Science Post Purge

It's time to purge. I've collected a number of science blog posts that I have intended to point out or comment on but have not. So here they are; feel free to comment on them.


Continue Reading

First John Hawks lays out the basics between the Multiregional vs. Out of Africa hypotheses concerning human origins and expansion.

Both hypotheses have to account for the same basic set of facts:

-Humans first left Africa and established populations in other parts of the world (first southern Asia, China, and Java, later Europe) by 1.8 million years ago.

-Humans today are quite different anatomically and behaviorally from archaic people (that is, most humans before 40,000 years ago) anywhere in the world. Recent people are called "modern" humans.

-Human populations today are genetically very similar to each other.

-African populations today are more genetically diverse than populations in other parts of the world.

-Recent humans in Europe and Asia share a few features with the ancient archaic people who lived in those places before 40,000 years ago.

Carl Zimmer reports on a talk by Alan Templeton arguing (if I understand it correcty) that the truth may lie between these two poles. This post is worth checking out for the graphic illustrating human gene flow at the bottom.

While I'm referencing Carl Zimmer, I want to point out a few more of his posts. Here he discusses a recent paper on how the various members of the cat family relate to each other. Then there is a discussion of pandas, thumbs, and the funny paths of evolution. I've been holding onto this one since September, but it may be the most fascinating. In fact, I quote the opening paragraph to give you a taste.

A lot of people think of viruses and bacteria in our bodies as nothing more than pests. It's certainly true that a lot of them do an excellent job of making us ill. But some viruses and bacteria merged with our ancestors over the course of billions of years, and if you were to have them removed from your body today, you'd die faster than if you'd gotten a massive dose of Ebola.

At The Panda's Thumb there is a discussion of "junk DNA."

Pharyngula summarizes a paper about a transitional fossil and its meaning for limb evoution.

Finally, Michael Ruse discusses several approaches to the question, "were humans inevitable?"

(I apologize for using the word "discuss" a lot. Maybe next time I'll consult a thesaurus.)

Continue reading...

Grandeur for Grandeur's Sake

There is an interesting discussion going on at Times and Seasons about Alma and whether all things denote there is a God. There have been some good comments; I especially have enjoyed Otto's and was struck by this one:

Continue Reading

[Eric Robert Paul’s Science, Religion, and Mormon Cosmology] suggests that for Mormons science is inherently a spiritual undertaking (and the implication that I take from that is that for many if not most Mormon scientists, that inherent spiritual content obviates the need to dress science in religious rhetoric or bend it to religious ends).

I'm sure it is not uncommon for Mormon scientists to feel pressure to do just such a thing--at least when talking to other LDS non-scientists. To those open to new ideas, making religion connections can be fun. But sometimes it feels like a requirement to certify orthodoxy and as cheap and empty as a televangelist saying "praise Jesus!"

Darwin's Origin of Species ends with this sentence:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

The first version did not contain the words "by the Creator." I read somewhere that it was added later to mollify religious critics.

Such is life, I guess.

Continue reading...

Estrogen and Brain Development in Mice

Scientific American.com has a news story about a new article coming out in Nature Neuroscience that shows the importance of estrogen in brain development of mice. But there is a twist: exposure of the brain to estrogen leads to male brain development. These otherwise female mice acted like males, including how they interacted with other mice sexually.

In primates, including humans, androgen--not estrogen--plays the key role in making men's brains masculine and AFP does not bind to estrogens. But the appropriately named sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG) may play a similar role to that of AFP, Bakker notes, keeping women feminine and allowing baby boys develop masculine behavior.

Continue reading...

Court Decision Summary

If you don't want to read the full 139 page decision of the Dover intelligent design trial, you can read a good summary here.

While I'm on the topic of intelligent design, The Pandas Thumb provided an interesting quotation:

“The analogy which you attempt to establish between the contrivances of human art, and the various existences of the Universe, is inadmissible. We attribute these effects to human intelligence, because we know beforehand that human intelligence is capable of producing them. Take away this knowledge, and the grounds of our reasoning will be destroyed. Our entire ignorance, therefore, of the Divine Nature leaves this analogy defective in its most essential point of comparison.

You assert that the construction of the animal machine, the fitness of certain animals to certain situations, the connexion between the organs of perception and that which is perceived; the relation between every thing which exists, and that which tends to preserve it in its existence, imply design. It is manifest that if the eye could not see, nor the stomach digest, the human frame could not preserve its present mode of existence. It is equally certain, however, that the elements of its composition, if they did not exist in one form, must exist in another; and that the combinations which they would form, must so long as they endured, derive support for their peculiar mode of being from their fitness to the circumstances of their situation.”

These paragraphs were written in 1814 in response to William Paley's Natural Theology. Perhaps the argument over intelligent design will die down for a little while, but I think that first paragraph is worth keeping in mind because ID proponents almost exclusively argue by analogy to man-made things.

Continue reading...

Sen. Buttars' Bill Released

I'm back from the holiday. During the blogging hiatus, the text of a new bill put forth by Utah senator Chris Buttars was released and is available here.

There is no mention of intelligent design (formerly referred to by Buttars as "divine design"). For some critical analysis see here.

Continue reading...

Southerton Responds to FARMS Review

Simon Southerton has responded to Ryan Parr's review of Losing a Lost Tribe in the latest FARMS Review. (hat-tip to Justin B.) I've read both documents, but I am somewhat hampered by the fact that I lack any specialized training in genetics or anthropology, nor have I been able to delve into most of the references contained in each document. I also have not read Southerton's book. So I'll just provide my impression.

Continue Reading

As far as the issues of science go, I think Southerton probably has the upper hand. Parr himself says that Southerton has presented the genetic picture accurately, and I'm not aware of any other LDS scientists who have disputed this. Like Southerton, I too wondered what the paper on fish had to do with Parr's point, and as I expressed previously, I was concerned about Parr's use of the word "coalescence." I did find a source that seemded to vindicate Parr, but clearly Southerton thinks that Parr used the wrong word. Perhaps who is right on this point is not significant.

If Southerton presents the main science correctly, then the argument is really about whether the Book of Mormon scenario is feasible given different assumptions (i.e. limited geography) and finding analogous situations elsewhere. Another secondary point of contention is whether Mormon theology is flexible enough to accommodate those assumptions.

My initial impression is that Southerton is strong on the science but weak on theology. That is, I think he underestimates the ability of the church members to adjust to demonstrated facts. It is a little ironic that elsewhere he has said that he went public on this issue to force the Church to change, but then argues that it cannot change. I think this passage is a manifestation of this kind of thinking:

During his undergraduate and graduate studies, Parr would have become aware of the considerable archaeological, anthropological, and now molecular evidence that the North American continent was widely populated at least 13,500 years ago and that the original Asian ancestors arrived in the continent in excess of 15,000 years ago. Because of Parr's church experience, he will also be aware that many readers of the FARMS Review are unprepared to accept such early dates for the colonization of the Americas...Parr deftly avoids mentioning the presence of people in the Americas as long as 13,500 years ago, an admission that would only raise further questions among many Latter-day Saint readers.

My guess is that he underestimates readers of FARMS. After all, it has been pointed out in a previous FARMS publication that the very fact that the model of colonization involves such ancient dates undercuts the criticism of fundamentalist anti-Mormons.

I must say I was surprised by this statement:

In my case, for thirty years my religious orientation was accompanied by a distorted understanding of the true history of America's past. Not only did I know little of the science that was applicable to this issue, I accepted without question the widespread urban legends in the church, one being that BYU scholars had found archaeological evidence in Mesoamerica that supported the Book of Mormon, another being that the Smithsonian Institution had used the Book of Mormon as a guide in some of their research.

How is it that Southerton only relatively recently arrived at his new-found skepticism? Either Southerton is not quite honest or his was the faith of a sweet innocent boy. I've known since at least I was a teenager that the Smithsonian does not use the Book of Mormon as a research guide--a fact not infrequently pointed out in anti-Mormon literature, and I don't think I've ever heard anyone affirm otherwise. Regarding archaeological evidence--well that is probably a nuanced issue that cannot be dealt with here.

Taking him at his word, I think he does raise a legitimate point--and that is that both apologists and members must be careful. Apologists should make their best case, but be careful not to over-reach. Members need to build their faith on the right foundation and maintain an element of skepticism--even regarding the apologists.

Whether Southerton, Murphy, FARMS, or FAIR, we need to make sure each stays honest in this debate.

Continue reading...

Science Blog Deluge

Bloggable material has been raining down upon me for the last couple of days, and I've been unable to respond to any of it. Here is a weak attempt with hope that I can come back and fill in a little more later.

Continue Reading

First up is the Dover, PA Intelligent Design trial. It made big headlines so most of you are probably somewhat familiar with it. The judge (a G.W. Bush appointee) came down hard against the ID side. His opinion is 139 pages long. If I don't get any of the books I want for Christmas, maybe I'll get it all read. The Panda's Thumb is all over the decision.

Next is a new article at Meridian Magazine by John Pratt. There has been some discussion of this article at Millenial Star. I'll save some time in my response by saying this: what he said.

Let me also say that I find myself in agreement with Pratt on a number of things. For example:

To me the universe is a big puzzle that the Lord expects us to solve as best we can with scientific methods. The scriptures are like the answers to the odd numbered problems at the back of the book, which we should learn from because they were written by the great Teacher. When the Savior returns, he might correct our papers when he reveals just how the creation really was done. At that time there could very well be a lot of surprises because many things have been "hidden" from us (D&C 101:32-33). Hidden means they were not observable, and hence "unscientific," but they were true just the same. When they are revealed, they will become "scientific."

I also agree that there may be other forces or laws that we don't know of. That's fine, it's just that science cannot do anything with such things. But in the meantime, don't the workings of physics, genetics, molecular biology, and germ theory counts as things that have been hidden?

You know, for as dogmatic as scientists are supposed to be, when you look at leading textbooks and the scientific literature you find a lot of careful wording. Things like "it is presumably," "it is thought that," "it is still unclear," and so forth.

I think I'm going to cut this post off here, because the next item deserves a post of its own.

Continue reading...

Animals, Men, and the U.S. Constitution

(via Evolutionblog) Here is something interesting from the Eagle Forum, the right-wing organization that Utah senator Chris Buttars is involved with.

Continue Reading

Fact v. Fiction #1: Some evolutionists who claim to be Christians — but also evolutionists who label themselves "theistic evolutionists" — argue that God could have used the evolutionary process hypothesized by Darwin to create the universe. But evolutionism reduces man to an animal. Theism, conversely presents man as made in the image of God. If man is an animal, but man is also made in the image of God, what does that make God?

Fact v. Fiction #2: Evolutionists claim that their battle against creation-science is primarily a "scientific" issue, not a constitutional question. But our treasured U. S. Constitution is written by persons and for persons. If man is an animal, the Constitution was written by animals and for animals. This preposterous conclusion destroys the Constitution. The Aguillard Humanists leave us with no Constitution and no constitutional rights of any kind if they allow us to teach only that man is an animal.

These subtle and dangerous attacks on God Himself and the Constitution must be repelled. There are additional "Fictions" being hurled by evolutionists against creationism, and we will consider these in our next "Briefing." As the battle moves into the courtroom again, WE MUST BE PREPARED TO DEFEND THE TRUTH! (all emphasis in original)

Deep thinkers, those Eagle Forum folks are. They might want to have a talk with medical schools that use animals to illustrate principles of [non-animal] human physiology, or scientists who test drugs on animals with the bizarre notion that the results might apply to [non-animal] humans.

But the preceeding passage brings up something of interest to me, and that is religious attitudes toward the U.S. Constitution. I'm not much of a political philosopher; mostly I just listen to talk radio and read the news. On the conservative side, especially the among the religious right, you hear a lot about God's inspiration behind the Constitution, something I accept. However, some people treat it as if it was dictated by God on Mount Sinai and almost raise it to the status of inerrant scripture. This presumably feeds the originalist--living constitution divide. Stories (folk stories?) like the one of Benjamin Franklin advising the drafters to pray probably contribute to this view.

Imagine my suprise when I read this passage in Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling:

Timothy Dwight, grandson of Jonathan Edwards and president of Yale College, had not long before lamented that the United States formed its Constitution "without any acknowledgement of GOD; without any recognition of his mercies to us, as a people, of his government, or even his existence." How could the nation not be "a smoke in the nostrils of JEHOVAH."

So how is it that Dwight viewed the Constitution as an abomination but today's religious-right elevate it to near-scripture status? Can anybody recommend a treatment of the history of religious views of the U.S. Constitution?

Continue reading...