Well, of the Universe. But as seen through the eye of Hubble.
I know I’ve posted this in the past, but it’s just such a great photograph.
Filed under: Astronomy/Cosmology/Physics | Tagged: Galaxies, Galaxy, hubble | Leave a comment »
Re: Origins of vision
Posted on May 16, 2011 by Michael
I’m doing another repost, this time taking from an article I did about the origins of vision. Note that the quote coloring is reversed from how it normally appears.
Vision likely originated as simple eyespots in simple organisms. It also is traced back to jellyfish and their own simplistic eyespots, which are actually still present in some manner today. That is, jellyfish have areas of photoreceptor cells which don’t allow vision as we know it (they don’t even have brains), but they do allow a sensation of particular wavelengths of light to be perceived. These wavelengths often indicate depth (and maybe predators), which in turn may indicate food source (pelagic jellyfish don’t tend to get to plump).
Recent research has discovered the genetic pathway involved in light sensitivity in a close relative of the jellyfish.
“We determined which genetic ‘gateway,’ or ion channel, in the hydra is involved in light sensitivity,” said senior author Todd H. Oakley, assistant professor in UCSB’s Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology. “This is the same gateway that is used in human vision.”
This allows for a prediction using evolution: all organisms alive today which share a common ancestry with hydras will share this same genetic gateway. Organisms like flies, as the article points out, do not share this ancestry with vertebrates and as such do not share this genetic gateway. If they did share it, then wow. Creationists could actually trot out their improbability arguments.
“This work picks up on earlier studies of the hydra in my lab, and continues to challenge the misunderstanding that evolution represents a ladder-like march of progress, with humans at the pinnacle,” said Oakley. “Instead, it illustrates how all organisms — humans included — are a complex mix of ancient and new characteristics.”
(End different quote coloring.)
I looked this post up because I recently ran across a creationist who actually trotted out that old “the eye is irreducibly complex” bull and I was searching for some other links. But what’s interesting is what a different creationist was saying in the comment section:
You premised your claim of cnidarian relationship to vertebrates and humans on a gene they share in common. You said specifically, “This allows for a prediction using evolution: all organisms alive today which share a common ancestry with hydras will share this same genetic gateway.” I pointed out that certain beetles share certain genes with vertebrates and humans that other insects do not – and by your logic, that would mean these beetles share an ancestry with humans other insects do not.
As I pointed out at the time (and as the creationist failed to even come close to grasping), my claim was not based upon the sharing of individual genes, but rather on the sharing of complex genetic pathways. It is these pathways that ultimately allow for such a prediction. The creationist then confused the discussion on pathways with the article focus of a gateway. (I pointed out his error to him, but to no avail.) It is these pathways, by and large, which first get us to the point of where we can say that hydra and humans share a common ancestry in terms of vision. From that point we can look at the particular gateway in question and make the prediction I originally made. (One caveat: organisms which have lost their ability to see may not share the gateway.)
Filed under: Evidence, Evolution | Tagged: Evolution, eyespots, Hydra, Jellyfish, Vision | 1 Comment »
Thought of the day
Posted on May 15, 2011 by Michael
If the Red Sox could sweep the Yankees and then win tomorrow when I am sitting in Fenway, that would be great.
Filed under: Misc | Tagged: Red Sox, Thought of the day | 2 Comments »
The poverty of Christian arguments
Posted on May 15, 2011 by Michael
In a recent thought of the day, I said this:
I have yet to see a good argument for God in the 21st century. There were arguments that worked when we didn’t have the same facts we have now, but ever since the Enlightenment every argument for God has been a radical failure.
I posted that link to my Facebook page and got a response from a Christian. He pointed out three arguments that he says he has never seen refuted. They are:
- the Cosmological Argument
- the Teleological Argument
- the Moral Argument
I’ve addressed all of these arguments on FTSOS in some way or another, and I’ve gone to length at least on the Cosmological Argument. I’m going to quickly go over their obvious flaws again.
Cosmological Argument: This argument says that everything which has a beginning has a cause. It then applies this concept to a point ‘prior’ to the Big Bang and assigns God as being the first cause of everything. Also, in order to avoid an infinite regress, believers arbitrarily declare that God is eternal. First, why make God eternal? Why not do the same for Nature, at least in some form, and cut out the middle man? Second – and this is the more important point – this argument uses facts derived of the Universe and then applies those facts outside the Universe. This makes for a dismal failure of an argument, don’t you think? After all, how can anyone know that properties of the Universe existed ‘prior’ to the Universe? In fact, what we do know is that all of these properties break down if we go back far enough in time. So what believers are arguing is that these properties exist eternally outside the Universe, then when the Universe was in its very first moments of existence they stopped to exist, then they resumed existing. And they’re doing all this without even knowing anything about what existed ‘prior’ to the Big Bang.
Teleological Argument: This is the argument that says there is evidence of design in life and everything (or at least humanity) has a purpose. It is little more than an argument from ignorance that morphs into a pathetic God of the Gaps argument. There is no evidence of design anywhere outside the actions and behaviors of animals. Anyone who has seriously studied any field of hard science knows this and rejects the teleological argument for that reason.
Moral Argument: This is the argument that says the existence of objective morality is evidence for God. I find this to be one of the worst arguments out there. In most cases, it is ultimately circular. Theists have to invoke an objective source in order to maintain that objective morality exists. That is, they say God exists because objective morality exists, yet they know objective morality exists because God exists. Alternatively, they have to say that objective morality simply exists and is outside God. If that is the case, then they haven’t given any evidence for God. That is, they’ve stated in their very premise that objective morality has nothing to do with God.
So I’m still waiting for at least one good argument for God.
Filed under: Philosophy | Tagged: Cosmological Argument, Moral Argument, Teleological Argument | 4 Comments »
Colbert mocks bad Supreme Court decision
Posted on May 14, 2011 by Michael
We all remember that Supreme Court decision that entirely transgressed the purpose and even spirit of corporate law. It was funny, of course – just in a bad way. But now fortunately Stephen Colbert has made it funny in a good way:
A couple hundred people stood around holding cameras as comedian Stephen Colbert dropped into Washington and filed papers for his Super PAC. It was the most excitement the Federal Election Commission and its office may ever see…
“The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United has proved that unlimited corporate money equals free speech,” said Colbert as the crowd cheered, clapped and booed. By the Colbert logic, that means that no corporate money means “silence.”
The crowd cheered as Colbert stepped out of the FEC building, with nearly everyone holding up their cameras as the funnyman gave his usual performance.
“I want to open the Colbert super PAC for all those PAC-less Americans,” said Colbert, as several in the crowd recited his PAC’s motto: “Making a better ‘tomorrow’ tomorrow.”
This about the only good thing to come of this decision.
Filed under: Misc | Tagged: Citizens United, FEC, PAC, Stephen Colbert, Super PAC, Supreme Court | Leave a comment »
It’s probably for the best
Posted on May 14, 2011 by Michael
Good. Out with the old, in with the new.
Filed under: Misc | Tagged: Floppy disks | 1 Comment »
Thought of the day
Posted on May 14, 2011 by Michael
I have yet to see a good argument for God in the 21st century. There were arguments that worked when we didn’t have the same facts we have now, but ever since the Enlightenment every argument for God has been a radical failure. I mean, it’s ridiculous. I hardly believe that theists are even trying at this point.
Filed under: Misc | Tagged: Arguments for God, Thought of the day | 3 Comments »
Law students protest bigot lawmaker
Posted on May 13, 2011 by Michael
More than 100 newly graduated lawyers walked out of their own graduation at the University of Michigan Law School on Saturday to protest the commencement speech by antigay Ohio Sen. Rob Portman.
It’s just mind-boggling that there really are still people who hate gay people. It’s like these bigots haven’t even bothered to consider what sexuality is, how it works, how it doesn’t work, and what goes into forming healthy human relationships.
Filed under: News, Rights | Tagged: Gay, Michigan Law School, Rights, Rob Portman | 2 Comments »
It’s your fault, Serena
Posted on May 13, 2011 by Michael
At least that’s what critics are essentially saying. Serena Williams put up a supposedly risqué photo of herself on her Twitter account. She took it down a little bit later, though, because people like to blame the victim:
“Someone must have gotten to her and suggested something about common sense and hypocrisy,” wrote Greg Couch of The Sporting News.
He’s referring to the recent arrest of a Florida man accused of stalking the tennis star. The 40-year-old man was arrested last week on the grounds of Williams’ Palm Beach estate. One month earlier, Williams took out an injunction against the man, who used her Twitter updates to stalk her in various locations, including in the dressing room of a television studio. Couch doesn’t say so directly, but he’s basically suggesting that Serena putting up a voyeuristic photo of herself in a bra and panties emboldens stalkers.
Couch is happy that Williams took down the photo. After all, she was just inviting people to stalk her by posting it. If she ever gets raped, we’ll know who to blame, amirite?
I can’t believe people really are still this dense. It is never the fault of the victim – no matter what she does. By pretending otherwise, Couch is making excuses for any and all stalkers, telling them that so long as they find their victim sexually provocative enough it isn’t their fault when they stalk. If anything, the stalker is the victim here. WON’T SOMEONE THINK OF THE STALKERS?!
Maybe next Couch explain why people who go out and don’t wear ragged pants and tattered shirts at fault for getting mugged.
Filed under: News | Tagged: Blaming the victim, Greg Couch, Serena Williams, Stalker, Tennis, The Sporting News | 1 Comment »
For the Sake of Science 