen because the systems are designed with too much complexity and coupled failure modes.


• He looks at two big oil rig diasters, the Piper Alpha in July 1988, and the Deepwater Horizon in April 2010. He walks through the failure in design and safety systems. He shows why these were accidents waiting to happen.

I like his discussion of Philip Tetlock who did a scientific study of the ability of pundits, gurus, and consultants to provide accurate predictions of the future. In a previous post I reviewed Dan Gardiner's book "Future Babble" that explores this topic more deeply.

I worked in a company where they paid lip service to the idea that "there is no failure, just a learning opportunity" and that projects, especially in the R&D lab, should expect a high failure rate. But in reality, failures were punished, so creativity was suppressed and lessons really weren't learned. Tim Harford gives a glowing review of Google as a learning environment with adaptive engineering practices, but I'm cynical. It is hard for managers to accept failure. Corporations are always going to get atherosclerosis. The big old successful corporations are always going to fall to the young, rising whippersnappers.

I also worked closely with QA (Quality Assurance) people and watched them play their role. In theory they were the frontline defence against obfuscation and deception on the part of managers and teams that are failing but want to pretend that things are going teckety-boo. The org chart showed them reporting independently right up to the CEO to ensure independent and timely information about project problems. But in reality project managers had a "right" to demand issues first be heard by them and they could muscle most QA auditors into silence. Similarly, I was involved in a ISO 9000 initiative within the company and quickly discovered that most of our "learning organization" capabilities, such as our extensive audited written procedures, were in fact window-dressing. In short: it is hard to build and maintain a truly adaptive organization that uses evolutionary strategies for problem-solving. Humans don't like uncertainty and they love hierarchical organizations. I like the message in Tim Harford's book, but I'm sure it will get more lip service than real implementation.

There is much wisdom in the book, much to learn, I strongly recommend it to everyone. It will open your eyes to the complexity that is out there. It will stun you to realize how badly our engineered "safety systems" have failed. And it will give you an appreciation for a need for more experimentation and a healthy acceptance of failure as the technique for learning.

The God Complex

Here is Tim Harford giving a talk on "the God complex", i.e. people who in the face of an incredibly complicated world are absolutely convinced that they understand how the world works. He uses a story of Archie Cochrane to introduce his talk...



Harford is arguing for commonsense, experimentation, and variety. But humans aren't happy with that. They was "authoritative solutions". This leads to the "God complex" where crowds foolishly, slavishly follow "leaders" who claim to know the way forward.

This is a problem of both political left and right, but it is generally a more serious problem with the right which tends to adore authority figures and loves authoritarian systems.

Science Through Song

Nothing like a nice song to make science more "accessible". From a blog at Smithsonian.com, a song about the Cambrian explosion:



Nothing deep about the song. You aren't going to learn anything surprising. But the melody is good and the performance is nicely done. I love the slide guitar.

... And I love the touch where they throw in the Canadian national anthem with a bit of "Oh Canada"! This national anthem isn't completely extraneous. The most famous example of Cambrian fossils is in Canada with the Burgess Shale.

Tim Harford Talks About His New Book

Here is an interview by the Economist magazine with Tim Harford about his new book Adapt: Why Success Always Starts With Failure:



The part of the interview about H. R. McMaster is fascinating. Sadly I'm not familiar with his book Dereliction of Duty but it sounds like it might be worth tracking down and reading.

The Latest Dystopia to Fear

Here is a tongue-in-cheek look into the future where humans will be dominated by the birdbrained. From the Gawker blog:

There is not, as far as we know, a forum where we might place bets on which non-robot species is most likely to conquer and enslave the human race, but if there were, we would place our money on the African Grey Parrot, which, scientists have recently confirmed, has the capacity to reason, a skill that places it in the same category as chimpanzees, gorillas and humans.

[E]ach parrot watched a researcher hide a walnut under one opaque cup and a seed under another. Next the researcher hid the cups behind a screen, removed one of the treats and showed the bird which one had been taken. Finally, the screen was removed to see if the parrot could work out which treat must remain, and under which cup it must be.

Only one of the parrots, a female called Awisa, was able to do this, choosing correctly in three-quarters of the tests –- 23 out of 30. "So far, only great apes have been shown to master this task," says Mikolasch.

Obviously, not all African Greys are capable of logical reasoning—though neither are all chimpanzees or gorillas, or, we might argue, humans—but even if only one in seven are, that provides the frighteningly long-lived bird with an elite class to lead the rest into battle. As an added advantage, African Greys, unlike great apes, have the ability to mimic, and perhaps speak, human language; they are also, like all bird species, notorious liars. In any event, we are likely to be saved from a future under the booted talon of rational parrots only because robots will get there first, but in the spirit of planning for all eventualities we suggest being nice to all the African Greys you meet from here on out.

I might prefer the birds, but right now I'm still fixated on the singularity when the machines take over. I'm just hoping to be taken in as the pet of some kindly robot who will feed me and treat me well. In return I promise to act illogically and stupidly so that it will be amused.

The Brave New World of "Open Source" Weapons

Here is an interesting video about Stuxnet virus. In 3 minutes it will explain to you what it can do and what it did.


Stuxnet: Anatomy of a Computer Virus from Patrick Clair on Vimeo.

The video ends with a sobering worry: This is a weapon that can be used to destroy infrastructure anywhere in the world. Who will use next and where?

We live in a crazy world that has been made much, much less secure by this concoction of the dark arts brewed by the US and Israeli military.

Long Lost Cousins

I've just discovered my long lost cousins...



That is, evolutionarily speaking.

The above sort of reminds me of this much closer relative of mine, a long-necked Karen with neck rings.

Christopher Ryan & Cacilda Jetha's "Sex at Dawn"

This was a fun read. Lots of sweeping generalizations. Lots of unique interpretations of facts. Lots of bold claims.

Previously I had written a review of this book and expressed some scepticism about the claims in this book. Now having read the book, I remain dubious about the more sweeping generalizations in this book. But I now will admit that the authors have gathered interesting facts to build their case. I simply think they make claims that go beyond the facts they have.

I'm willing to accept their argument that viewing monogamy as "natural" for humans is silly. But the same has been discovered for all those "virtuous" birds who were thought to be true to their mates but have been found cheating on the side. Sex and love are much more complicated than the standard account. This is amply demonstrated in this book.

I think variability in human societies and in human nature is wider than more standard presentations of "virtuous monogamy". But Christopher and Jethá see outliers and want to claim they represent the "true" nature of humans. I don't buy it. When they talk about wild sex and wife swapping among the pilots of WWII, I think -- but don't have the data to prove it -- that this was one reaction to the fear and stress of war and am willing to allow that this was a noticeable, sizable fraction of pilots, but I doubt it was anywhere near a majority. Christopher and Jethá go on to claim this was the birth of the wild swinger clubs of the 1960s. I can see it as a thread, one small feed-in to a movement that got popularized by the rise in interest in sex and "alternative" lifestyles during the 1960s. But I don't see it as evidence about the "true nature" of human sexuality.

What I do know is that the radical left in the late 19th century had their adherents to "free love". This was mostly men of status seeking access to impressionable women in "the movement". But that's the same old story of the alpha male getting access to concubines in Biblical days.

My simple-minded view is that monogamy is the choice of about 80% of the population. But within that 80% there is an unhappy half who fall into divorce, affairs, and serial monogamy to deal with their unhappiness. At the same time there is a peripheral 20% who evidence the variability in human sexuality. These are the swingers, the bi-sexuals, and the homosexuals and even the chastity fanatics of religion, the fetishists, and the mentally deranged sex killers.

Science of complex phenomena like people, institutions, and societies is not the hard science of physics and chemistry. The subject matter of the soft sciences is simply too complex to be nailed down with simplistic laws. The fact that you can find polygamous and polyandrous societies as well as group sex societies simply proves there is a lot of variability.

I do accept Christopher and Jethá's argument that sexuality changed as humans moved from foraging to agricultural societies.

Here are some bits from the book that I found interesting:

If it's true that multiple mating was common in human evolution, the apparent mismatch between the relatively quick male orgasmic response and the so-called "delayed" female response makes sense (note how the female response is "delayed" only if the male's is assumed to be "right on time"). The male's quick orgasm lessens the chances of being interrupted by predators or other males (survival of the quickest!), while the female and her child would benefit by exercising some preconscious control over which spermatozoa would be most likely to fertilize her ovum.

Prolactin and the other hormones released at orgasm appear to trigger very different responses in men and women. While a man is likely to require a prolonged refractory (or recovery) period immediately after an orgasm (and maybe a sandwich and a beer as well), thus getting him out of the way of other males, many women are willing and able to continue sexual activity well beyond a "starter orgasm."

It's worth repeating that primate species with orgasmic females tend to be promiscuous.

And this:

Before the war on drugs, the war on terror, or the war on cancer, there was the war on female sexual desire. It's a war that has been raging for longer than any other, and its victims number well into the billions by now. Like the others, it's a war that can never be won, as the declared enemy is a force of nature. We may as well declare war on the cycles of the moon.

There is a pathetic futility animating the centuries-long insistence -- against overwhelming evidence to the contrary -- that the human female is indifferent to the insistent urgings of libido. Recall the medical authorities in the antebellum South who assured plantation owners that slaves trying to break out of their chains were not human beings deserving of freedom and dignity, but sufferers of Drapetomania, a medical disorder best cured with a good lashing.

And this:

Our journey into deeper understanding of the "feminine soul" begins in a muddy field in the English countryside. In the early 1990s, neuroscietist Keith Kendrick and his colleagues exchanged that season's newborn sheep and goats (the baby sheep were raised by adult goats, and vice versa). Upon reaching sexual maturity a few years later, the animals were reunited with their own species and their mating behavior was observed. The females adopted a love-the-one-you're-with approach, showing themselves willing to mate with males of either species. But the males, even after being back with their own species for three years, would mate only with the species with which they were raised.

Research like this suggests strong differences in degrees of "erotic plasticity" (changeability) in the males and females of many species -- including ours. ... Greater erotic plasticity leads more women to experience more variation in their sexuality than men typically do, and women's sexual behavior is far more responsive to social pressure. This greater plasticity could manifest through changes in whom a woman wants, in how much she wants him/her/them, and in how she expresses her desire.

And this:

In Hierarchy in the Forest, primatologist Christopher Boehm argues that egalitarianism is an eminently rational, even hierarchical political system, writing, "Individuals who otherwise would be subordinated are clever enough to form a large and united political coalition, and they do so for the express purpose of keeping the strong from dominating the weak." According to Boehm, foragers are downright feline in refusing to follow orders, writing, "Nomadic foragers are universally -- and all but obsessively -- concerned with being free of the authority of others."

Prehistory must have been a frustrating time for megalomaniacs. "An individual endowed with the passion for control," writes psychologist Erich Fromm, "would have been a social failure and without influence."

This book is interesting and is well worth reading. I would simply warn the reader that the authors have an agenda that colours their presentation of the facts. They are right to attack narrow-minded "monogamous only" theories of human sexuality, but then they over-sell the idea that humans are built for wild group sex. I would agree that some are, but not everybody. They've identified variation and then latched onto an extreme to declare it the "new normal". It isn't.

Dale Peterson's "The Moral Lives of Animals"

I quite enjoyed this book. The author has an excellent style and peppers his points with interesting commentary and results from scientific research.

His purpose in writing this book is to get us to recognize our in-built prejudice, what he calls Darwinian narcissism, our view that nature is out there for us to exploit. Also, he wants us to understand our deep evolutionary connection with the rest of life and, in particular, with animals that share similar brain structures. He argues for not just similar emotions and thoughts across species lines, but an incipient morality shared by us and animals. I love the bits about altruism.

He is not one of these authors with a soapbox and the accusatory rant of a preacher. He isn't beating the reader about the head with some "revelation" he has about the place of animals in the world. His style is more lyrical and seductive. He wins the reader over by laying out a feast of story, anecdote, scientific research, and personal experience. This is like sitting with a friend on the front porch and sharing insights and experience. It is very pleasant.

I love the bit where he argues that morality has two sides: rules and empathy. I enjoy his honesty in pointing out that men and women share an understanding of both sides to morality but that there is a deep divide between them. Men go off the deep end with their rules and their Bible-thumping, verse citing, hard legal case arguing. Women go off the deep end with their sympathetic relationships and understanding of the need for special pleading for each instance. I really like the fact that he points out that morality is a crazy mix of rules and empathy and he doesn't get boxed in by trying to spell out in some absolutist sense exactly which of what makes up morality. Instead he paints pictures and opens your eyes and gets you to wondering.

I do recommend this book.

Meet Your Cousin

Since all life traces back to an origin some three billion years ago, we are all related. So you are a "cousin" to this Cirrate octopus. See the resemblance?



I feel I can fly as I watch this critter dance as a denizen deep in the ocean.

If you look at the following picture you see that Mammals and Molusca (which Cirrate belong to) are on the right hand side. Practically kissing cousins!


Click to Enlarge

Scott Adams on Libya

I enjoy Scott Adams' Dilbert cartoons. I usually like his posts on his blogs, but on occasion I get infuriated with this libertarian nuttiness. But this one today has me thinking. I'm one of the ones in the middle who think it was good to help the Libyans, but Scott Adams pretty well takes me down and rubs my nose in my weak reasoning. Oh well...

From Scott Adams' blog:

Remind me again why we're bombing Libya? Let's run through the possibilities.

Humanitarian Reasons: No one believes this is the most effective way to save lives in other countries, unless Libyan lives are somehow more valuable than, for example, other African lives. The price for missiles alone on the first day of attacks is estimated at $100 million. For that amount of money we could buy a lot of water purifiers, food, and vaccinations. When the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation starts attacking Libya, I'll believe that bombing is a good humanitarian investment.

Getting rid of a Dangerous Dictator: Isn't Libya the country that renounced nuclear weapons and apparently meant it? Gaddafi's Western-influenced son, who doesn't seem crazy, has apparently taken an increasingly active role in government. That was a good sign for sane leadership in the future. And compared to other Muslim countries in the neighborhood, Libya is relatively good on women's rights.

Supporting Democratic Movements: Sounds good in principle, but do the member states of the Arab League, who originally supported the military action, understand that they're next? That doesn't pass the sniff test.

Oil: You can never rule out oil as a motive for war. But if the military was doing the bidding of the oil companies, we'd be attacking Saudi Arabia.

Terrorism: You don't reduce terrorism by bombing a Muslim country that didn't start a fight with you.

My theory is that the military action in Libya is the first phase of war with Iran. It sends a signal to the young people in Iran that if they organize a popular uprising against their own regime, they will get military support of the same sort they are seeing in Libya. You might argue that we're sending that same message to every dictator in the region. But remember that the Arab League supported military action in Libya, and that group includes a lot of dictators. Iran is obviously not part of the Arab League, given that being Arab is sort of a requirement for the club. My conclusion is that the no-fly zone in Libya is intended as a message for the young people in Iran. The world has a far bigger strategic interest in Iran than Libya.

Here I remind you that cartoonists don't know much about world affairs. You'll see more insightful ideas in the comments below. I'm just getting the ball rolling.

I admit I hadn't thought of the Iran angle. I bought the "humanitarian" argument, but I also bought the "weapons of mass destruction" excuse for Iraq. I did realize that oil probably played a role and explained why Libya but not Yemen or Bahrain.

I hate to think I get suckered by these "causes" but it looks like I have been taken again. What Scott Adams points out is that I didn't do the necessary due dilligance and examine the "costs" of the humanitarian mission. He's right. There are lots of other missions that would save more lives much cheaper.

I admit that I'm a sucker for wanting to help people in need and I'm weak on the cold-hearted calculations. I'm like the guy who sees somebody drowning and even if I don't know how to swim I jump in to "save" the drowning person. It is just my impulse. It is built into me.

Scott Adams would see the person drowning and look around and see if he can get off the hook because somebody else will jump in. Failing that, Scott would check his billfold to see if he could maybe bribe somebody else to jump in -- and risk their life -- to save the drowning person. Failing that. Scott would made the trade-off of personal risk to benefits from saving the drowning person. I'm guessing that Scott would end up walking along the water's edge shouting encouraging words. His calculation would be "if I save the guy I get patted on the back and maybe get to shake the mayor's hand. but I risk paying in infinite penalty of dying, if I stand on the shore and shout encouragement then I get points for "helping" but I don't have any personal downside in terms of risk to myself". That kind of calculation is rational, but it leaves me cold.

The interesting fact is that Scott Adams plays a better evolutionary game than I do. I blindly run risks that jeopardize my ability to keep my germ line going. He rationally plans his actions to maintain a maximum genetic viability. I'm a branch on the tree of life that will end. He is a branch that will bear many smaller branches and reach far into the future.

The Machines Are Among Us

The inevitable encroachment of machines upon human intelligence continue. Here is a very impressive performance of a machine at the game of Jeopardy:



It was only a decade ago that machines finally tromped humans in the game of chess, a very restricted rule-bound game. Jeopardy is closer to human intellignece because it requires an ability to jump around in broad areas of information and use indirect clues to get the answer.

Can the day of reckoning be far behind?

Seriously... it will be a very interesting world when we have machine more intelligent than ourselves busying themselves around us while we plod along in our DNA-limited evolution. I can see human intelligence making it to the stars, but it is going to be in a machine body, not in human bodies. The world continues to be an wonderfully exciting place with surprises. Machines will surprise us. They aren't going to "subjugate" us, but they may lose interest in us as they develop their own agenda for the future.

An "Updated" Version of a Beloved Hymn

When I was a kid I remember singing the song All Things Bright and Beautiful in the children's choir. I liked the tune. Nice and perky.

But somebody has decided to "update" the hymn to reflect a more modern scientific understanding of "all things bright and beautiful"...

Seeing is Hearing

Who could have known that bird can toot their own horn. They aren't limited to vocalizations. They can wave their feathers and make sounds! From an article by Carl Zimmer on his Discover magazine blog:

But no one had any idea how manakins could make noises with feathers until Kimberly Bostwick of Cornell and her colleagues tackled the question. Bostwick took a high-speed camera into the jungle to film club-winged manakins. It turns out the birds flap their wings 100 times a second, far faster than typical birds. Later, she closely examined museum specimens. Club-winged manakins have one peculiar wing feather with a stiff, curved tip, right next to one with a series of ridges. Bostwick and her colleagues proposed that curved tips raked across the ridges on the neighboring feather like a spoon pulled across a washboard, producing the bird’s 1500-cycle-per-second sound.

Biologists are quite familiar with this way of making sound–but in crickets and other insects. Typically, they draw their legs across ridges on their exoskeleton, making their bodies resonate in a process called stridulation. Bostwick and her colleagues were proposing, for the first time, that a vertebrate could stridulate, too.

Since Bostwick published her first paper on the birds, she’s continued to study them to test her hypothesis. In a paper just published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B, she and her colleagues report a new experiment in which they looked at the physics of the manakin feathers. They clamped the feathers in a device known as a vibration mini-shaker, and then–well, as you can guess–shook them. The scientists bounded lasers off the feathers to track their wiggles as the mini-shaker vibrated faster and faster. They used the device first to measure the special spoon-and-washboard pair of feathers. Then they measured how other feathers responded, and then, finally, they studied a set of ordinary and spoon-and-washboard feathers joined together on a ligament.

The scientists found that the spoon-and-washboard feathers resonated at about 1500 cycles, just as Bostwick had predicted back in 2005. The unmodified feathers on other parts of the wing, however, showed no such response when the scientists shook them one by one. But when they shook the spoon-and-washboard feathers together with seven neighboring wing feathers, the entire set resonated strongly at 1500 cycles.

Now I can stidulate as well before I shave in the morning. But I doubt I'm going to attract any mates with my low frequence stidulations! Maybe if I shave my legs and rub legs like an insect... on second thought, that probably isn't all that "attractive".

Educational Slide Show on Emergence of MRSA

This slide show explains how Staphylococcus aureus becomes Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). It is a dumbed down version with just the basic facts in a light hearted presentation. Enjoy...

Development of resistant Staphylococcus aureus over time

View more presentations from tbplante.

Human Ancestry

Here's a bit from a NY Times article by Carl Zimmer:

An international team of scientists has identified a previously shadowy human group known as the Denisovans as cousins to Neanderthals who lived in Asia from roughly 400,000 to 50,000 years ago and interbred with the ancestors of today’s inhabitants of New Guinea.

All the Denisovans have left behind are a broken finger bone and a wisdom tooth in a Siberian cave. But the scientists have succeeded in extracting the entire genome of the Denisovans from these scant remains. An analysis of this ancient DNA, published on Wednesday in Nature, reveals that the genomes of people from New Guinea contain 4.8 percent Denisovan DNA.

An earlier, incomplete analysis of Denisovan DNA had placed the group as more distant from both Neanderthals and humans. On the basis of the new findings, the scientists propose that the ancestors of Neanderthals and Denisovans emerged from Africa half a million years ago. The Neanderthals spread westward, settling in the Near East and Europe. The Denisovans headed east. Some 50,000 years ago, they interbred with humans expanding from Africa along the coast of South Asia, bequeathing some of their DNA to them.

Go read the original article to get the embedded links.

Human ancestry is so much more interesting with entanglements between modern humans, Neaderthals, and Denisovans. And then there are the "hobbits" (the Floresians) who make an interesting sideline. Obviously the story of human evolution will become much more interesting over the coming decades.

Beauty is Nature's Way of Acting at a Distance

The title of this post is a claim by Denis Dutton, a philosopher, who gives the following TED Conference talk



Now...

Here is my personal choice for an item of "beauty".
This is a classic song with an excellent "message"...