February 24th, 2009 § 0
My favourite was by Trevor Spencer Rines: “DNA: the web which spins the spider”. Rines explained to me this year how he came up with his image: “If you look at a DNA molecule down its axis it looks like a spider web; then again, the idea of the molecule that unzips itself and puts itself back together reminded me of spiders consuming their own web and then re-spinning it.”
I love this imagery.
February 23rd, 2009 § 3
Only 26 percent say that life evolved solely through processes such as natural selection. A similar Pew Research Center poll, released in August 2005, found that 64 percent of Americans support teaching creationism alongside evolution in the classroom.
Nearly 150 years after a man named Darwin published the best theory of life and how it came to be what we know of today, a little over 1/4 of the entire population of the United States, arguably the leader of the developed world, know and understand evolution as a fact. Not only that, but more than half of our population think it is right to teach unscientific and misleading theories that are ultimately based on religious texts that are no more than two thousand years old. These are religious texts written by illiterate laypeople copying by hand over decades, subject to numerous mistakes and conflicting opinions that either by choice or by crude mistake have changed said texts over these unknown numbers of copies. Texts that were written by men who by most accounts, got their information second- or third-hand, maybe more.
Debate is healthy. Questioning a theory is part of the scientific process. But the theory of evolution, as described by Charles Darwin, is the most solid understanding of life as we know it and how it came to be here. It is no more up for debate than the fact that the Earth orbits the Sun. So why is it that the United States actually ranks very low in terms of general acceptance of the theory of evolution? We’re sandwiched between Cyprus and Turkey in terms of public acceptance (NYT).
I’ve said this about America in relation to other things, and I’ll say it again. I think it’s because this country was founded on, partially, the belief that we are right. At the time, the founders’ goals were noble, and they actually were right. Over time, though, that idea has seemed to seep into the collective unconscious of the nation, and we automatically “know” that we are the only ones who are right, and we see no reason to change. People in this country tend to latch onto the first thing they hear, and it’s very difficult to shake that belief. In our society, it’s almost a sin to change your mind, or to admit you were wrong. Here, you have to believe beyond any other evidence you are right.
I’ve heard it said that scientists have a distinct outlook on the world that most other people don’t have, and that outlook is that of “How does that work? I have no idea. Let’s find out.” The admittance of not knowing anything is a wonderful place to be, and it’s a place that’s brimming with possibility. It’s this attitude of “don’t-know” that allows humanity to step forward through the curtains of ignorance into actually knowing how the world works.
(Image credit, Mike Rosulek. Please visit his shop. His designs are wonderful.)
February 15th, 2009 § 0
In 2002, Gerianne M. Alexander of Texas A&M University and Melissa Hines of City University in London stunned the scientific world by showing that vervet monkeys showed the same sex-typical toy preferences as humans. In an incredibly ingenious study, published in Evolution and Human Behavior, Alexander and Hines gave two stereotypically masculine toys (a ball and a police car), two stereotypically feminine toys (a soft doll and a cooking pot), and two neutral toys (a picture book and a stuffed dog) to 44 male and 44 female vervet monkeys. They then assessed the monkeys’ preference for each toy by measuring how much time they spent with each. Their data demonstrated that male vervet monkeys showed significantly greater interest in the masculine toys, and the female vervet monkeys showed significantly greater interest in the feminine toys. The two sexes did not differ in their preference for the neutral toys.
Full story at Psychology Today.
February 14th, 2009 § 0
Things that have happened recently:
But my lovely wife is making me cookies for Valentine’s day, so everything is good in my life right now.
February 14th, 2009 § 0
Living creatures took millions of years to evolve from amphibians to four-legged mammals – with larger, more complex brains to match. Now an evolving robot has performed a similar trick in hours, thanks to a software “brain” that automatically grows in size and complexity as its physical body develops.
AI Engineer Christopher MacLeod and his colleagues at the Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen, United Kingdom, have built a robot that adapts to changes in its environment by mimicking biological evolution, only via software instead of wetware.
Full story at the New Scientist.
February 2nd, 2009 § 0
Ajahn Buddhadasa became a monk in 1926 at the age of twenty. After studying for a few years in Bangkok, he decided that “purity is not to be found in the big city.” He then established Suan Mokkhabalarama (The Grove of the Power of Liberation) in 1932 near his hometown of Pum Riang. At the time of its inception, it was the only Dharma Center located in the forest, and one of the few places in Thailand dedicated to vipassana (insight) meditation.
Buddhadasa Bikkhu began to work to establish and explain the correct and essential principles of what he called “pristine Buddhism,” that is, the original realization of the Buddha before it was buried under commentaries, ceremony, ritualism, politics, and so on.His goal was to produce a complete set of references for present and future research and practice. His approach was always scientific, straight-forward, and practical.
“Buddhism” means “the Teaching of the Enlightened One.” A Buddha is an enlightened individual, one who knows the truth about all things, one who knows just what is what, and so is capable of behaving appropriately with respect to all things. Buddhism is a religion based on intelligence, science and knowledge, whose purpose is the destruction of suffering and the source of suffering. All paying of homage to sacred objects by means of performing rites and rituals, making offerings or praying is not Buddhism. The Buddha rejected all this as foolish, ridiculous and unsound. He also rejected the celestial beings, then considered by certain groups to be the creator of things, and the deities supposed to dwell, one in each star in the sky. Thus we find that the Buddha made such statements as these:
“Knowledge, skill and ability are conducive to success and benefit and are auspicious omens, good in their own right regardless of the movements of the heavenly bodies. With the benefits gained from these qualities, one will completely outstrip those foolish people who just sit making their astrological calculations.” And: “If the water in rivers (such as the Ganges) could really wash away sins and suffering, then the turtles, crabs, fish and shellfish living in those sacred rivers ought by now to be freed of their sins and sufferings too.” And: “If a man could eliminate suffering by making offerings, paying homage and praying, there would be no one subject to suffering left in the world, because anyone at all can pay homage and pray. But since people are still subject to suffering while in the very act of making obeisances, paying homage and performing rites, this is clearly not the way to gain liberation.”
In 1956, Buddhadasa Bikkhu gave a series of lectures, which was then condensed down into his Handbook for Mankind. It’s a marvelous book on Buddhism that I keep attempting to re-read, but it is so rich in content that it’s very difficult to find the time to properly read and digest. It’s very to the point, and requires little knowledge of Buddhism in order to enjoy. Buddhanet currently hosts a free copy on their website. If you have the time, I highly recommend reading it.