Darwin Revelation

Some of Darwin's very basic studies point out that every species survived to the point we're at now by being able to stronger, faster, and more clever than other's of our species. The term "survival of the fittest" was coined through this observation. We can see today that the human species is the same. Those of use who look both ways before crossing the street, usually don't get hit by cars. The ones that check the expiration dates on food don't end up with food poisoning. Those who eat healthy and avoid an over abundance of fatty food usually maintain a healthy weight and heart. Most of the time, those are the people who survive longer, and are able to reproduce in a more effective manner passing on healthier and more fruitful genes.

That's not to say that those with lesser intelligence don't survive. In fact, they tend to procreate more, but unlike in lesser species, they have the same margin for survival that the smarter do. In all of human society, back all the way to the beginning of civilizations, it's never been about who's got the bigger IQ, it's about who is "more." When I say more, I mean more of everything. Better looking, more money, more muscle, more friends, just more of everything. This isn't an exclusive method of choosing,  I mean someone's got to love the ugly people, but this seems to be the norm.

In Appleman's Darwin, Darwin himself writes, "females are most excited by... the more ornate males." In the text, this is made in observation to birds, but the same stands for humans. In this video, you can see that like all species, there are certain preconceptions about attraction.

The Chief, the green guy, shows us how there are certain ideas that we have about attracting the opposite sex. Though this is an extreme example, seeing as how the Chief is extremely socially inadequate, it makes my point. In the end, he was able to be more attractive by having more of something. In his case, it was more social skills, but it was still more than what he started with. He was able to flaunt himself, and as a result gained respect and some sort of attraction from the girl he encountered, regardless of the fact that he was about as bright as a fleck of dust. 

Work Cited:

Appleman, Philip. Darwin. 3rd. New York: Norton, 2001.

http://www.youtube.com/v/hH2yjZAoWRg&hl=en&fs=1

http://2008scientificrevs210-03.blogspot.com/2008/09/course-readings.html

Of Mice And Mammoths: Cloning after Death

Extinct is such a final word. It implies that, what ever the subject is, it's never going to come back. We will never see it again in it's natural habitat outside of Natural History museums, and we've come to accept that. While this may have been true a few years back, in today's society we don't like to think in terms of endings. We like to think in beginnings. 

In the lab of Teruhiko Wakayama, a Japanese geneticist, a mouse was frozen for 16 years, devoid of any cryo-protection, at -20 degrees Celsius. That's -4 degrees Fahrenheit, about the temperature of permafrost located on the upper boundary of the Arctic Shelf, which ranges from 0 to -2 degrees.

At this temperature it seemed impossible to harvest usable nuclei for cloning purposes. They assumed that all of the cells were dead, but with a newly developed cloning process, Wakayama's team was able to extract usable nuclei from the mice's neurons. These were then inserted into the embryos of healthy, living mice. The stem cells produced were then used to make healthy mice pups. Prior to this the record for frozen cells to still be eligible to cloning was only 350 days.

If it was possible to clone a 16 year old frozen mouse, couldn't the same process be used to clone a mammoth frozen in the Siberian Tundra? No tests have been done yet, but the idea if being tossed around to use this method on already extinct species. 

As with prior cloning experiments, the question of ethics comes up, but these are a little different. Technically, after being frozen that long the animal is long dead. By harvesting it's cells, not only are you playing God, but you're playing Frankenstein. It's still reanimating a dead animal, since the one created is genetically identical to the previously frozen mouse. We have to ask our selves if it's morally right to bring back what's dead, and will this be implemented on humans of social significance? The possibilities are endless, but so are the consequences. 

Mice Cloned After 16-Year Freeze; Mammoth's next?

Production of Healthy cloned mice from bodies frozen at -20 degrees Celcius for 16 years

Measuring the Temperature of Permafrost

Robert Hooke: Microscopic Monstrosities?

The microscope, the key instrument of Robert Hooke’s experiments, is an important key factor in furthering our discoveries about the mysterious world we live in. Eventually, we believe that his experiments will lead us to discovering the compound of all the different particles we, and all living things, are made up of. With his research, we can unravel the vast mysteries that God has set forth on our planet.
Hooke discovered that this simple instrument, the microscope, could reveal great details on the body of small creatures, his prime specimen being the fly. The perfection found in such small creatures is further proof that our God exists, for only he could create such a glorious creature. Hook himself states that this is these experiments are “certainly the most likely way to erect a glorious and everlasting structure and temple to nature and thus to Nature’s Creator” (Shapin, 153).

Links:

http://roberthooke.com

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/hooke.html

Reading Connections #2

I was faced with a challenge in class that I greatly underestimated. "Where are the women of science in the seventeenth century?" I was asked. I thought someone had to have taught about them. Out there, there was a text book ridden with dates and names of women who made a difference scientifically. I asked my brother if, when covering that time period in his history classes, they reviewed any women philosophers and scientists. There were none. I asked my cousin who attends school in New Jersey, if any women of significant value to the scientific community during this time were ever mentioned during classes. Once again, there were none. I went as far as to even ask a friend of mine living in London, but he couldn't recall learning about any women other than Marie Curie in his science and history courses. 

There's no way there could be absolutely no women involved at the time. They had to be out there, they were just hiding in the bindings of overlooked books. I decided to do some of my own investigation, so I started in the place I knew I would get results: the internet. 

What I found was more than just a lack of women in 17th century science. Throughout modern history and science books, only men a greatly referenced. There are maybe two or three women mentioned as giving significant contribution in said field. This isn't to say that they didn't give significant input, but there's so little known about them. How many people could tell you where Marie Curie lived, what year she was born, and exactly what her contribution to science was? I'm sure out of those people, at least twice the number of them can tell you at least three facts about Albert Einstein or Issac Newton, and specify exactly what they did. 

After searching for a while, I found that there are a lot of women that myself or others have never heard about, but have contributed a lot to the world and it's quest for knowledge. There were women present in science, even as far back as the time of the Ancient Greeks. A good example of this, is a woman named Aglaonike, a philosopher of the Ancient Greek Era. She is one of the earliest known women in astronomy, and is known for being able to predict eclipses. At this time, people with such knowledge were seen through fearful eyes since they had knowledge of what was unknown. She was seen less as a philosopher, and more as a powerful sorceress for knowing such things. She was known enough at the time that she was even mentioned by the great Plato in his writings, but where is she today in modern teachings of astrology and philosophy?  

So why is it that we don't know about her? Why do we give all credit to men for all great discoveries, that were originally made by women? I think it's time we do some reevaluating in our textbooks, and start adding the many powerful women that added in uncovering the mysteries of our vast universe. 

Works Cited: 

Watts, Ruth. "Gender, science and modernity in seventeenth-century England." Paedagogica Historica. 2005. 41, 

        1, 79-93. 

"4,000 Years of Women in Science." University of Alabama Arts and Sciences: Department for Physics and                        Astonomy. 1999-2008. 24 October 2008. < http://www.astr.ua.edu/4000WS/timelist.shtml >

Reading Connections #1

I found myself at a cross roads the other day. I was surfing the web, looking through pages of ebay, watching youtube videos, and then all of a sudden my connection dropped. Needless to say, I was annoyed, but instead of just putting the laptop I owned down, I spent a good 30 minutes trying to get back on. I tired of trying fast though; I wanted instant gratification and since it wasn't giving it to me, I gave up. It wasn't the fact that I couldn't fix it that bothered me though. It was the fact that after admitting defeat, I couldn't think of anything else to do. Or, rather, I didn't want to do anything else. I'd rather stare at a glowing monitor than read a book, or play guitar, or even go take a walk. I realized then that I am addicted to the internet. 

Nicholas Carr can empathize with me. As he writes in his article, "Is Google Making Us Stupid?", Carr explains that his inability to focus has come from his new found ability to have what he wants instantly with the internet. A few Goggle searches here, a few clicks there, and you've got what would have taken hours at the library, in a little under half an hour. We're living in fast times where now definitely means now; convenience isn't an option, it's the only way; and literature has become virtually obsolete. 

You can find anything online. Scanned pages of books or comic books, adoption agencies for pets, phone numbers of friends and relatives, videos on news reports from a day before, clothing of all sorts, and above all, a social life in the form of text. Though most of society uses all of these outlets for easier living, it's doing more to us than making life easier. It's making us lazy. 

Yesterday, collectively, I spend over 10 hours on my computer, 7 of which were spent surfing the internet for no reason other than to surf the internet. That's a pretty high number. According to Victor Brenner's studies on average internet use, the average amount of internet use is about 19 hours a week back in 2006. Three years later, someone like me is already at 10 hours a day. Something changed between then and now, and it may not have been for the better. Out of the subjects involved in his studies, "many reported up to 10 signs of interference in role functioning (primarily failure to manage time, missing sleep, missing meals, etc.)" (About.com). I've seen the effects of over use of the computer. I don't just see it in myself, but in other people. My brother, for example, spends more time talking to people on AIM or MSN messengers, than he does talking to them in person. I've bought him books, and when he was younger, he'd go through 3 books a month, at least. Now, he's lucky he can get through one in 6 months. 

How is this going to effect out youth, growing up in a world where technology rules? Are they going to grow up only knowing the vast reaches of the internet? Will the concept of a book made of paper mystify them and become "ancient?" Our brains are constantly changing and adapting, as Carr points out. "Nerve cells routinely break old connections and form new ones" (Carr). With these new connections forming, we're learning a new way to learn. We want to multitask instead of focusing, we don't want to do research, we want it to come to us. 

Search engines like goggle have created this illusion for us, that the answers are right there for us to have. There's no real searching anymore, and we're losing our ability to do simple reasoning. Some of us have gotten to the point that we click the first link on google without seeing if it's actually relevant to the topic we're trying to figure out. 

Sure, the internet makes things convenient, but what are we trading off? The ability to concentrate on a piece for more than a few minutes, maybe even loose our ability to enjoy books at all. These fast times may actually be making us slower. 

Sources:

-Carr, Nicholas. “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” Atlantic. July. 2008. 02 Oct. 2008

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google

-About.com. What is "Normal" Internet Use? 12 March. 2006. 2 Oct. 2008.

http://mentalhealth.about.com/cs/sexaddict/a/normalinet.htm