Anti-science Brought to you by: The Republicans

Last week Christopher Hitchens published a fantastic article entitled "Sarah Palin's War on Science." This topic surfaced as a result of a pointedly ignorant remark by Sarah Palin (the VP nominee for the Republican party) that, "sometimes these dollars, they go to projects that have little or nothing to do with the public good. Things like fruit-fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not." Watch it here.

As a scientist, it's hard to stomach this sort of anti-science attitude, particularly because of the ignorance of the statement. The fruit-fly is one of the foundational research models to study human disease, including disorders such as fragile X syndrome, autism, immune function, sexuality, etc.

This is the VP of a candidate who has denounced spending on grizzly DNA research and projectors for planetariums as "unbelievable." Hitchens summarizes it best:

Scientific American pointed out, there is no way to enforce the Endangered Species Act without getting some sort of estimate of numbers, and the best way of tracking and tracing the elusive grizzly is by setting up barbed-wire hair-snagging stations that painlessly take samples from the bears as they lumber by and then running the DNA samples through a laboratory. The cost is almost trivial compared with the importance of understanding this species, and I dare say the project will yield results in the measurement of other animal populations as well, but all McCain could do was be flippant and say that he wondered whether it was a "paternity" or "criminal" issue that the Fish and Wildlife Service was investigating. (Perhaps those really are the only things that he associates in his mind with DNA.)

Again, Palin has been a past advocate of the idea that global warming doesn't exist, and even if it did, humans aren't responsible. Now on the campaign trail she's said that it doesn't matter what caused it, just that we try to fix it ... what a dumbass thing to say.

And that brings me, yet again, to the things that Gov. Palin DOES believe in - and for that, I'll leave you with Hitchens once more:

Videos taken in the Assembly of God church in Wasilla, Alaska, which she used to attend, show her nodding as a preacher says that Alaska will be "one of the refuge states in the Last Days." For the uninitiated, this is a reference to a crackpot belief, widely held among those who brood on the "End Times," that some parts of the world will end at different times from others, and Alaska will be a big draw as the heavens darken on account of its wide open spaces.

High points, also available on YouTube, show her being "anointed" by an African bishop who claims to cast out witches. The term used in the trade for this hysterical superstitious nonsense is "spiritual warfare," in which true Christian soldiers are trained to fight demons. Palin has spoken at "spiritual warfare" events as recently as June. And only last week the chiller from Wasilla spoke of "prayer warriors" in a radio interview with James Dobson of Focus on the Family, who said that he and his lovely wife, Shirley, had convened a prayer meeting to beseech that "God's perfect will be done on Nov. 4."

Haven't we had enough of religious fundamentalism and anti-science (not to mention anti-reason) in the white house? I'm with Christopher on this one: "On Nov. 4, anyone who cares for the Constitution has a clear duty to repudiate this wickedness and stupidity."

God doesn't have a sense of humor apparently.

They say emulation is the highest form of flattery, but apparently impersonation is in bad taste ... especially if it´s of imaginary characters. In an article reported by The Seattle Times three days ago, a DJ named Revin John was fired from his job for a sketch released over Virgin Radio Dubai in Dubai of the United Arab Emirates. According to the article:

The Arabian Radio Network said in a statement Revin John had been "let go" over a sketch Monday on Virgin Radio Dubai in which he quoted an article about a U.S. court throwing out a lawsuit against God.

John then pretended to act out a telephone conversation with God, prompting complaints from listeners of "diverse faiths and nationalities," said a statement written in reponse to questions from The Associated Press.

"He intended to be funny, not to offend anybody," said Arabian Radio Network Chief Operating Officer Steve Smith. "However, what he did was highly offensive to the Muslim and Christian community in the UAE."

Apparently impersonating fictitious characters is only allowed if you're doing a sketch on Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, pink unicorns, etc. In fact, I don't believe equal opportunity is shown to all deities here - I wonder: if he impersonated Zeus, Ra, or Quetzalcoatl would he have been fired? I reckon all gods are not created equal.

Mariam Zarouni, a 20-year-old chemical engineering student at the American University of Sharjah, said she was so offended by John's comments that she formed a group to protest the incident on the social networking Web site Facebook. It had 569 members by Wednesday evening.

"When somebody crosses the line, then you have to defend your religion," Zarouni said. "Honestly ... how can he do this? We're in a Muslim county. But even Christians would take offense to that. You can't insult God."

First off, when you create a facebook group, if you have less than 1,000 members you can hardly call yourself 'protest' group. A group on facebook called "Gay Marriage Killed the Dinosaurs" has almost 40,000 members. Secondly, if a 20-year-old chemical engineering student has time to be offended, she's not studying hard enough.

My favorite comment is "You can't insult God." Really? REALLY? To begin with, I was not aware that impersonation was in fact necessarily an insult. I figured that if we really wanted to insult god, it would take the form of, "Hey, god, your mom is so ugly, when she goes to the beach, cats try to bury her." No? Not appropriate? How about, "Hey god, while you were out last night killing all the first born, smiting the gentiles, and cutting the foreskin off of other babes, I was banging your wife." You're right. That's over the top. I'm gay, so I would probably bang god's husband, not his wife ... only if he was hot ... who I'm kidding, he's married to god, of course he's gonna be hot ... and probably a catcher, not a pitcher. After all, god is supposed to be omnipotent, that's got to come in handy sometimes.

I'm lucky enough to live in a country that truly believes in free speech. And I intend to practice that right until the day I die. There is no such thing as blasphemy. No topic should be off limits. When we decide that some things can't be said, that some things should never be discussed, we lose our freedom of speech and begin sliding down a slippery slope to fascism. When we make topics off-limits and cut ourselves off from free scientific inquiry, we end up with periods of history called the dark ages ... just ask the victims of the medieval inquisition or the salem witch trials.

And for any of you who may think that my views as an atheist are offensive, just remember what the people can do to a man or woman with a dissenting opinion. I'm sure you've learned about the holocaust at some point in your life ... the holocaust was a horrible, horrible stain on human history and I hope that it is not repeated, especially on that scale. Unfortunately there are people in this world who deny that the holocaust ever happened ... sick bastards. I bet you don't like their views either, just like me. But what should we do about it? Should we educate others about the truth? Should we oppose them in open public debate? Should we arrest and put in jail those people who claim the holocaust never happened? Right now, on October 25th, 2008, holocaust denial is explicitly or implicitly illegal in 13 countries: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, and Switzerland.

Does that scare you? I mean, I whole-heartedly disagree with flat-earthists and creationists but I would never promote legislation that would INCARCERATE them. Being free means you have the freedom to be smart AND stupid.

Don't forget that.

On a final note, Dubai is supposed to be the most liberal of the seven UAE states. The age of enlightenment began almost 400 years ago. Will it be another 400 hundred before the rest of the world catches up? 1000? The answer is up to us.

Natural Selection of a Graduate Student

It's getting closer and closer to the 2008 graduate student symposium event! For your enjoyment, watch this video I made about 'natural selection' of graduate students:



Yes, we stole the idea from the Gatorade League of Clutch videos. But ours is *so* much cooler.

Not a moment too soon ...

It's been such wonderful weather lately - I was wearing shorts and t-shirts just last week before the temperature took a turn for the colder. Halloween is almost upon us, then the election (don't forget to vote!), then I'll teach a Saturday for Duke TIP, then the Graduate Student Symposium when Dr. Robert M. Hazen comes to talk about his origins of life research, then Thanksgiving, then our big choir concert, then finals, then some gift shopping, and finally a little christmas time with family. And right on time (about 2 weeks before Halloween) Rev. Donald Wildmon is starting his 'fight' to take back christmas!

That's right, we can't even get to "trick or treat" before we have to hear conservative wingnuts complain about the infamous and imaginary 'attack-on-christmas' propaganda. Rob Boston said it best in his blog entry:

Some stores, aware that not all of their customers celebrate Christmas, use a generic greeting. No one is trying to offend you or ruin your holiday. In fact, if you are really bothered by the type of holiday greeting you receive from a drug-store clerk in December, I'd like to suggest that you need to ask Santa to bring you a life.

Does anyone seriously think Christmas is under assault in the United States? Retailers certainly don't. In fact, they are starting to panic. Worried that the economic downturn might reduce spending this year, retailers are looking for ways to boost Christmas spirit - and sales. I imagine big corporations will instruct their employees to use any greeting possible if it will encourage more buying.

And therein lies the problem. Wildmon and his obsessive Religious Right pals continue to fixate on the use of the phrase "Merry Christmas," as if store workers' by-rote repetition of it will somehow cause Americans to infuse the holiday with more religious meaning. (It reminds me of how the Religious Right persists in believing that 30 seconds of watered-down, generic prayer in public school every day will make kids more devout.) Wildmon is looking at the business community to make Christmas more religious - the business community!

The 'Rev.' Wildmon is from the American Family Association. To fight back against the war on christmas they employed the use of ... buttons! Indeed, there are buttons and glossy stickers of all different sizes (and different prices for that matter) that you can buy to push back against the evil-doers who might be inclined to say 'happy holidays' instead of 'merry christmas' to be more inclusive of strangers they might meet.

In the words of the 'Rev.':

It's hard to believe that there are companies and individuals who want to ban "Merry Christmas" and replace it with "Holiday Greetings" because, they say, they don't want to offend anyone.

It gets better:

Christians can take a stand and proclaim to our communities that Christmas is not just a winter holiday focused on materialism, but a "holy day" when we celebrate the birth of our Savior. We can do it in a gentle and effective way by wearing the “It’s OK to say Merry Christmas” button.

But fighting back isn't free:

Purchase enough buttons for each member of your church and enough Glossy Stickers for each family to have one to go on their automobile. Urge your fellow members to wear their buttons and display the Glossy Stickers during the entire Christmas season.

If you are unable to sponsor your church yourself, ask your Sunday School class to make it a class project. You can even order buttons and Glossy Stickers to share with co-workers, children in Christian schools, customers, etc.

And for any of you nay-sayers who think that asking big-business to stop being so inclusive of everyone by wearing buttons won't work:

Some might think simply wearing a button or displaying a Glossy Sticker is a small thing, but God can use small things to make a big point, and to create opportunities to share the Good News. And what a great time to do that at Christmas!

That's right, is there anything god, zeus, athena, thor, apollo, ra, purple spaghetti monster, etc. can't do?

In response to their button, I'd like to offer my own:

Brainbow mouse!

Someone made a comment about "Brainbow" mouse, the 18th place winner in this year's Nikon Small World Contest. If you want to see all of the top twenty winners just click here.

Here's my favorite ... "Brainbow" transgenic mouse hippocampus:

Glowing Green with Envy

In all of this election clamor, I forgot to post the winners of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for this year. The award was split between three scientists for their discovery and development of Green Fluorescent Protein or GFP: Osamu Shimomura, Martin Chalfie, and Roger Y. Tsien.

I think this prize was rightly awarded this year. Their discovery boosted a huge jump in basic science research by pioneering a new tool that could be used to investigate questions about that molecular world. GFP was originally discovered in the jellyfish, Aequorea victoria, and is known to give that iridescent glow to our sea-water friends. This natural sort-of night light is not uncommon in the animal kingdom. It turns out that bioluminescence has evolved independetly about 30 differents times in organisms we see today. Another example is the firefly which uses a protein called luciferase to activate a substrate which will the glow after cleavage. GFP is different, however, because it can fluoresce on its own, with no need for a substrate.

The implications for the discovery of GFP have been far-reaching, and I'll just touch on a few in the biomedical sciences. GFP is a protein coded for by a gene in the jellyfish. Scientists were able to cut this gene out, and put it in other species to make them glow - first, by just making it glow in all the cells for a proof of principle. Then they began to put different promoters in front of the gene, or 'switches' that can control whether or not the gene is on or off. For example, if Gene X is only turned on in the stomach and I want to put GFP only in the stomach, I'll take the 'switch' for Gene X (usually sits right in front of the gene) and put a copy in front of GFP so that it only turns on in the stomach. This way, scientists could label particular organs, tissues, or even single cells to carry out different studies.

But what about more than one cell type? No problem - scientists have tinkered with GFP to make RFP (red), YFP (yellow), BFP (blue), CFP (Cyan), mStrawberry, Tomato, Cherry, Plum, Katushka, Kate, and the names just get better and better. We can label all sorts of cells differently and all at the same time!

What's even cooler, is that we can actually engineer a normal protein that has a normal function in a cell to have GFP at the end of it, literally attached to it. This way we can follow around single molecules inside a cell to see where they go and what other molecules they interact with!

Other strategies have used this type of labeling to sort out cell types from complex tissues using a machine that recognizes the fluorescent color.

These examples just scratch the surface of the kinds of techniques GFP has allowed us to explore. I'll leave you with a picture I took of one of my embryonic mouse gonads using a transgenic mouse line using GFP. This is a picture of an E12.5 mouse testis from an Oct4:EGFP embryo - that means only germ cells are labelled - in this case, I've psuedocolored the GFP positive germ cells to look PINK, so don't be fooled - I've labelled two other molecules: laminin and PECAM.

Behold the power of GFP:

Cellular Manipulations ... Stem Cells on the Rise

Just last week in the peer-reviewed journal Science, a report was published detailing how to generate induced pluripotent stem cells (or iPS cells) through genetic manipulation without the use of viral vectors. This work was submitted by Keisuke Okita, Masato Nakagawa, Hong Hyenjong, and Shinya Yamanaka.

Dr. Yamanka and colleagues previously published research detailing their work creating iPS cells using retroviral and lentiviral vectors that randomly incorporate into the genome of the host cell. These incorporated genetic components used only three genes: Oct4, Sox2, and Klf4. The resulting iPS cells could differentiation into any cell type.

Though promising, clinical progress would be limited due to safety concerns using retroviral/lentiviral infection - it turns out this poses a seroius risk of activating or inactivating important host genes that could ultimately lead to cancer or other disastrous consequences.

Using this new plamist transfection reported this month, that risk is averted - though the efficiency of manipulation is actually lower. The successful cells could still be differentiated into progeny of all three germ layers, indicating the continued power in iPS cells derived using this newer method.

While efficiency issues still need to be worked out, this is a huge step forward and could soon be translated into the clinic with a lot more hard work.

Evolution is ... Jewish?

One of my friends sent me a link this week to a website that exposes a particularly sinister PAC called the 'Fair Education Foundation.' Upon initial examination you might suspect that this is some sort of joke, but after careful scrutiny you'll find that the people behind it are quite serious.

It turns out that this particular exposure is a little dated (from Feb of 2007) but worth an entry on my blog for the sake of demonstrating the kind of kooks you can find trying to tamper with our government.

The following is a memo purportedly sent from the office of Ben Bridges (R-Cleveland, GA) and concerns how to combat the teaching of evolution in the public school science classroom:
Particularly interesting is the strategy: since creationism and intelligent design (ID) can't be taught in the science classroom because of their religious agenda, Mr. Bridges will attempt to make evolution the agenda of Judaism. I'm sure they would love to live in this fantasy world where they can defeat evolution/science while also scoring points against another rival religion. Too bad this is one of the most absurd ideas and would never fly in a court of law.

Overlooking the apparent anti-semitism, the supporting evidence that is offered is the best part of the whole ordeal. The actual website for the PAC also includes further information about our planet and universe. Specifically they suggest 'evidence' for the idea that our planet does not revolve around the sun, but that it is suspended motionlessly in space by magnets ... magnets that were placed by god, no less:

So the take home message is that according to the Fair Education Foundation not only is evolution a lie from a cult Jewish sect, but the heliocentric model of our solar system is blatantly incorrect - all evidenced by scriptures from the christian bible.

It's sad that they believe this - though it's even more depressing that while Ben Bridges denies issuing this memo, claims to support it more than he would 'evolutionism' or 'big bangism.' To be exact he says, "I agree with it more than I would the Big Bang Theory or the Darwin Theory,” ... “I am convinced that rather than risk teaching a lie why teach anything?"

He is a state REPRESENTATIVE! Well, why would we expect someone who graduated from Barber College to actually understand basic 7th grade science?

Ontological, Schmontological!

Well, the final presidential debate is over, and not a moment too soon. I'm so tired of stump speeches, negative campaigning, and cliché pandering I could almost go vote for Ron Paul ... almost. If all else fails, we can just get Joe the Plumber to run our country.

At the very least it would be nice to listen to a real debate. If I wanted to hear weak arguments employing poor logic that is essentially lost in semantics or word play, I'd go listen to a religious believer or deist try to convince me of god's existence using a classic ontological argument.

So, why is the ontological argument so silly? For starters, it's essentially a tautology - an argument that takes as a premise its own conclusion. Let's examine one of the more classic interpretations:

1) By definition, God is perfect and thus greater than anything a human being could imagine.
2) If you can imagine something, it would be 'better' or 'more perfect' if that imaginary thing were actually real.
3) Therefore God must exist.

Confused yet? It's saying that if you try and imagine a 'God', he's probably perfect (meaning lots of fun things like awesome, good, the best). The twist (and assumption) is that if you can imagine something incredibly crazy cool, wouldn't it be that much COOLER if what you imagine actually came true?! If 'God' is perfect, and a perfect real thing is better than a perfect imaginary thing, then by the definition that perfect is more perfect in reality 'God' must be real.

This is as much word play as it is anything else. The base assumption that something perfect is 'more perfect' if it is actually real rather than imaginary seems to us (in modern days) a very unwarranted assumption. I reckon that many years ago it did not seem so odd.

More importantly, if we were to apply this logic to other ideas many people would find it laughable. Take Santa Claus for example (SPOILER ALERT!). Santa Claus is a fictitious character (hope you knew that already) that is a part of many cultures - at least, most of you who read this will think that. But I'm sure someone out there will claim that, in fact, Kris Kringle is as real as you and me, and he has amazing powers at Christmas time. You might say that that someone out there is crazy. Until that someone looks you in the eye and says "Santa Claus is perfect/the best/awesome at delivering gifts to everyone at Christmas time." By the logic laid forth above, Santa Claus must be real since the mere construction of the belief in this kind of perfection dictates its reality ... by definition! We have our tautology and with that, we can begin to imagine all sorts of crazy things into existence. Go ahead, try it! I've always wanted a pink-eared, fuzzy-bottomed, lion-tailed, ostrich-winged goldfish as a pet.

If you want a really great explanation/discussion of this ancient play on words, visit the skeptics guide to the universe and download podcast #80.

Now, if only I could find a politician who could even explain what the ontological argument IS, much less refute it, I would at least feel comforted knowing the intellectual capacity of the person running my government is better than a bush. If I cannot have a more skeptical candidate, at least I can have HOPE.

Fake Religion Fakery

Twenty-one days until the presidential election, and both campaigns are out in full force. Currently the news looks disheartening for McCain as he's seen a big drop in poll numbers recently:


Social conservatives don't like the fact that they are about to lose their hold on the American government and have been showing their distaste accordingly:

The incompetence is running amok this election year ... though I'm not inclined to believe it's ignorance any more. Citizens motivated enough towards political activism (in this case organizing, making posters, and protesting) generally check their facts before writing on the white board. Even a cursory glance at the news online or on television would indicate the fallacies of this protest poster. This sort of display is less an example of ignorance to the facts as much as it is intellectually dishonest about the facts ... a much more dangerous sin.

I believe FiveThirtyEight.com said it best, "Just to be clear, we at FiveThirtyEight are against Muslim-murdering Presidential Christian babies !FOR! Ohio." And I here at 'A Journey to Reason' blogspot am against intellectual dishonesty and the propagation of false ideas.

The marriage of Hitchens and ... Obama?

Worlds colliding for me today - Christopher Hitchens, one of my idols for critical thinking and independent inquiry, has just today endorsed the Obama-Biden ticket. While I agree with Hitchens in many realms, politics is not usually one of them as he considers himself a neo-conservative. One thing is for sure though; I may not agree with him, but his positions are very well thought out, intellectually honest, and defended with great vigor. I'm pleased to see that he is now supporting a candidate that I also believe to be the best choice.

His characterization of the McCain campaign's current predicament and national spotlight attention is quite keen:

Last week's so-called town-hall event showed Sen. John McCain to be someone suffering from an increasingly obvious and embarrassing deficit, both cognitive and physical. And the only public events that have so far featured his absurd choice of running mate have shown her to be a deceiving and unscrupulous woman utterly unversed in any of the needful political discourses but easily trained to utter preposterous lies and to appeal to the basest element of her audience.

Mr. Hitchens does not coat any argument with even the slightest bit of sugar. Here's what he has to say about Palin:

I wrote not long ago that it was not right to condescend to her just because of her provincial roots or her piety, let alone her slight flirtatiousness, but really her conduct since then has been a national disgrace. It turns out that none of her early claims to political courage was founded in fact, and it further turns out that some of the untested rumors about her—her vindictiveness in local quarrels, her bizarre religious and political affiliations—were very well-founded, indeed.

His arguments are pointed and frankly undeniable in most cases. The point with which I disagree is that he wishes the election could end post-haste as to save them more disgrace. I openly admit that I'd like to see this part of the campaign drag on - it's time for dirty campaign rhetoric to be exposed as the filthy manipulation that it is. With enough media attention to the non-sequiters and attack ads that McCain-Palin have hurled, I hope we could shore up enough embarrassment to last us at least two more elections in the future - maybe more.

The constant fear-mongering that is put out by the republican party must come to an end. Only when people realize that voting out of fear is not the best method to choose wisely will we be able to clearly rationalize a path into the future.

As for now - let the topsy-turvey worlds unite ... Christopher Hitchens for Obama!

Sarah Palin and the Dinosaurs

Well it's almost upon us ... the 2008 US presidential election is a mere 3 weeks or so away, and I can't wait for it to finish. It has been very exciting to follow, and at times, excruciating. For an update on where things stand, check out this awesome website where statistics are done right.

Sarah Palin (the current governor of Alaska) is McCain's pick for VP - and it's turning out to be the worst decision he ever made. In combination with the tanking economy, the McCain-Palin poll numbers have dropped to the point that some pundits are already calling the election for Obama-Biden. Only time will tell.

But why has McCain's pick not solidified a base and increased his numbers? Perhaps, in part, because middle america is worn out of religious fundamentalism that Bush has thrust upon us. Palin believes abortion should be illegal (including cases of rape and incest), beleves women should pay for their own rape kits, thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the science classroom, believes that Iraq is a task from god, "tolerates" homosexuals and the choice they make, and believes in exorcisms (as she has had one herself) and speaking in tongues. This is just a sampling of the radical religious views Palin chooses to embrace.

Her lone media interview (with Katie Couric) was nearly unbearable - just to watch it I had to sit with my finger on the ON/OFF button because I just couldn't stand to hear her answers out of sheer embarrassment for her. How, in any way, did McCain think she was ready to be VP? One good thing that comes from this, is that she is a very inexperienced, fundamentally religious woman who has been thrust into the spotlight where she must answer to the scrutiny of the general public and mass media. Her fundamentally religious perspectives that are internally inconsistent are exposed in the national limelight. There have been times, that watching her answer a question with some religious rhetoric, she fumbles and almost seems to want to take it back, or change her answer - you can see her almost as if she realizes how stupid it sounds and she's about to change her view. Instead she continues to rattle it off, even though it just sounds utterly ridiculous.

This lame attempt to get peoples' votes by appealing to their religious/superstitious side is the case-in-point of how RELIGION is a very dangerous system. Most intelligent people I argue with about religion continue to rebut by saying, "But Matthew, who cares? At the end of the day, it's just a belief. Why do you care so much about what someone believes?" And my continual response is that it lays a foundation for someone to take absolute advantage of you. It never stops at 'just a belief in god.' There's always something attached - god thinks abortion is wrong, god created the world (he did not 'evolve' it), god guides our moral compass to attack other countries, god did not create marriage for homosexuals ... etc. Sarah Palin is using a dogma of superstition to connect with people and win their votes. It's despicable.

Of course she claims that her judgment is clear and that she is completely qualified to be not just the VP, but the Prez herself should John McCain pass away in office (which isn't hard to imagine seeing he's already 72 years old). Why should we questions her judgment? Aside from the fact that she says her foreign policy experience is sound because Alaska is right next to Russia on a map - the woman believes that dinosaurs lived with humans ... something science says couldn't have happened because we're separated by about 65,000,000 years of evolution.

Just remember - when you walk into the voting booth this November, ask yourself W.W.T.R.D.? (What Would Tyrannosaurus Rex Do?)

The XX --- XY divide ... evidence from Turner's patients.

I thought it would be fun to enter a science post ... and not just any science post, but something really cool and taken from about a decade ago. I work in a lab that focuses on mammalian sex determination, and there are many interesting debates that are tackled on a day-to-day basis. My boss brought this study to my attention earlier this month, and it was concerning research published in 1997.

David Skuse is very creative and wanted to find a way to see if there are differences in sex chromosomes depending on if we inherit them from mom or dad. In humans, two X chromosomes (XX) leads to female development, and an X and Y chromosome (XY) lead to male development. As such, when your parents used their gametes to make you, your mom HAD to pass on an X chromosome to you. If you are female, then dad happened to give you his X; alternatively, if you are male, then dad happened to give you his Y.

Well sometimes things don't go as planned, and instead of passing one of these on to you, a parent's gamete fails to deliver with any sex chromsome at all. Now, if you only receive a Y chromsome, you can't develop at all - the embryo can't survive. But if you only receive one X chromosome, you'll grow up just fine, though with a few minor problems. This scenario (45,X) is referred to as Turner's syndrome. These individuals, while only having one X chromsome, will develop physically as females. But interestingly, the single X chromosome could come from mom OR dad.

David Skuse saw this special group of individuals as a fantastic opportunity to explore some questions we have about human (and sexually dimorphic) behavior. In general, we think of girls as having better social cognitive function than boys. But could there be a genetic basis for this? The Y chromosome is very tiny in comparison to the X, so there are actually many genes that only exist on the X (which is important because you ALWAYS get two copies of every gene, one from mom and one from dad, unless you are a boy and only have one X). To keep things fairly at an equilibrium, girls actually INACTIVATE one of their X chromosomes so that they only use one, just like the boys - though this inactivation process is random. In the end, ALL boys use the X that their mom gave them, but girls use either the X from the mom or from the dad. This is where it gets interesting.

David Skuse hypothesized that maybe these X chromosomes are not the same - maybe they are partly responsible for different behaviors that we associate with the different sexes. He looked at Turner's syndrome patients and saw that some got their X from mom, while others got theirs from dad. He did a basic and thorough study to determine the social cognitive skills, comparing patients who got their X from mom directly to those who got their X from dad. His results are very interesting!


Subjects who received their X chromsome from the mom, scored much higher for social-cognitive DISFUNCTION! Individuals receiving their X chromsome from dad were much better adjusted and had better social-cognitive ratings. When compared to normal individuals, normaly XX girls have better social-cognitive skills than normal XY boys. This supports the notion that something on the X chromosome influences this behavior - XY boys have to get their X from the mom, and they do perform poorly, like the Turner's patients receiving the X from the mom. Alternatively, XX girls can use the X from either mom or dad, and they do much better with social-cognictive skills, like the Turner's patients receiveing the X from the dad.

This simple, yet elegant, study revealed the presence of an X-linked imprinted locus that affects social-cognitive skills in human sexually dimorphic behavior and supported the hypothesis of a genetic basis for this complex phenotype. Additionally, to quote the last sentence of the abstract, "If expressed only from the X chromosome of paternal origin, the existence of this locus could explain why 46,XY males (whose single X chromosome is maternal) are more vulnerable to developmental disorders of language and social cognition, such as autism, than are 46,XX females."

So remember, ladies - you have your fathers to thank (in part) for your superior social-cognitive skills. And guys, you can at least have the satisfaction of knowing that you'll be helping your daughter out, should you indeed 'decide' to pass on your X chromosome.

SUBMIT

Oh, it's that time of year again. School is beginning, new students are arriving, and for me the overcommitment begins. As part of my overcommitment to life, learning, and science, I'm co-chair of the Graduate Student Symposium committee. I'm also appointing myself to the marketing/advertising subcommittee.

As such, I've been working with my good buddy, Josh Lacsina. His ideas and acting together with my cinematography and production/editing skills, we've managed to put together a cool video. It also commemorates the 150th anniversary of the publication of 'On the Origin of Species' and the upcoming 200th birthday of Charles Darwin. This year's keynote address will be made by Dr. Robert Hazen, researcher at the Carnegie Institute who contributes to our understanding of origins research and early inorganic life.

Now, without further hubbub, the video. Be sure to comment and/or rate. Enjoy!

Happy Birthday, IVF!

It's a little belated, but July 25th was Louise Brown's 30th birthday! It is quite a milestone considering that she was the first 'test tube' baby to be born.

Since her birth, more then three million other babies have been conceived through in vitro fertilization, or IVF. It's so wonderful to see her doing so well. It actually is a bit of a worry, especially after seeing how poorly the early mammals did after first attempts at cloning. It turns out, epigenetics has as much to do with proper development as does classical genetics.

Chock another one up to science: Superstition - 0; Science - too many to count.

The Holy Realm of Crackerdom

I can't believe it's been this long since last I posted. The plan is to make this a much more regular ordeal. Now, on to the hubbub.

Two days ago, one of my favorite bloggers, PZ Myers, posted an entry about the final desecration of a cracker. Not just any cracker though; one taken from a church, blessed by a priest, and intended for human consumption - some of you might know this as the eucharist (I hate capitalizing letters for religious words - don't want to give undue respect to imaginary beings).

To explain why this took place, you would need to know the first party of the story. A student named Webster Cook (no relation to me) received the eucharist from the priest at the church, but refused to chew, and walked out with the cracker in his mouth to show his friends. After which point, the catholic church and many of its followers became furious. To the point that Mr. Cook received death threats, might face suspension/expulsion, and that catholics believe this is a hate crime, I can only hang my head in shame. Professor Myers did a great job relaying his sentiment, which I share, on his blog which you can read here. What seemed to cause an uproar was a challenge that PZ offered:

So, what to do. I have an idea. Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers? There's no way I can personally get them — my local churches have stakes prepared for me, I'm sure — but if any of you would be willing to do what it takes to get me some, or even one, and mail it to me, I'll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare. I won't be tempted to hold it hostage (no, not even if I have a choice between returning the Eucharist and watching Bill Donohue kick the pope in the balls, which would apparently be a more humane act than desecrating a goddamned cracker), but will instead treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web. I shall do so joyfully and with laughter in my heart.

Fortunately a reasonable man with stature in the blogging community stood up for Mr. Cook ... and he paid for it dearly. For the following 16 days after bringing attention to the story and calling the situation as he saw it, PZ Meyers was on the receiving end of hate mail himself. Not just ugly emails, but death threatening emails and others that threatened his family. Throughout the shenanigans, some emailed him to pray for him or his conversion to catholicism. Still others hurled insults, calling him a Jew, or making comparisons to how muslims would react if he were to desecrate a copy of the Koran. Emails went back and forth, people got fired from their jobs for sending hate emails, and then ... duh-duh-DUH! ... Bill Donahue got involved.

Bill Donahue, head of the Catholic League, is masterfully deluded by The Woo. He called for Dr. Meyers' resignation as professor from the University of Minnesota. Of course, the main reason is simply that PZ is clearly evil.

The notion that catholics believe in the cracker and wine BECOMING physically the body and blood of Jesus is called transubstantiation. Growing up methodist, the official doctrine is that we believed in consubstantiation. Then lastly we have those who think it's simply symbolic. Since you've probably heard of the first and the third, let me tell you how the apologetic methodists make it work.

John Wesley (founder of methodism) clearly was no ignoramus. He could easily reason that, upon receiving communion, the bread and wine remained just that: bread and wine. Clearly this was in conflict with the catholic view of transubstantiation. As such, consubstantiation keeps the hocus pocus of the materials without all that cognitive dissonance of the bread and wine still appearing to be bread and wine after the blessing. Quick and simple fix, no? So instead of the magic being that there is a material alteration in the space-time continuum, the bread and wine just become magical, granting whoever consumes, well, salvation.

OK - back to the story. After much attention, PZ Myers finally committed the act of cracker abuse. After a short history lesson of when and how the catholics decided to make transubstantiation the standard and demonize the Jews (read his entry here), he revealed his work.

Because we live in a world that believes a cracker is actually another human being, and even a god, if you only believe it into being so, he felt it appropriate to dispel this myth and put forth his personal view (that it's just a cracker) with fervent force. He actually 'desecrated' three items: he put a nail through the cracker, tore pages out of the Koran, and tore pages out of Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion and threw all of it in the trashcan. Under the image of his work, he reminds us that these are just items, things. To quote him, "Nothing must be held sacred."

Any belief structure that undermines reality and reason, is a poison waiting to destroy the minds of those willing to inbibe its sometimes convenient rhetoric. A cracker remains a cracker, no matter how many words you utter in front of it. The world is still a sphere, no matter how many times you say that it is flat. You cannot wish something into being - it is or it isn't.

The question is, will you let your curiosity question the world and discover the truth of reality?

Transition This!

I'm currently working in the lonely confocal microscope room, trying to keep my sanity after a few hours of work in a warm, smelly, dark room. I figure, hey, why not check out the answersingenesis.org site? They always have crazy stuff being posted there by that crazy australian, Ken Ham. Indeed, I have not been let down.

I decided to read Ken's blog - can't go wrong there - and see what new evidence he has to show me that creationism, not evolution, explains life as we know it, both functionally and philosophically. Here's a link to his entry: http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2008/03/04/semantics-and-evolution/

My apologies if his link has been removed due to the grotesqueness of its innaccuracies. :)

Ken has taken it upon himself to explain how, because of the profundity and cleverness of the intelligent design arguments, scientists are now panicking that someone has finally come along to punch holes in their quicksand 'theory' about how life essentially functions on this planet. According to Ham, scientists are now playing word games to 'reclaim' the word 'design' and to clear up ambiguities concerning transitional fossils. Ken Ham is so convinced by the obviousness of the scientific stupor that he doesn't clarify his point much - he simply quotes prominent scientists explaining how to combat the logos of intelligent design.

Not only is he arrogant, but he seems to be quite intellectually dishonest to boot. If anyone is playing semantics, it is Ken Ham. The constant bickering, that creationists aren't treated fairly because they are ignored by mainstream science, is incredibly exhausting, especially in light of this drivvel. How is it that he doesn't understand how the human mind works through an understanding of causality. Should we see something moving in the air in a particular direction, we assume that there was a 'cause' in the opposite direction to which the object is traveling. Many more scientists, including Richarrd Dawkins, have made the eloquent arguments better than I, indicating the amazing-ness of life's SEEMING design. We have a habit of looking at things from a designed perspective, and when they don't look designed, insist that they must somehow be. This is truly an incredibly weak argument that Ham is trying to make. Scientists have been awed at the complexity of biology by poetically admiting the superficial cleverness of the system as if it were 'designed.' Unfortunately certain sects have exploited the use of this term to mean something entirely different. I'm ready to have a discussion any day with someone who thinks that my near legally blind eyesight or herniated disc in my lower back were products of 'design.' But that's right - Ham concedes those biological flaws in the system are due to the fall of man because of original sin; perfectly reasonable, right?

The second point that Ham wants to make is just ludicrous. This is the same camp that supported the evolution challenge: show evidence of a transitional fossil (i.e. a cat headed dog being born from a cat, and giving birth to a dog) to prove evolution and win a monetary prize. I'm not lying - here, watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NkO6fQvydM

Understanding what a transitional fossil is should be key to knowing how intellectually dishonest these creationists are being. First off, let's do a thought experiment I once heard Richard Dawkins suggest on a podcast. Chimpanzees are our closest relatives. Because evolution is a bushy process in general, there have been other species besides just the two of us; however we're the only most related extant species in 2008. But if we were to consider alll of the other species that have gone extinct: Homo habilus, Homo erectus, etc. and line them up side by side; we should be able to have intercourse with the most related group, and they could then mate with their next most related group, and so forth down the line, until we realize that we're n degrees of separation from having screwed a chimp. I think it's quite sobering to realize that if all of these other species were alive with us today, this experiment would be possible.

The notion that we need a cat-headed dog to prove evolution is patently absurd. Anyone taking a cursory glance at an evolution text book realizes that cats and dogs didn't come from each other, they each come from a common ancestor! This goes hand in hand with the frequently repeated misconception that humans descended from chimps ... NO! Chimps AND humans descended from a COMMON ANCESTOR. Each time that a creationist rhetorically questions or states that "I didn't come from no monkey!" They're either ignorant or intellectually dishonest ... and judging from his age and intellect, something tells me that for Ken Ham, it's the latter.