As stated in my previous blog post, I have been reading "Ancient Ruins and Archeology" by L. Sprague de Camp, published in 1963. Much of the information is outdated, although the many observations about the way science and archeology and speculation are handled, as well as the comments on human nature at large, and admirable. The prose is coherant and readable. The descriptions evokative. The insights into archeology of the time period (the 60s) is very much worth reading. And history is a discipline that doesn't change too much. It does, and should, but his writings are undoubtably relevant to today.
I want to share a few passages with you. I hope using his quotations is in good form.
In his chapter on the ruins of Zimbabwe and the many ideas around its builders, he says:
All prejudices aside, what do we know about the intelligence of the different races of man? Not much. That is why peopole get so heated about the subject; the less they know, the more pugnacious they are.
Intelligence is a vague term meaning mental power, just as "strength" means physical power. We can often say that one man is more intelligent than another, just as we can often say that one man is stronger than another. But it is hard to measure these qualities exactly. You cannot measure a man's over-all "strength" on any one standard scale. You can measure his seperate physical powers, such as his ability to run, jump, or lift weights. A man who is good at one of these may be poor at another. So "strength" is not one ability but many, which can be combined in any of an infinite number of ways.
The same with intelligence. One man may be a precise accountant, another a shrewd lawyer, and a third a creative artist. But there is no way to compare John's success as a chess player with William's success as a politician to tell which is the more intelligent.
Intelligence tests measure single mental powers, such as the ability to handle words and numbers and to solve simple puzzles. Such tests are useful when given to people of the same cultural group. But these tests do not work with people of strikingly different backgrounds. We cannot expect a tribesman, however gifted, who has never seen a pencil or paper to score well on a written test. On the other hand, a child from a hunting tribe can beat civilized children all hollow in a test that calls for knowledge of animal footprints.
Language, work habits, aims in life, manners, diet, tradition, and experience all affect the way one thinks. And, when we try to test people of different races, we cannot eliminate all these factors. No test has been found that ignores the effects of environment and measures only a man's inherent mental qualities.
Some people, wishing to prove the Caucasiod race superior to the Negroid, point out the backwardness of African Negroes before the coming of the whites. As we have seen, this cultural backwardness can be explained on grounds other than intelligence. The Sahara Desert isolated the small, thinly spread Negroid population from the currents of Old World culture, just as the oceans isolated the Pacific Islanders. Having no contact with European ideas and techniques during the many centuries when European civilization was arising, the Africans could not be expected to develope in a European manner.
Some people, on the other hand, assert that all races are exactly equal in intelligence. Although this idea is canonical Marxist dogma and a handy political slogan, it has no scientific basis either.
Few have ever argued that Negroids are inherently more intelligent than Caucasoids. But this concept is just as reasonable as the other two. In fact, one can make a good a priori argument why this might be so: All species are subject to the force of heredity called degenerative mutation pressure. Hence every species tends to deteriorate -- that is, to lose organs and abilities. In a wild state, however, selection naturally eliminates these defectives as they appear.
In civilization, however, people with defects, provided the flaws are not too severe, can live and breed along with the rest. Therefore, civilized races tend to degenerate. Thus the peoples who have been civilized the longest, such as the Near Easterners, the Chinese, and the Europeans, have probably degenerated the most; while those who live the most primitive lives, like Pygmies and Papuans, may prove the soundest of mind and body.
This, too, is mere speculation. If anybody ever devises a test that measures inherent mental powers regardless of culture and environment, it might well uncover mental differences among the races. It is anybody's guess as to which race would score best on which test. Perhaps different races would excel in different mental abilities. From such inconclusive evidence as does exist, our own guess, for whatever it may be worth, is that, while racial differences in intelligence may indeed exist, differences among individuals within any one race are much greater than average differences among races. And, given the right circumstances, men of any living race could have built Zimbabwe.
Showing posts with label natural history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label natural history. Show all posts
Monday, August 19, 2013
Saturday, August 17, 2013
what have you read by L. Sprague de Camp?
Funny name, amazing results. He's a writer of fiction (often sci-fi or historical) and non-fiction (usually of the scientific bent, sometimes on the romantic side of science matters).
I have been reading a non-fiction book by him recently on archeological puzzles. I've heard his name for a long time in sci-fi lit circles, but only knew of him particularly as the author of Dragon of the Ishtar Gate, a story somewhat along the lines of Conan the Barbarian, but of a historical not fantasy aspect.
I have been suprised at the sobriety of his "mysteries" books. Most similar non-fiction has a reputation for repeating ill-founded stories of the paranormal. More often than not, de Camp is debunking popular misconceptions and improbable legends.
I started with a collection of short stories about dragons. True to form, his story's dragon was more like a land-crocodile of a fictional mideval land. A cockadrill, as I recall.
I heard he had written a book or two on the Atlantis theme, 'Lost Continents' I beleive but I wasn't interested enough to look it up. That might have been a mistake in light of my improving opinion of him as an author who steers away from needless sensationalism.
They I got a book from the library titled 'Lands Beyond' (published 1952) merely because I admire his co-author, Willy Ley. Although it's only a surmise, Ley didn't seem to have written much of the book, and rightly so de Camp is given the main author credit.
'Lands Beyond' was suprisingly scholarly, and debunked a few of the mainstays of mystery-archeology, such as the origin of knowledge of Mu. Much of the book was a discussion of 'Odessey' and the 'Voyages of Sindbad' and what they tell us of the culture they came from. It also has a well-written chapter of the follies of the search for El Dorado in the South American jungles.
The book I am in currently is titled 'Ancient Ruins and Archeology' (published 1964). I had not heard of the ruins of Ma'rib, nor of Nan Matol. I had never heard Angkor Wat properly described. His description of the ruins of Zimbabwe were also a highlight. The photographs reproduced in this book (some his own, others not) make the book extra interesting. I did not know Zimbabwe had conical towers such as related.
His sober commentary on intelligence among the races, and of the politically-correct coatng of history, and the silliess of so many pseudo-scientists/occultists was a joy to hear.
One of my few critisicms of the books, besides their outdated information (through no fault of their own), is that they take a few certain legendary matters for granted that deserve a mention (at least) of skepticism. Especially the Africa-rounding voyage of Egyptian Pharoah Niku II. Also, they tend to assume an inter-connectedness of contemporary thinkers in history that just isn't realistic at all. The authors both assume that such-and-such writer writes this fact, and so such-and-such later writer built off that information. That's too convenient a idea for the workings of real life.
I have been reading a non-fiction book by him recently on archeological puzzles. I've heard his name for a long time in sci-fi lit circles, but only knew of him particularly as the author of Dragon of the Ishtar Gate, a story somewhat along the lines of Conan the Barbarian, but of a historical not fantasy aspect.
I have been suprised at the sobriety of his "mysteries" books. Most similar non-fiction has a reputation for repeating ill-founded stories of the paranormal. More often than not, de Camp is debunking popular misconceptions and improbable legends.
I started with a collection of short stories about dragons. True to form, his story's dragon was more like a land-crocodile of a fictional mideval land. A cockadrill, as I recall.
I heard he had written a book or two on the Atlantis theme, 'Lost Continents' I beleive but I wasn't interested enough to look it up. That might have been a mistake in light of my improving opinion of him as an author who steers away from needless sensationalism.
They I got a book from the library titled 'Lands Beyond' (published 1952) merely because I admire his co-author, Willy Ley. Although it's only a surmise, Ley didn't seem to have written much of the book, and rightly so de Camp is given the main author credit.
'Lands Beyond' was suprisingly scholarly, and debunked a few of the mainstays of mystery-archeology, such as the origin of knowledge of Mu. Much of the book was a discussion of 'Odessey' and the 'Voyages of Sindbad' and what they tell us of the culture they came from. It also has a well-written chapter of the follies of the search for El Dorado in the South American jungles.
The book I am in currently is titled 'Ancient Ruins and Archeology' (published 1964). I had not heard of the ruins of Ma'rib, nor of Nan Matol. I had never heard Angkor Wat properly described. His description of the ruins of Zimbabwe were also a highlight. The photographs reproduced in this book (some his own, others not) make the book extra interesting. I did not know Zimbabwe had conical towers such as related.
His sober commentary on intelligence among the races, and of the politically-correct coatng of history, and the silliess of so many pseudo-scientists/occultists was a joy to hear.
One of my few critisicms of the books, besides their outdated information (through no fault of their own), is that they take a few certain legendary matters for granted that deserve a mention (at least) of skepticism. Especially the Africa-rounding voyage of Egyptian Pharoah Niku II. Also, they tend to assume an inter-connectedness of contemporary thinkers in history that just isn't realistic at all. The authors both assume that such-and-such writer writes this fact, and so such-and-such later writer built off that information. That's too convenient a idea for the workings of real life.
Monday, July 29, 2013
Tartessos-Tarshish-Scheria-Atlantis/ Peacocks
I have been reading Willy Ley's new book, Lands Beyond. Actually, it's a book from the 1950s era co-authored with de Camp, but I prefer to hear Ley's voice in my head, and it's a new book to me. And for the publication date stills has a very "recent news" feel, which is impressive.
Anyway, it says more about the Bibical Tarshish and the historical Tartessos than I was aware of.
I had thought that perhaps the book would deteriorate into self-indulgent fantasy when speaking about mysteries like Atlantis, and I am releived it doesn't.
One of the large ideas put forth is that the Bibical Tarshish and historical Tartessos, long thought one and the same, might also be the city of Scheria from the Odessey and (the inspiration for?) the Atlantis of Plato. This four-way misidentification sounds worth looking into!
http://www.mysteria3000.de/magazin/the-archaeological-search-for-tartessos-tarshish-atlantis/
Sadly, Tarshish doesn't seem to have a wide consensus on identification, only a slim majority of scholarly opinion. Scheria and Atlantis would be much further remove from scholarly confidence.
While I think the hypotheses of the Indian coast and Britian are rather silly, I am prepared to consider Minoan Crete and Tarsus (of Bibical Paul's birthplace in modern Turkey) and Carthage as good candidates.
http://www.varchive.org/nldag/tarshish.htm
http://www.britam.org/Questions/QuesTarshish.html
Today I also looked up some bits of evidence that come from the Bible's description of Tarshish, or rather it's exports.
http://bbhchurchconnection.wordpress.com/2013/07/19/2-chronicles-921-is-it-peacocks-or-baboons/
I had not known of the green peacock (or jungle peafowl) before (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Peafowl), although I did know of the Congo peacock (which is not closely related). I also did not know that the peacock is a central symbol in Japan, Babylon, and Persia, all places it is not native (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peafowl). I also did not know the peacock was widely eaten in ancient times, nor did I know the peacock is kosher food (http://oukosher.org/blog/industrial-kosher/a-peafowl-by-any-other-name/).
Anyway, it says more about the Bibical Tarshish and the historical Tartessos than I was aware of.
I had thought that perhaps the book would deteriorate into self-indulgent fantasy when speaking about mysteries like Atlantis, and I am releived it doesn't.
One of the large ideas put forth is that the Bibical Tarshish and historical Tartessos, long thought one and the same, might also be the city of Scheria from the Odessey and (the inspiration for?) the Atlantis of Plato. This four-way misidentification sounds worth looking into!
http://www.mysteria3000.de/magazin/the-archaeological-search-for-tartessos-tarshish-atlantis/
Sadly, Tarshish doesn't seem to have a wide consensus on identification, only a slim majority of scholarly opinion. Scheria and Atlantis would be much further remove from scholarly confidence.
While I think the hypotheses of the Indian coast and Britian are rather silly, I am prepared to consider Minoan Crete and Tarsus (of Bibical Paul's birthplace in modern Turkey) and Carthage as good candidates.
http://www.varchive.org/nldag/tarshish.htm
http://www.britam.org/Questions/QuesTarshish.html
Today I also looked up some bits of evidence that come from the Bible's description of Tarshish, or rather it's exports.
http://bbhchurchconnection.wordpress.com/2013/07/19/2-chronicles-921-is-it-peacocks-or-baboons/
I had not known of the green peacock (or jungle peafowl) before (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Peafowl), although I did know of the Congo peacock (which is not closely related). I also did not know that the peacock is a central symbol in Japan, Babylon, and Persia, all places it is not native (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peafowl). I also did not know the peacock was widely eaten in ancient times, nor did I know the peacock is kosher food (http://oukosher.org/blog/industrial-kosher/a-peafowl-by-any-other-name/).
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
which of these is a vegetable? corn, tomato, mac n cheese, strawberry
which of these is a vegetable? corn, tomato, mac n cheese, or a strawberry?
"Technically," said Marvin P. Pritts, chairman of the department of horticulture at Cornell University.
“The criteria is whether it comes from the reproductive part of a plant or the vegetative part of the plant,” Dr. Pritts said. “If it comes from the reproductive part of the plant, it’s a fruit. If it comes from the vegetative part of the plant, it’s a vegetable.”
Botanically speaking, corn is a caryopsis, or dry fruit — popularly known as a grain.
Dr. Pritts allowed that corn, like a tomato, is eaten like a vegetable, “so to a normal, everyday person, it’s a vegetable.”
I found this funny, and educational:
http://empirezone.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/11/corn-vegetable-fruit-or-grain/
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081126154351AAJAM34
Technically [a strawberry] is not a fruit but a false fruit. It's not even technically a berry. When you eat a strawberry, you are eating fruits, but the part you are really interested in is the red, fleshy, expanded receptacle. A receptacle is the end of the stem on which the flower (and later the fruit) is borne. The fruits are the little seed-like specks on the surface. Each one of these little things contains a seed surrounded by (and fused to) the ovary wall, making it a fruit.
Mac N Cheese, however, is usually listed among the vegetables at restaurants. Go figure.
"Technically," said Marvin P. Pritts, chairman of the department of horticulture at Cornell University.
“The criteria is whether it comes from the reproductive part of a plant or the vegetative part of the plant,” Dr. Pritts said. “If it comes from the reproductive part of the plant, it’s a fruit. If it comes from the vegetative part of the plant, it’s a vegetable.”
Botanically speaking, corn is a caryopsis, or dry fruit — popularly known as a grain.
Dr. Pritts allowed that corn, like a tomato, is eaten like a vegetable, “so to a normal, everyday person, it’s a vegetable.”
I found this funny, and educational:
http://empirezone.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/11/corn-vegetable-fruit-or-grain/
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081126154351AAJAM34
Technically [a strawberry] is not a fruit but a false fruit. It's not even technically a berry. When you eat a strawberry, you are eating fruits, but the part you are really interested in is the red, fleshy, expanded receptacle. A receptacle is the end of the stem on which the flower (and later the fruit) is borne. The fruits are the little seed-like specks on the surface. Each one of these little things contains a seed surrounded by (and fused to) the ovary wall, making it a fruit.
Mac N Cheese, however, is usually listed among the vegetables at restaurants. Go figure.
Monday, May 6, 2013
Hey, this guy wasn't in Jurassic Park: Carnotaurus
http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120903195505/primalcarnagethegame/images/thumb/8/84/Carnotaurus.png/640px-Carnotaurus.png
http://www.wikidino.com/wp-content/uploads/Carnotaurus-M.Shiraishi-2.jpg
From my reading, I am given to understand that Carnotaurus (Meat-eating bull-lizard) was roughly contemporary with Tyrannosaurus Rex and Allosaurus, and of similar contour, but was off doing his own thing on the then-island of South America, which much like the Australia of then and now, was an isolated continent giving rise to unique forms.
Actually, also from my own reading, I recall many other examples of the peculiarity of South American fauna, represented even today by the sloths and their xenarthan brethren. You see, South America didn't connect up to North America directly until about the last Ice Age.
Apparently, I am just now learning something many 4-year-olds probably know. There is apparently a year 2000 Disney animated movie that features Carnotaurs fairly heavily. Gonna have to see that sometime.
http://disney.wikia.com/wiki/Dinosaur
http://disney.wikia.com/wiki/Carnotaurus
I am wondering if that's the dinosaur on the Turok animated movie cover.
There is so much genetic and evolutionary hanky-panky in Turok's Lost Land that I don't think it matters much.
http://donglutsdinosaurs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Turok-DVD-697x10001.jpg
http://www.wikidino.com/wp-content/uploads/Carnotaurus-M.Shiraishi-2.jpg
From my reading, I am given to understand that Carnotaurus (Meat-eating bull-lizard) was roughly contemporary with Tyrannosaurus Rex and Allosaurus, and of similar contour, but was off doing his own thing on the then-island of South America, which much like the Australia of then and now, was an isolated continent giving rise to unique forms.
Actually, also from my own reading, I recall many other examples of the peculiarity of South American fauna, represented even today by the sloths and their xenarthan brethren. You see, South America didn't connect up to North America directly until about the last Ice Age.
Apparently, I am just now learning something many 4-year-olds probably know. There is apparently a year 2000 Disney animated movie that features Carnotaurs fairly heavily. Gonna have to see that sometime.
http://disney.wikia.com/wiki/Dinosaur
http://disney.wikia.com/wiki/Carnotaurus
I am wondering if that's the dinosaur on the Turok animated movie cover.
There is so much genetic and evolutionary hanky-panky in Turok's Lost Land that I don't think it matters much.
http://donglutsdinosaurs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Turok-DVD-697x10001.jpg
Monday, April 29, 2013
The actual reasons behind sickle-cell anemia
It's week 8 of my MIT Biology course delivered online via EdX.org, with the lectures by the highly-esteemed Eric S. Lander, director of the Broad Institute, a man largely involved in the recent Human Genome Project.
During weeks 6 and 7, there was a bunch of really cool things.
We had a long discussion (a few lectures) about hemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen from the lungs and throughout the body. Well, the only protien worth mentioning under normal circumstances.
Most everyone knows that sickle-cell anemia is caused by defetive hemoglobin, which is sickle-shaped rather than the normal cell shape. But why is it defective? How? And what makes the sickle shape and why?
It turns out the answer is in the molecular biology of the human genome. The lecture explains what particular error makes the gene (that makes hemoglobin) defective, and how that error might occur. It then explains the molecular results of the error, which are simply a misalignment of negative charges. Those negative charges result in a string of hemoglobin proteins, which crystallizes into a rod which then shapes the sickle cell. Thus the visible shape of the diseased cells is a consequence, not a cause, of the disease.
Anyone with anemia should really get to watch these lectures. I really hate that the videos might not be readiy available online.
Another really cool thing I learned was why some viruses are especially awful and hard to get rid of, like HIV. These are called retroviruses, and as I understand it insert their destructive genetic material into the genetic code of the host, becoming an integral part of the cell and pretty much impossible to excise.
And then the lectures go on to explain things I had not learned in high school, but thought I had. I thought it was impossible to have a offspring have a phenotype unknown in their ancestry. Right after high school, I went so far as to explain to a Chinese friend that first generation Chinese children could never have blue eyes because there were no blue eyed genes in the Chinese parents (or even in a marriage between a Chinese and a blue-eyed Caucasian).
Turns out, its not as simple as I had been taught. Yes, what I had been taught was a good foundation, but it didn't address all sorts of genetic hanky-panky that can go on, such as recombinant DND and transposons.
After all this, there was yet more. I was especially intrigued by the "computer logic" of DNA and proteins. Many genetic sequences are like "switches" that turn on or off a specific gene under specific circumstances.
I gotta go watch another lecture.
Jolan tru.
During weeks 6 and 7, there was a bunch of really cool things.
We had a long discussion (a few lectures) about hemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen from the lungs and throughout the body. Well, the only protien worth mentioning under normal circumstances.
Most everyone knows that sickle-cell anemia is caused by defetive hemoglobin, which is sickle-shaped rather than the normal cell shape. But why is it defective? How? And what makes the sickle shape and why?
It turns out the answer is in the molecular biology of the human genome. The lecture explains what particular error makes the gene (that makes hemoglobin) defective, and how that error might occur. It then explains the molecular results of the error, which are simply a misalignment of negative charges. Those negative charges result in a string of hemoglobin proteins, which crystallizes into a rod which then shapes the sickle cell. Thus the visible shape of the diseased cells is a consequence, not a cause, of the disease.
Anyone with anemia should really get to watch these lectures. I really hate that the videos might not be readiy available online.
Another really cool thing I learned was why some viruses are especially awful and hard to get rid of, like HIV. These are called retroviruses, and as I understand it insert their destructive genetic material into the genetic code of the host, becoming an integral part of the cell and pretty much impossible to excise.
And then the lectures go on to explain things I had not learned in high school, but thought I had. I thought it was impossible to have a offspring have a phenotype unknown in their ancestry. Right after high school, I went so far as to explain to a Chinese friend that first generation Chinese children could never have blue eyes because there were no blue eyed genes in the Chinese parents (or even in a marriage between a Chinese and a blue-eyed Caucasian).
Turns out, its not as simple as I had been taught. Yes, what I had been taught was a good foundation, but it didn't address all sorts of genetic hanky-panky that can go on, such as recombinant DND and transposons.
After all this, there was yet more. I was especially intrigued by the "computer logic" of DNA and proteins. Many genetic sequences are like "switches" that turn on or off a specific gene under specific circumstances.
I gotta go watch another lecture.
Jolan tru.
meet the cat-legged armoured-croc-lizard
Here, I'm referring to another Triassic reptile, the aetosaurs, who are contemporaneous with the sheep-lizards and the pig-lizards mentioned before.
And just like the others mentioned, the aeotosaurs are easily confused with the dinosaurs.
To be quite frank, at a quick glance I don't blame anyone for confusing the two.
The aetosaurs are actually archsaurs, the same group as the rhychosaurs (pig-lizards). The archosaurs were a crocodile-like group who are ancestral to both crocodilians and dinosaurs both. Terms such as pseudocrocodiles and paracrocodiles have been mentioned. Sometimes their armor has been likened to the much later ankylosaurs (which I didn't know is grouped closely with stegosaurs, although I see why).
It's not entirely clear that the "armor" was used primarily for defense, nor is their cat-like posture universally accepted. These ideas are widely thought, however.
And since I am talking about Triassic fauna, don't forget the croc-sized salamanders and the early dinosaurs of this era, such aspisanosaurus. I think it's terribly funny that an especially small dinosaur was named 'pisant lizard', but as it turns out it is just a coincidence of the last name of a famous Argentine paleontologist was honored with his own dino.
Cool link about these guys:
http://chinleana.fieldofscience.com/2009/04/amazing-convergence-crustacean-vs.html
And just like the others mentioned, the aeotosaurs are easily confused with the dinosaurs.
To be quite frank, at a quick glance I don't blame anyone for confusing the two.
The aetosaurs are actually archsaurs, the same group as the rhychosaurs (pig-lizards). The archosaurs were a crocodile-like group who are ancestral to both crocodilians and dinosaurs both. Terms such as pseudocrocodiles and paracrocodiles have been mentioned. Sometimes their armor has been likened to the much later ankylosaurs (which I didn't know is grouped closely with stegosaurs, although I see why).
It's not entirely clear that the "armor" was used primarily for defense, nor is their cat-like posture universally accepted. These ideas are widely thought, however.
And since I am talking about Triassic fauna, don't forget the croc-sized salamanders and the early dinosaurs of this era, such aspisanosaurus. I think it's terribly funny that an especially small dinosaur was named 'pisant lizard', but as it turns out it is just a coincidence of the last name of a famous Argentine paleontologist was honored with his own dino.
Cool link about these guys:
http://chinleana.fieldofscience.com/2009/04/amazing-convergence-crustacean-vs.html
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
kaiju emotion
It is hard to convey distinct emotion in monsters, but I saw this photo of a diorama recently that did a very good job. Despite the fact that these are "real animals" represented, I think my use here is justified.
http://archosaurmusings.wordpress.com/2008/11/01/being-eaten-alive-arrrrrgggggghhhhhh/
http://archosaurmusings.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/rhyncho-herrera-model.jpg
Also, I have been impressed with art in the Kill All Monsters webcomic. Heck, the webcomic in general. They appear to have a published form for sale, but at the moment I am broke. And truth be told, I try to restrain my whimsical purchases.
http://archosaurmusings.wordpress.com/2008/11/01/being-eaten-alive-arrrrrgggggghhhhhh/
http://archosaurmusings.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/rhyncho-herrera-model.jpg
Also, I have been impressed with art in the Kill All Monsters webcomic. Heck, the webcomic in general. They appear to have a published form for sale, but at the moment I am broke. And truth be told, I try to restrain my whimsical purchases.
meet the sabre-toothed sheep-lizard
(I'm not kidding)
The dicynodont was another Triassic animal, also known in other geologic eras.
(it goes PERMAIN -> MESOZOIC (Parts 123: Triassic -> Jurassic -> Cretaceous) -> CENOZOIC)
These are hardy fellows, having as a group survived the Permian-Triassic Extinction event, the Jurassic Ecologic Chaos, and the competition with the well-adapted dinosaurs. Their heyday was apparently in the early and middle Triassic, however, when they were as numerous as perhaps 95% of all land animals.
http://eonsepochsetc.com/Mesozoic/Triassic/Tri_Animals/Dicynodonts.html
http://www.abc.net.au/science/ozfossil/ageofreptiles/northern/dicynodont.htm
http://darrennaish.blogspot.com/2006/05/dicynodonts-that-didnt-die-late.html
Among other things, the dicynodonts are amazing as a survivor from the early Triassic to the early Cretaceous. They were once though to have all died out in the Triassic for various reasons.
The dicynodont was another Triassic animal, also known in other geologic eras.
(it goes PERMAIN -> MESOZOIC (Parts 123: Triassic -> Jurassic -> Cretaceous) -> CENOZOIC)
These are hardy fellows, having as a group survived the Permian-Triassic Extinction event, the Jurassic Ecologic Chaos, and the competition with the well-adapted dinosaurs. Their heyday was apparently in the early and middle Triassic, however, when they were as numerous as perhaps 95% of all land animals.
http://eonsepochsetc.com/Mesozoic/Triassic/Tri_Animals/Dicynodonts.html
http://www.abc.net.au/science/ozfossil/ageofreptiles/northern/dicynodont.htm
http://darrennaish.blogspot.com/2006/05/dicynodonts-that-didnt-die-late.html
Among other things, the dicynodonts are amazing as a survivor from the early Triassic to the early Cretaceous. They were once though to have all died out in the Triassic for various reasons.
meet the owl-headed pig-lizard
Rhynchosaurs were a group of reptiles that lived about 220 million years ago during the Triassic period. They're not considered dinosaurs, although neither are pterodactyls nor dimetrodons, although popular culture considers them to be such.
My readings recently in a book about dinosaurs has often mentioned the other non-dinosaurs with whom they lived, which is pretty cool to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhynchosaur
http://www.darwincountry.org/assets/userfiles/medium/sy2129.jpg
These triassic reptiles are considered to be archosauromorphs, a group ancestral to both crocodilians and dinosaurs. The archosaurs and archosauromorphs are generally crocodile-like, although some such as the rhynchosaurs were plant-eaters.
In this case, the rhynchosaurs are at least "distant cousins" to the dinosaurs. Other prehistoric fauna, such as giant amphibians and therapsids (mammal-like lizards who ruled the Earth before dinosaurs), are not really part of the extended dinosaur relations.
Doing a casual search on Google, I discovered a rather unexpected connection with Dungens and Dragons.
My readings recently in a book about dinosaurs has often mentioned the other non-dinosaurs with whom they lived, which is pretty cool to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhynchosaur
http://www.darwincountry.org/assets/userfiles/medium/sy2129.jpg
These triassic reptiles are considered to be archosauromorphs, a group ancestral to both crocodilians and dinosaurs. The archosaurs and archosauromorphs are generally crocodile-like, although some such as the rhynchosaurs were plant-eaters.
In this case, the rhynchosaurs are at least "distant cousins" to the dinosaurs. Other prehistoric fauna, such as giant amphibians and therapsids (mammal-like lizards who ruled the Earth before dinosaurs), are not really part of the extended dinosaur relations.
Doing a casual search on Google, I discovered a rather unexpected connection with Dungens and Dragons.
Sunday, March 24, 2013
MySpace repost: "Discovered Science Writer Willy Ley"
My Willy Ley "Discovery" - Dec 2, 2009
I have to tell you about an author I have found recently. Willy Ley was a science writer in the '50s and '60s and thereabouts, and very well known in his day as a "rocket man".
He wrote on quite a few other nonfiction subjects, including zoology, archeology, and chemisty. Zoology is how I originally fell upon him, but I am enjoying Dr. Ley's writing so much that I have followed him into realms of science I never would have thought of a pleasure reading.
Currently, I am reading his book titled "The Discovery of the Elements." That's what I was refereing to. The origins of chemisty never occured to me as something I would be reading for fun. This is a book for the novice reader.
Yes, I'm sure a lot of his work is dated, but much of it is the history of science and/or biographical, and that isn't as susceptible to ephemerality (haha, I don't think I've ever had cause to use that word before!).
If you've never read Willy Ley (which I suspect) please consider looking up his "Discovery of the Elements" book. It was at my tiny local library. I realize you may be too busy to read every random book that friends recommend (most people are and I know I am). So, just leaf though and read one page out of the middle. I think you'll see what I mean.
He has a quality that I really, really admire in a scientist. He isn't so "puffed up" about his own surety. I don't see the self-righteous ego that I have almost come to expect. He has a cross European-American background, and that makes his writing the more informative and entertaining. He has a talent for branching into anecdote and tangent without making it so lengthy it seems like the subject has changed. This book, and indeed all his books I've seen, are written in a way that the novice can understand.
I have to tell you about an author I have found recently. Willy Ley was a science writer in the '50s and '60s and thereabouts, and very well known in his day as a "rocket man".
He wrote on quite a few other nonfiction subjects, including zoology, archeology, and chemisty. Zoology is how I originally fell upon him, but I am enjoying Dr. Ley's writing so much that I have followed him into realms of science I never would have thought of a pleasure reading.
Currently, I am reading his book titled "The Discovery of the Elements." That's what I was refereing to. The origins of chemisty never occured to me as something I would be reading for fun. This is a book for the novice reader.
Yes, I'm sure a lot of his work is dated, but much of it is the history of science and/or biographical, and that isn't as susceptible to ephemerality (haha, I don't think I've ever had cause to use that word before!).
If you've never read Willy Ley (which I suspect) please consider looking up his "Discovery of the Elements" book. It was at my tiny local library. I realize you may be too busy to read every random book that friends recommend (most people are and I know I am). So, just leaf though and read one page out of the middle. I think you'll see what I mean.
He has a quality that I really, really admire in a scientist. He isn't so "puffed up" about his own surety. I don't see the self-righteous ego that I have almost come to expect. He has a cross European-American background, and that makes his writing the more informative and entertaining. He has a talent for branching into anecdote and tangent without making it so lengthy it seems like the subject has changed. This book, and indeed all his books I've seen, are written in a way that the novice can understand.
Saturday, March 23, 2013
Science: Who Mendel really was
As you might know, I am taking a science class thruough Edx.org from MIT Biology professor and acclaimed geneticist E. Lander.
This week, after looking at proteins and enyzmes and molecules, we came to genetics, which is a perfect time to discuss Mendel. It was a really great lecture, and I loved hearing all these biographical tidbits I had not run across before.
I really, really hope I am not in violation of either the academic code nor copyright anything.
"So people knew somehow there was something very important about the
information that was transmitted, and you couldn't help but notice familial
resemblance.
So for thousands of years, people wondered about familial resemblance.
Folks being folks would make up explanations for it.
The ancient Greeks were very big on philosophizing, not so much on doing
experiments.
And so they had all sorts of philosophical explanations for this,
that particles from all over the body would come together
into the seminal fluid.
Sort of some kind of pulling operation and collecting information from the
body that would somehow go into the seminal fluid.
Most of the Greek theories were relatively sexist because it was the
male that was transmitting the information, and the female was
permissive to all of that.
Indeed at some point, people could later, many hundreds of years later,
looked at microscopes and even thought they could see little people in the
head of the sperm, little homunculi.
It's amazing what you can convince yourself you can see.
Broadly speaking, since heredity didn't follow incredibly simple laws,
the general view was somehow information was
combined from both parents.
Eventually the female parent ends up getting involved in this too, even if
not in the early Greek theories.
Information was combined from both parents and blended in some way, and
it was kind of mushy beyond that, exactly what that meant, by blending
inheritance.
So today, what we're going to do is talk about the origins of a real
understanding of heredity.
But it's important to know that for 2,000 or more years, people were just
completely confused about this thing.
And to understand that, we need to know the origins of Mendel.
Now, in biochemistry, we started by meeting Buchner.
Buchner, I bet most of you have never heard of before.
Amazing biochemist, you haven't heard of him before.
So my job with Buchner was to teach you about him and
what his problem was.
With Mendel I have exactly the opposite problem.
You've all heard of Mendel.
You learned about Mendel in high school, and probably kindergarten, and
things like that with the peas and the big As and the little As.
And everybody's been exposed to Mendel.
And I have to unteach you about Mendel first.
Mendel, I've got to say, I'm a geneticist.
Mendel is one of my real heroes.
Mendel is not who you think he is.
You think, it's always told that Mendel is this lone monk off in a
monastery in Brno in what is today the present Czech Republic.
And you're wondering, what is a monk doing performing scientific
experiments in the city of Brno in the middle of the Habsburg Empire?
And like, what's going on, cooking these peas for his fellow monks for
long periods of time?
You have to understand the origins of Mendel.
The origins of Mendel go back to the age of exploration.
They go back to the 1500s, when Europe sends out ships across the world.
And people come back with all sorts of strange new plants and animals.
And people begin cultivating them, and breeding them, and people get very
interested in breeding experiments, in part because of all these new
varieties, new species that are coming in from the new world.
Then there's another incredibly powerful reason why people care about
breeding at this time, and that is economics.
Europe goes from being lots of isolated little villages, not really
communicating much with each other, to building road networks.
To building commerce across cities and villages, and countries.
And it becomes more and more economically viable, economically
rewarding to make a better apple.
If you made a better apple in your own little village, you might sell it to a
few other people.
But in fact, if you could make better plants and better animals, and you had
an economic distribution system, you could get returns on investment for
improving agriculture.
So there was a powerful positive force of economics at work there as well.
So people begin to start thinking about these things.
In England, there's a lot of work on breeding better and better fruit trees
and better sheep.
A guy called Blakewell produces the Dishley sheep, which
produces great meat.
And he becomes very famous for his sheep breeding skills.
Now, on the continent of Europe, sheep were not about meat.
That wasn't what you really wanted the sheep for.
What the European continent wanted sheep for was wool.
Everybody knew that the Spanish had the best wool sheep.
Spanish sheep produced the best wool.
But of course people who are growing sheep for wool across Europe, they
wanted Spanish sheep.
And so they imported Spanish sheep, but the Spanish sheep didn't do so
well in some of these other environments.
And so people began crossing the Spanish sheep with the local sheep to
make sheep that still had good wool, but somehow survived better in the
local environments.
And there was breeding going on in France, and going on in Germany.
But the place that perhaps cared most about wool, you might imagine, was the
center of the textile industry, which was Moravia in the Habsburg Empire.
And the capital of Moravia then was Brno.
They cared a lot about wool.
And so people in this area, in the city of Brno, began to organize
scientific societies and discussion groups to talk about, how could we
make breeding better?
More scientific?
There was a guy called Andre, Carl Andre in 1806, organized the Moravian
Society for the Improvement of Agriculture, Natural Science, and the
Knowledge of the Country.
And he drew up a whole program of scientific development, emphasizing
the importance of basic and applied research in the natural sciences.
And in one of these kind of over the top civic booster kind of speeches, he
writes in his program that the significance of this kind of work on
better breeding may someday be as important as the work of Copernicus
and Newton.
And that some day the world may be as grateful to some son of Brno as they
are to Newton and to Copernicus.
Pretty kind of florid, over the top kind of prose.
But Andre lays out this whole program there, and he gets other people
interested in it.
And this guy, Hempel, five years later, begins writing about these
things and making programs.
And he says, look, we've got to understand the laws of hybridization
and how they really work.
And we're going to have--
he says we're going to need really scientific people to do it.
He says--
he even tries to characterize the kind of folk we're going to need.
He says, "we're going to need a researcher with a profound knowledge
of botany and sharply defined powers of observation who might with untiring
and stubborn patience grasp the subtleties of the experiments, take a
firm command with them and provide a clear explanation," he writes in 1820.
Well, around this time, Andre had organized a group called the
Enological and Pomological Society.
The Enological and Pomological Society, right around this time there,
very interested in plant breeding.
It has its first president, who's the president of it for about the first
seven years.
When he dies, a new person takes over, CF Napp takes over the Enological and
Pomological Society.
Now, that's not a full time job, doing this.
He has a full time job.
His full time job is he's the abbot of the Augustinian Monastery in Brno.
And he begins to decide to have his monastery work on breeding.
So he goes off looking for scientifically trained monks.
Looking for months with backgrounds in math and physics.
He's looking for MIT kind of monks.
And so he's off looking for these people, and who does he find?
STUDENT: Mendel.
PROFESSOR: Mendel.
Mendel is no accident.
Mendel is the result of economic forces and scientific forces, and
civic planning and an understanding of scientific research that culminates in
this monk that you think is this isolated guy standing in his garden in
the monastery.
No.
He's the product of a biotech incubator.
This was a biotech incubator going on in the middle of Moravia.
That's Mendel."
Link to an English translation of Mendel's original paper!
http://www.mendelweb.org/Mendel.html
This week, after looking at proteins and enyzmes and molecules, we came to genetics, which is a perfect time to discuss Mendel. It was a really great lecture, and I loved hearing all these biographical tidbits I had not run across before.
I really, really hope I am not in violation of either the academic code nor copyright anything.
"So people knew somehow there was something very important about the
information that was transmitted, and you couldn't help but notice familial
resemblance.
So for thousands of years, people wondered about familial resemblance.
Folks being folks would make up explanations for it.
The ancient Greeks were very big on philosophizing, not so much on doing
experiments.
And so they had all sorts of philosophical explanations for this,
that particles from all over the body would come together
into the seminal fluid.
Sort of some kind of pulling operation and collecting information from the
body that would somehow go into the seminal fluid.
Most of the Greek theories were relatively sexist because it was the
male that was transmitting the information, and the female was
permissive to all of that.
Indeed at some point, people could later, many hundreds of years later,
looked at microscopes and even thought they could see little people in the
head of the sperm, little homunculi.
It's amazing what you can convince yourself you can see.
Broadly speaking, since heredity didn't follow incredibly simple laws,
the general view was somehow information was
combined from both parents.
Eventually the female parent ends up getting involved in this too, even if
not in the early Greek theories.
Information was combined from both parents and blended in some way, and
it was kind of mushy beyond that, exactly what that meant, by blending
inheritance.
So today, what we're going to do is talk about the origins of a real
understanding of heredity.
But it's important to know that for 2,000 or more years, people were just
completely confused about this thing.
And to understand that, we need to know the origins of Mendel.
Now, in biochemistry, we started by meeting Buchner.
Buchner, I bet most of you have never heard of before.
Amazing biochemist, you haven't heard of him before.
So my job with Buchner was to teach you about him and
what his problem was.
With Mendel I have exactly the opposite problem.
You've all heard of Mendel.
You learned about Mendel in high school, and probably kindergarten, and
things like that with the peas and the big As and the little As.
And everybody's been exposed to Mendel.
And I have to unteach you about Mendel first.
Mendel, I've got to say, I'm a geneticist.
Mendel is one of my real heroes.
Mendel is not who you think he is.
You think, it's always told that Mendel is this lone monk off in a
monastery in Brno in what is today the present Czech Republic.
And you're wondering, what is a monk doing performing scientific
experiments in the city of Brno in the middle of the Habsburg Empire?
And like, what's going on, cooking these peas for his fellow monks for
long periods of time?
You have to understand the origins of Mendel.
The origins of Mendel go back to the age of exploration.
They go back to the 1500s, when Europe sends out ships across the world.
And people come back with all sorts of strange new plants and animals.
And people begin cultivating them, and breeding them, and people get very
interested in breeding experiments, in part because of all these new
varieties, new species that are coming in from the new world.
Then there's another incredibly powerful reason why people care about
breeding at this time, and that is economics.
Europe goes from being lots of isolated little villages, not really
communicating much with each other, to building road networks.
To building commerce across cities and villages, and countries.
And it becomes more and more economically viable, economically
rewarding to make a better apple.
If you made a better apple in your own little village, you might sell it to a
few other people.
But in fact, if you could make better plants and better animals, and you had
an economic distribution system, you could get returns on investment for
improving agriculture.
So there was a powerful positive force of economics at work there as well.
So people begin to start thinking about these things.
In England, there's a lot of work on breeding better and better fruit trees
and better sheep.
A guy called Blakewell produces the Dishley sheep, which
produces great meat.
And he becomes very famous for his sheep breeding skills.
Now, on the continent of Europe, sheep were not about meat.
That wasn't what you really wanted the sheep for.
What the European continent wanted sheep for was wool.
Everybody knew that the Spanish had the best wool sheep.
Spanish sheep produced the best wool.
But of course people who are growing sheep for wool across Europe, they
wanted Spanish sheep.
And so they imported Spanish sheep, but the Spanish sheep didn't do so
well in some of these other environments.
And so people began crossing the Spanish sheep with the local sheep to
make sheep that still had good wool, but somehow survived better in the
local environments.
And there was breeding going on in France, and going on in Germany.
But the place that perhaps cared most about wool, you might imagine, was the
center of the textile industry, which was Moravia in the Habsburg Empire.
And the capital of Moravia then was Brno.
They cared a lot about wool.
And so people in this area, in the city of Brno, began to organize
scientific societies and discussion groups to talk about, how could we
make breeding better?
More scientific?
There was a guy called Andre, Carl Andre in 1806, organized the Moravian
Society for the Improvement of Agriculture, Natural Science, and the
Knowledge of the Country.
And he drew up a whole program of scientific development, emphasizing
the importance of basic and applied research in the natural sciences.
And in one of these kind of over the top civic booster kind of speeches, he
writes in his program that the significance of this kind of work on
better breeding may someday be as important as the work of Copernicus
and Newton.
And that some day the world may be as grateful to some son of Brno as they
are to Newton and to Copernicus.
Pretty kind of florid, over the top kind of prose.
But Andre lays out this whole program there, and he gets other people
interested in it.
And this guy, Hempel, five years later, begins writing about these
things and making programs.
And he says, look, we've got to understand the laws of hybridization
and how they really work.
And we're going to have--
he says we're going to need really scientific people to do it.
He says--
he even tries to characterize the kind of folk we're going to need.
He says, "we're going to need a researcher with a profound knowledge
of botany and sharply defined powers of observation who might with untiring
and stubborn patience grasp the subtleties of the experiments, take a
firm command with them and provide a clear explanation," he writes in 1820.
Well, around this time, Andre had organized a group called the
Enological and Pomological Society.
The Enological and Pomological Society, right around this time there,
very interested in plant breeding.
It has its first president, who's the president of it for about the first
seven years.
When he dies, a new person takes over, CF Napp takes over the Enological and
Pomological Society.
Now, that's not a full time job, doing this.
He has a full time job.
His full time job is he's the abbot of the Augustinian Monastery in Brno.
And he begins to decide to have his monastery work on breeding.
So he goes off looking for scientifically trained monks.
Looking for months with backgrounds in math and physics.
He's looking for MIT kind of monks.
And so he's off looking for these people, and who does he find?
STUDENT: Mendel.
PROFESSOR: Mendel.
Mendel is no accident.
Mendel is the result of economic forces and scientific forces, and
civic planning and an understanding of scientific research that culminates in
this monk that you think is this isolated guy standing in his garden in
the monastery.
No.
He's the product of a biotech incubator.
This was a biotech incubator going on in the middle of Moravia.
That's Mendel."
Link to an English translation of Mendel's original paper!
http://www.mendelweb.org/Mendel.html
Good science - 1908 early geneticist
I am really enjoying hearing about the history of science in my EdX class I am taking.
My grades and performance isn't too impressive, but I am taking the class for fun, not credit. Although if I pass I will value the certificate they offer.
But today's lecture on early genetics had a passage that really impressed me, and I love hearing scientists speak about good science.
I'm not sure this is approved for me to post (off a YouTube video lecture), but I am going to anyway, and hope I don't receive consequences.
PROFESSOR: Section 2.
Fruit Flies and the Linkage.
To explain what resolves this, I have to tell you about one more person.
There's another really interesting person, a guy called Thomas Hunt
Morgan, who spends decades as a naturalist and an embryologist.
And he studies all sorts of different kinds of critters.
And he's fascinated by everything in the natural world.
And he has one of these labs where he kind of works on everything.
All sorts of crazy things are going on.
And when this whole Mendelism stuff comes back, he's interested in the
Mendelism stuff too.
But he is really an experimentalist.
He doesn't go in for this high-faluting theory.
Morgan is not a theory guy.
He's a data guy.
He's very suspicious of all this talk of factors and things like that.
In fact, Morgan begins to do genetics work in his lab, not to study
Mendelism, but to study evolution.
He starts crossing fruit flies together.
He starts about 1908, crossing fruit flies together in the hope that he's
going to discover evolution happening in the lab, new forms coming up.
We know it's going to be new mutants.
But that's not what he was looking for originally.
He's looking for these kinds of new forms.
And I know that in 1908, when he was beginning to do this work, he was no
believer in this whole chromosome business.
I actually found an article he wrote in 1909 that tells you what kind of a
skeptic he was.
He says "In the modern tradition of Mendelism, facts are being transformed
into factors at a rapid rate.
If one factor will not explain the facts, then two factors are invoked.
If two factors prove insufficient, now three will sometimes work.
The superior juggling sometimes necessary to account for the result
may blind us, if taken too naively, to the commonplace that the results are
so excellently explained, because the explanation was invented to explain
them." Just like what we talked about.
That was exactly what was bothering him.
"We work backward from the facts to the factors and then presto, explain
the facts by the very factors that we invented to explain them." That is a
good skeptical scientist.
He says I love your high-faluting theory over there, but
I'm not buying it.
And he's off making fruit flies.
Here a great link provided by the class. This is an excerpt of a Nobel speech in 1907 by Eduard Buchner.
My grades and performance isn't too impressive, but I am taking the class for fun, not credit. Although if I pass I will value the certificate they offer.
But today's lecture on early genetics had a passage that really impressed me, and I love hearing scientists speak about good science.
I'm not sure this is approved for me to post (off a YouTube video lecture), but I am going to anyway, and hope I don't receive consequences.
PROFESSOR: Section 2.
Fruit Flies and the Linkage.
To explain what resolves this, I have to tell you about one more person.
There's another really interesting person, a guy called Thomas Hunt
Morgan, who spends decades as a naturalist and an embryologist.
And he studies all sorts of different kinds of critters.
And he's fascinated by everything in the natural world.
And he has one of these labs where he kind of works on everything.
All sorts of crazy things are going on.
And when this whole Mendelism stuff comes back, he's interested in the
Mendelism stuff too.
But he is really an experimentalist.
He doesn't go in for this high-faluting theory.
Morgan is not a theory guy.
He's a data guy.
He's very suspicious of all this talk of factors and things like that.
In fact, Morgan begins to do genetics work in his lab, not to study
Mendelism, but to study evolution.
He starts crossing fruit flies together.
He starts about 1908, crossing fruit flies together in the hope that he's
going to discover evolution happening in the lab, new forms coming up.
We know it's going to be new mutants.
But that's not what he was looking for originally.
He's looking for these kinds of new forms.
And I know that in 1908, when he was beginning to do this work, he was no
believer in this whole chromosome business.
I actually found an article he wrote in 1909 that tells you what kind of a
skeptic he was.
He says "In the modern tradition of Mendelism, facts are being transformed
into factors at a rapid rate.
If one factor will not explain the facts, then two factors are invoked.
If two factors prove insufficient, now three will sometimes work.
The superior juggling sometimes necessary to account for the result
may blind us, if taken too naively, to the commonplace that the results are
so excellently explained, because the explanation was invented to explain
them." Just like what we talked about.
That was exactly what was bothering him.
"We work backward from the facts to the factors and then presto, explain
the facts by the very factors that we invented to explain them." That is a
good skeptical scientist.
He says I love your high-faluting theory over there, but
I'm not buying it.
And he's off making fruit flies.
Here a great link provided by the class. This is an excerpt of a Nobel speech in 1907 by Eduard Buchner.
Thursday, March 7, 2013
having fun: Intro to Biology, Dinosaurs, and more
These last few days are being fun, including an MIT Biology class I signed up for FREE online (edx.org), a book on dinosaurs that has proven to be suprisingly stimulating, and a discovery in cooking.
The MIT Bio class just started this week, and so nothing heavy yet. I signed up just for kicks. It has already proven kick-worthy. It has taken a lesson from the history of science, the discovery and description of enzymes (via study of the yeast fermentation puzzle of the 1890s) and climaxing in the scientist Buchner's Nobel lecture in 1907, available online.
For many people, I suppose that isn't much of a climax. For me, it's pretty cool. I love these sorts of "history of science" stories.
Next, I have been reading "Ultimate Dinosaur" edited by Byron Preiss and Robert Silverberg, and written by several respectable authors. I was suprised and pleased to find that this book is both fiction and non-fiction, written by several respectable authors, and well-crafted in a manner that is clear which is which. It is a collection of essays and short stories, alternating genres in a manner easy on the reader. I was also pleased it had subject matter for a more mature reflection. You see, the cover seemed to suggest a kid's book. The fiction writers write fiction, and the scientists write science. What a refreshing book.
Okay, in my cooking, I love it when I find a quick recipe that actually is quick and easy and cheap. A cheap box of mac 'n cheese, cooked in 12 minutes, using the butter it calls for, with or without milk, and the Stove Top stuffing stirred in right before serving. Easy, but very good!
The MIT Bio class just started this week, and so nothing heavy yet. I signed up just for kicks. It has already proven kick-worthy. It has taken a lesson from the history of science, the discovery and description of enzymes (via study of the yeast fermentation puzzle of the 1890s) and climaxing in the scientist Buchner's Nobel lecture in 1907, available online.
For many people, I suppose that isn't much of a climax. For me, it's pretty cool. I love these sorts of "history of science" stories.
Next, I have been reading "Ultimate Dinosaur" edited by Byron Preiss and Robert Silverberg, and written by several respectable authors. I was suprised and pleased to find that this book is both fiction and non-fiction, written by several respectable authors, and well-crafted in a manner that is clear which is which. It is a collection of essays and short stories, alternating genres in a manner easy on the reader. I was also pleased it had subject matter for a more mature reflection. You see, the cover seemed to suggest a kid's book. The fiction writers write fiction, and the scientists write science. What a refreshing book.
Okay, in my cooking, I love it when I find a quick recipe that actually is quick and easy and cheap. A cheap box of mac 'n cheese, cooked in 12 minutes, using the butter it calls for, with or without milk, and the Stove Top stuffing stirred in right before serving. Easy, but very good!
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
NPR: Free MIT Biology Course Online
Here and Now is exactly appropriate for this topic. It addresses the most up-to-date state of biology and genetics, although from one man's perspective. This stuff gets me excited. If you do a bit of searching, I'm sure there is a way to listen to the interview given today (2/20/2013) with guest Eric Lander, professor of biology at MIT and science advisor to the president.
http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2013/02/20/eric-lander-biology
The FREE course, presented by EdX.org, is March 5th, 2013. Following the link may not work unless you search the main website)
I have never yet used edX, but this looks exciting. 6 to 8 hours a week isn't too hard to committ to, and I am releived, because I was imaging a "live" streaming lecture that I would have to be available for. Also, I worried I might have to buy an expensive textbook.
The materials for study, along with the class, seem to be all freely online, including the main "supplemental" textbook, Molecular Biology of the Cell, 4th edition.
EdX.org also seems to have courses available in quantum mechanics, greek history, justice, and environmental science. I can't find information on how many "students" can take the class. It appears I might receive a "Certificate of Completion" if I pass the class, but I can't find information whether the certificate is free or not.
The FREE course, presented by EdX.org, is March 5th, 2013. Following the link may not work unless you search the main website)
I have never yet used edX, but this looks exciting. 6 to 8 hours a week isn't too hard to committ to, and I am releived, because I was imaging a "live" streaming lecture that I would have to be available for. Also, I worried I might have to buy an expensive textbook.
The materials for study, along with the class, seem to be all freely online, including the main "supplemental" textbook, Molecular Biology of the Cell, 4th edition.
EdX.org also seems to have courses available in quantum mechanics, greek history, justice, and environmental science. I can't find information on how many "students" can take the class. It appears I might receive a "Certificate of Completion" if I pass the class, but I can't find information whether the certificate is free or not.
Thursday, February 7, 2013
NPR Broadcast: "Hidden Life of Wolves"
I am going to try to make more posts about natural history and ecology. I have been very, very remiss, and the last post I recall that was truly natural history may have been another NPR radio broadcast about Pre-Columbian ecology.
Anyway, I heard this this morning on the Diane Rehm Show
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2013-02-07/jim-and-jamie-dutcher-hidden-life-wolves
It wasn't anything unusually amazing, just good and compelling, although limited in scope to (more or less) one species. The comments made of the down-grade from national Endangered Species List to state-by-state regulated hunting, and the swift decimation of formerly protected wolves, and especially that the wolves may have to return to Endangered status in short order because of this, is worthy of note. It's important to keep this situation in mind when other animal populations recover from a vulnerable status. Perhaps a Limited-Recovery-with-Ongoing-Monitoring status should be created, and I see no reason hunting licences couldn't be "taxed" to pay for this monitoring.
Another factor that suprised me a bit was how very little respect these guests had for the wild dangerous character of their charges. I consider it careless and overconfident. I suppose I applaud their bravery in the search for scientific advance, but I wouldn't have done it. The lady guest spoke how she crawled into the tight, narrow den of a savagely protective mother wolf to examine her pups. True, the mother wolf DID apparently seem to be okay with this, but I myself wouldn't feel too confident with knowing the intentions of a wild animal when in such a literally tight spot.
Also, I was uncomfortable with the authors' anthropamorphised treatment of the wolves, despite all their assurances to the contrary. Their use of pet names bothered me, but that is a matter of taste if abandoned in the feild. I'm not convined the pet sentimentality did not carry over into their study. While it is very true that wild animals can have personality and even "friendships" in a sense, the humans' level of trust and familiarity was a decidedly unnatural situation. Which brings us to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, again I'm afraid.
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
book preorder: Exiles of Kho
After receiving and loving Gods of Opar, I decided to order the unpublished further book the author is writing (a prequel, actually) called Exiles of Kho. It will be a novella, and right now has an unreleased page count, which honestly concerns me since I have already preordered. Nonetheless, I am very excited!
http://meteorhousepress.com/exiles-of-kho/
As I have said before, this author is new to me and not widely known in general circles, from what I can tell. But he seems to be a good writer, and I am pleased I gave him the chance I did when I ordered Gods of Opar slightly on faith.
The cover art (and perhaps other art) is impressive and worthy of note, and suggests this will be a very handsome volumn.
Carey is not Farmer, and his writing style is subtly different. It's not terribly noticible, and yet I did notice it. His attitude towards mysticism and magic and religion seem to be different, as seem in Song of Kwasin. I am disappointed by at least one thing wich is a matter of taste. I am not a fan of the Sahhindar character, and he will be a central figure in the story. But that's my taste; other readers seem to be thrilled that Sahhindar is well-represented.
I am thowing in the labels "xenomorph" and "kaijuology" because of the sirrush, a conjectural prehistoric reptile of crocodilian proportions. The sirrush (trnslated from Assyrian meaning 'Splendor Serpent') is also known as "The Dragon of the Ishtar Gate" and is a creature of legitimate if unproven credentials.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mushussu
In fact, I wonder if there are any other fiction books that include a living sirrush. I would not be suprised either way.
Interesting: http://phantomsandmonsters.wetpaint.com/page/Sirrush+of+Babylon
Another book I am really interested in: The Other Log of Phileas Fogg
This link is especially interesting: A Very Long Letter by PJFarmer.
also, Iron and Bronze
and also, http://www.violetbooks.com/haggard-pringle.html
Monday, July 2, 2012
books: Gods of Opar
I have been very excited about this book for a long while, first seeing it mentioned online as a proposed novel. I was seeking, like many have, the expected conclusion to the Opar trilogy. Unlike most, my timing was especially lucky, and the conclusion was being prepared at that time.
I am very glad I ordered the limited edition hardcover of Gods of Opar, even though it was much more expensive than I am used to ($65). In reality though, since the book contains three novels, that makes each novel a quite reasonable price ($20, since shipping was included).
Gods of Opar was published by the Subterranean Press just this past month, and includes two novels of fictional prehistoric high adventure (by Phillip Jose Farmer) plus a third just-written novel (by Farmer and Carey) that concludes the trilogy that was left dangling by the original author.
All three novels were written to honor and imitate the style of pulp novels, which are known for being adventursome, gratuitios, sensational, and generally over-the-top.
The book is most genreally about Opar, an "ancient lost city" invented for the old Tarzan books. It was referred to as a "lost colony of Atlantis" and was described in a few Tarzan books in the 1910s.
Then comes Farmer, publishing Hadon of Ancient Opar in 1974.
Then comes Carey, expanding the Farmer books with Song of Kwasin, the third book in Gods of Opar.
However, ironically, Opar is little seen or spoken of. Rather, the captial island of pseudo-Atlantis (known as Khokarsa) is the focus, an island on an inland sea (now more or less vanished) within Africa.
I've had an interesting time listening to some files I found online, called "podcasts", a radio show of sorts, in which the book is discussed by the authors and publishers.
http://allpulp.blogspot.com/2012/04/farmerians-reveal-big-news-for-farmer.html
http://thebookcave.libsyn.com/webpage/the-book-cave-episode-174-philip-jose-farmer-the-song-of-kwasin-
http://thebookcave.libsyn.com/webpage/art-s-reviews-episode-3-philip-jose-farmer-renaissance-2012
(to listen to the above podcasts, you may need to scroll around on http://thebookcave.libsyn.com/)
I ordered a follow-up novel (or rather a prequel) to Gods of Opar called the Exiles of Kho, an solitarily written novel by Carey.
Since this author, Carey, is an unknown to me and much of the world, I was skeptical at first. But I think I will be mightily pleased. Brobdingnagianly, even.
An informal pronunciation guide gleaned from Carey via podcast:
Hadon: "Huh-don"
Kwasin: "Kwaa-seen"
Lalila: "Lah-Lee-Lah"
Paga: "Pahgah"
Lupoeth: "Loo-Poth"
Dythbeth:
Sahhindar: "Sah-Heen-dar"
Hinokly: "Hee-nokly"
Resu: "Ray-zoo"
Monday, May 14, 2012
Sauratown Mountains of North Carolina
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Beyond the Virginia Opossum
Not too long ago, I heard a zookeeper speak of our Virginia opossum as either "the only species of opossum" or "the only North American species of opossum."
Either way, I silently disagreed. I immediately thought of the yapok, or water opossum of Mexico.
This zookeeper had some justification for her statement, if it was the North American question. Many people do not consider mesoamerica or the Caribbean to be part of North America. Further, the information online (plus my own observations) is misleading at best. Many websites make it a firm statement that the opossum is "North America's only marsupial." That is correct, but there at least 3 species of North American opossums (when you include Mesoamerica). Even wikipedia seems to have trouble with this, saying the Virginia opossum is the only marsupial found in North America north of Mexico".
Yet, from doing a little research, there seem to be 103 species of true opossums (of the American genetic background, as opposed to the "possums" of the Austrailian region which look unrelated, because they very much are.)
That's more than I had supposed, and while most are South American, some are native to the Caribbean islands, which I would consider North American.
But it occurs to me that this is really part of a larger debate on understanding:
Is Central America a part of North America?
Wikipedia says:
The continent is delimited on the southeast by most geographers at the Darién watershed along the Colombia-Panama border, placing all of Panama within North America. Alternatively, less common views would end North America at the man-made Panama Canal, and some geologists physiographically locate its southern limit at the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, Mexico, with Central America extending southeastward to South America from this point.
Back to opossums: I recently read that Virginia opoosums have their furthest southernly range is in Costa Rica. Did you know Costa Rica has white-tailed deer? racoons? cougars? North American porcupines?
Either way, I silently disagreed. I immediately thought of the yapok, or water opossum of Mexico.
This zookeeper had some justification for her statement, if it was the North American question. Many people do not consider mesoamerica or the Caribbean to be part of North America. Further, the information online (plus my own observations) is misleading at best. Many websites make it a firm statement that the opossum is "North America's only marsupial." That is correct, but there at least 3 species of North American opossums (when you include Mesoamerica). Even wikipedia seems to have trouble with this, saying the Virginia opossum is the only marsupial found in North America north of Mexico".
Yet, from doing a little research, there seem to be 103 species of true opossums (of the American genetic background, as opposed to the "possums" of the Austrailian region which look unrelated, because they very much are.)
That's more than I had supposed, and while most are South American, some are native to the Caribbean islands, which I would consider North American.
But it occurs to me that this is really part of a larger debate on understanding:
Is Central America a part of North America?
Wikipedia says:
The continent is delimited on the southeast by most geographers at the Darién watershed along the Colombia-Panama border, placing all of Panama within North America. Alternatively, less common views would end North America at the man-made Panama Canal, and some geologists physiographically locate its southern limit at the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, Mexico, with Central America extending southeastward to South America from this point.
Back to opossums: I recently read that Virginia opoosums have their furthest southernly range is in Costa Rica. Did you know Costa Rica has white-tailed deer? racoons? cougars? North American porcupines?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
