CAT | science
If you don’t believe in human evolution because you think there isn’t any evidence, you’re mistaken. You’re willfully ignorant. There are mountains of evidence and many books on the subject. All you have to do is look.
Now look.
Smithsonian Natural Museum of Natural History: Human Origins Initiative
Be careful if you ever find yourself on Mars’ moon Deimos. One misstep and you could wind up in outer space.
(View really big.)
Wow! Just one more reason to like President Obama.
Obama to Back New Heavy Rocket, Bigger NASA Budget, Cancel Ares 1
Jesus Diaz, Gizmodo, December 22, 2009
Reporting on a White House and NASA meeting last Wednesday, sources say that the President has decided to give NASA an additional $1 billion in 2011. The extra funding will serve to create a new, simpler heavy lift rocket, as well as to increase the fleet of satellites controlling Earth’s land, oceans, and atmosphere.
This map is so beautiful it nearly brings tears to my eyes. I discovered it in Richard Dawkins’ book, “The Greatest Show On Earth” (page 330).
We’re cousins of chimpanzees. We’re also related to dolphins, kangaroos, slugs and pond scum. So what?
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is brilliant beyond words. What’s truly amazing is that the concept took so long for us to figure out.
Excerpt from the book:
Detailed DNA comparisons will fill in all the gaps in our knowledge about the actual evolutionary relatedness of every epecies to every other: we shall know, with complete certainty, the entire family tree of all living creatures. Goodness knows how we’ll plot it; it won’t fit on any practical-sized sheet of paper.
The largest-scale attempt in that direction so far has been made by a group associated with David Hillis, brother of Danny Hillis who pioneered one of the first supercomputers. The Hillis plot makes the tree diagram more compact by wrapping it around in a circle. You can’t see the gap, where the two ends almost meet, but it lies between the ‘bacteria’ and the ‘archaea’. … The Hillis circular plot is the same, except that it has three thousand species. Their names appear around the outside edge of the circle above, far too small to read — though Homo sapiens is helpfully marked ‘You are here’. You can get an idea of how sparse a sampling of the tree even this huge plot is when I tell you that the closest relatives of humans that it can fit in the circle are rats and mice. The mammals had to be stripped down drastically, in order to fit in all the other branches of the tree to the same depth. Just imagine trying to plot a similar tree with ten million species in stead of the three thousand included here. And ten million is not the most extravagant estimate of the number of surviving species.
23
Wordnik: A Place For All The Words
2 Comments | Posted by Brent Danley in blog, science, web
I love words. I do. I use the dictionary many times each day to verify definitions, check spellings and discover new words. Before switching to Answers.com I used Dictionary.com. I may have found something still better: Wordnik.com.
I discovered Wordnik at TedTalks a few weeks ago. Lexicographer and Wordnik founder, Erin McKean, gave a fascinating talk.
Wordnik is much more than an online dictionary: it’s a wiki, aggregator, and word search engine all in one. You can see related words, read examples of the word used in context, listen to pronunciations, discover new words serendipitously, peruse Flickr photos related to the word, study the etymology, look at usage statistics, and see current tweets that use the word. You can also get dictionary definitions, as expected.
Wordnik is in early beta development. There is a lot of potential for it to be a powerful lexicographic tool! I still revert to Answers.com when I can’t find what I’m looking for at Wordnik, but I’m sure those occurrences will become less frequent as Wordnik improves.
Wordnik tweets, too. :) (@wordnik)
22
The Science Of Happiness
2 Comments | Posted by Brent Danley in government, health, philosophy, science
Perfectly Happy
Drake Bennett, Boston Globe, May 10, 2009
I am passionate about happiness. I find myself reading all I can on the subject. I think most people spent too much energy and resources trying to attain happiness in ways that are often counterproductive. Most people are terrible at relationships, take too few risks and work to stay within predefined social constructs to their detriment.
Science can help focus our energies on those things that are more likely to appreciably increase happiness. It seems a bit counterintuitive–especially to those of us who struggle financially–that winning the lottery doesn’t make people happy. The research also illuminates one reason long-term relationships often fail: the initial happiness surge of new love eventually wanes.
In recent years, cognitive scientists have turned in increasing numbers to the study of human happiness, and one of their central findings is that we are not very good at predicting how happy or unhappy something will make us. Given time, survivors of tragedies and traumas report themselves nearly as happy as they were before, and people who win the lottery or achieve lifelong dreams don’t see any long-term increase in happiness. By contrast, annoyances like noise or chronic pain bring down our happiness more than you’d think, and having friends or an extra hour of sleep every night can raise it dramatically.
20
Driven To Love And Cheat
3 Comments | Posted by Brent Danley in family, health, philosophy, religion, science
Helen Fisher tells us why we love + cheat
Ted Talks, February 2006
And I’ve also come to think that it’s one of three, basically different brain systems that evolved from mating and reproduction. One is the sex drive: the craving for sexual gratification. W.H. Auden called it an “intolerable neural itch,” and indeed, that’s what it is. It keeps bothering you a little bit, like being hungry. The second of these three brain systems is romantic love: that elation, obsession of early love. And the third brain system is attachment: that sense of calm and security you can feel for a long-term partner. (more…)
19
Solitary Confinement Is Stupid
1 Comment | Posted by Brent Danley in government, health, politics, science
Hellhole
Atul Gawande, The New Yorker, March 30, 2009
Human beings are social creatures. We are social not just in the trivial sense that we like company, and not just in the obvious sense that we each depend on others. We are social in a more elemental way: simply to exist as a normal human being requires interaction with other people.
I have long argued that incarceration should not be used to punish criminals. The goals should be rehabilitation and separation. Prison officials should have a mandate to treat inmates with respect and provide them with a decent quality of life. Solitary confinement should never be used to punish inmates or to keep them safe. It is a cruel practice that has no place in an industrialized, first-world, enlightened society. (more…)
19
A Longitudinal Analysis of Happiness
1 Comment | Posted by Brent Danley in family, health, philosophy, science
What Makes Us Happy?
Joshua Wolf Shenk, The Atlantic, June 2009
I’ve long been intrigued by people and how they relate to one another. I have considered ad nauseum the source of human happiness. Since I was quite young I realized happiness could not be derived from riches alone; there are simply too many who are either happy and poor or sad and rich. When I became an atheist I realized happiness does not derive from god or faith in a higher power. Happiness, I’ve understood well, is all about relationships. It turns out I am correct.
Arlie Bock—a brusque, no-nonsense physician who grew up in Iowa and took over the health services at Harvard University in the 1930s—conceived the project with his patron, the department-store magnate W. T. Grant. Writing in September 1938, Bock declared that medical research paid too much attention to sick people; that dividing the body up into symptoms and diseases—and viewing it through the lenses of a hundred micro-specialties—could never shed light on the urgent question of how, on the whole, to live well. His study would draw on undergraduates who could “paddle their own canoe,†Bock said, and it would “attempt to analyze the forces that have produced normal young men.†He defined normal as “that combination of sentiments and physiological factors which in toto is commonly interpreted as successful living.â€
Cold Fusion
Wayne Curtis, The Atlantic, June 2009
This article could turn you into an ice snob, too. Instead of requesting the bartender use top-shelf liquor, I’ll now ask what is the quality of the ice.
“Ice is as important to a bartender as a stove is to a chef,†he explained, in the cadence of an oft-cited mantra. “With a chef, it’s a matter of heating things up. With a bartender, it’s a matter of cooling things down. You’d never tell a chef he could have only a stove-top burner or a fryer. And I couldn’t do without at least three or four different types of ice.â€
From the first sip, the drink with cheater ice was like a debased “cocktail lite,†with thin flavors and watery insipidness. The chunk ice yielded a richer taste, and had a denser, almost velvety texture to it. After five minutes, the cheater cocktail was deadly flat (“quite foul, actually,†decreed Rubel after a taste), while the drink with chunk ice seemed to be opening up and blossoming. Only after about 20 minutes had the second drink begun to soften around the edges.
Cheater ice is so ghetto. :)






