Natalie grows up

I've seen these sorts of videos before, but this one is especially good. The parents of "Natalie" took her photo almost every day for ten years to create this video. She ages a year every 9 seconds, a bit less than on month per second. I'm fascinated by the many hostile comments under this video at YouTube. Why is this video so disturbing to so many people? The great dedication of Natalie's parents to this video has enabled us to see something that can't otherwise see day-to-day. Are so many people hostile because that watching this photo montage reminds them that they are mortal, that we are human animals? Or is it the result of decades of put-down humor pumped into Americans by sitcoms? Or something else?

Continue ReadingNatalie grows up

Can Future Censorship Be Regulated?

The question at hand is, who decides what you find on the web? I recently read Regulating the Information Gatekeepers about search engines. This article focused mainly on commercial implications of search engines changing their rules, and the ongoing arms race between companies that sell the service of tweaking web pages and links and click farms to optimize search engine ranking positions, and the search engines trying to filter out such bare toadying in favor of actual useful pages. On my MrTitanium.com site, I ignore all those search engine games and just provide solid content and current items for sale. In 2002, MrTitanium was usually in the first dozen results when Googling for "titanium jewelry". In 2003, Google decided that the number of links to a page was the primary sign of its usefulness. Within days, link farms popped up, and my site dropped from view. I waited it out, and in 2004, Google changed the rules again, and MrTitanium reappeared in the top 30. Top five for "titanium earrings". But the real question is, should someone be regulating these gatekeepers of information? Who decides whether a search for "antidepressants" should feature vendors, medical texts, or Scientology anti-psychiatry essays? There are two ways to censor information: Try to block and suppress it, or try to bury it. The forces of disinformation and counterknowledge are prolific and tireless. A search engine could (intentionally or inadvertently) favor certain well represented but misleading positions (such as Truthers or anti-vaxxers) over proven science, and give all comers the impression of validity and authority to "bad" ideas. But the question of regulation is a dangerous one. The best access to information is open. But if a well meaning legislature decides that there needs to be an oversight board, this board could evolve into information police and be taken over by populist electors who choose to suppress good information. On the other hand, the unregulated and essentially monopolistic search industry began with great ideals, and so far has been doing a good job at a hard task. But it, too, could become malignant if there is no oversight. Another facet is, whose jurisdiction would this fall under? If the U.S. congress passes laws that Google doesn't like, they simply move offshore. There are designs for, and even prototypes of, data centers that float beyond any countries jurisdiction, powered by waves and sun, and connected via fibers and satellites. If the U.N. starts regulating, then whose rules apply? North Korea? Iran? China? And who could enforce it? The information revolution is just beginning: We do live in interesting times.

Continue ReadingCan Future Censorship Be Regulated?

Human imperfections as proof that we evolved

Rob Dunn of the Smithsonian highlights ten human perfections as evidence that we evolved. "From hiccups to wisdom teeth, the evolution of homo sapiens has left behind some glaring, yet innately human, imperfections." What human features made the list? 1. The fact that mitochondria became the prey for our cells. 2. Hiccups. The original function? Our ancestors who were fish and early amphibians "pushed water past their gills while simultaneously pushing the glottis down." 3. Backaches. Learning how to stand up gave us the ability to see farther, and it gave us freedom to make better use of our hands. But the resulting "S" shaped back is not a good design for supporting our considerable weight. 4. Unsupported intestines. Standing up made them hang down "instead of being cradled by our stomach muscles." this often leads to hernias. 5. Choking. In most animals, the esophagus is below the trachea. This allows us to speak, but allow falling food and water "about a 50-50 chance of falling in the wrong tube." 6. We're cold in the winter. We lost our fur, and this proves that evolution is blind as to where we will end up. 7. Goosebumps. They are good for making our fur stand up when we look bigger to scare away a potential predator. But See #6: we lost our fur. 8. Our brains squeeze our teeth. Bigger brains left less room for big jaws. I'm not convinced that the big brain came first, however. I've read accounts that suggest that fire lead to less need for big jaws to chew uncooked food, which lead to more room for the brain. 9. Obesity. Those strong cravings for sugar, salt and fat were great when we lived on the savanna, where these things are scarce. In our current food-rich environment, these ancient cravings are toxic for most of us. 10. Rob Dunn makes this the miscellaneous category. He includes male nipples, blind spots in our eyes, and our coccyx (a bone that used to be our tail).

Continue ReadingHuman imperfections as proof that we evolved

A complex cell’s best friend

When I first studied mitochondria, back when I was a high school student, I didn’t appreciate their importance or their origin. I got a lot smarter recently, especially after reading "The Energetics of Genome Complexity," by Nick Lane and William Martin, in the October 21, 2010 edition of Nature (available online only to subscribers). I now realize that Mitochondria are organelles that generate energy in the form of ATP, and that without mitochondria, humans wouldn't exist. Lane and Martin begin their article by asking: "Bacteria made a start up virtually every avenue of eukaryotic complexity, but then stopped short. Why?” As I indicated, in this article, I learned many things about mitochondria. I have inserted excerpts from the Lane/Martin article in several locations. Mitochondria formerly existed as their own independent life form (they were proto-bacteria), but they now reside within other cells. This combining of mitochondria happened only once about four billion years ago and all eukaryotes descended from that symbiotic occurrence. All Eukaryotes had mitochondria (or once did but lost them).

All eukaryotes share a common ancestor, which arose from prokaryotes just once in 4 billion years. Genomic chimaerism points to the origin of eukaryotes in an endosymbiosis between eukaryotes. All eukaryotes either possessed mitochondria, or once did and later lost them, placing the origin of mitochondria and the eukaryotic cell as possibly the same event.

The host mitochondria were also prokaryotes. This was determined by Russian botanist Konstantin Mereschkowski in 1905 and, as you might expect, he was not believed. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingA complex cell’s best friend

God as a scientific explanation

Whenever I consider the magnificent structures of cells, I wonder “How could this possibly be?” There is no answer forthcoming, despite the incredible insight offered by scientists. What is, simply is, and I don’t have a reasonable answer for how such exquisite complexity can arise from a cosmic explosion and…

Continue ReadingGod as a scientific explanation