Humans as an aquatic species

Writer and evolutionary theorist Elaine Morgan starts her TED talk by describing the ongoing paradigm: Chimps stayed in the trees and humans hit the savannas. She argues that humans are just too different than the chimps to justify the ongoing paradigm--for instance, look at our naked (hairless) skin and bipedality. We didn't evolve on savanna. Something else must of happened. She explains that there is a close connection between all of the naked animal species and water. Water life could also explain bipedality. Consider our distinctive layer of fat, which can't be found in other primate species. Again, life in water would explain that layer in us (just like it explains that fat layer in whales). Consider also our speech. How is it that we can speak so well? Only the diving animals and diving birds have such incredible control of their breathing. Morgan argues that it's time to destroy the ongoing paradigm and declare that humans evolved in the water. According to Morgan, almost everybody likes the aquatic theory but almost everyone officially declares that it's "rubbish." But this is one of those cases where everyone could be wrong. She mentions David Attenborough and Daniel Dennett as recent converts to the aquatic ape theory. [Note: some scholars have given detailed criticism of the aquatic ape hypothesis. For instance, see this entry at Wikipedia].

Continue ReadingHumans as an aquatic species

Fly

This is another in the series of "backyard bug" photographs several of us are publishing from time to time at DI. I use a consumer grade cameras (Canon's SD1100SI), and I simply try to have fun finding the extraordinary in the ordinary. This fly photo turned out especially nicely (I think it enjoyed the attention), thanks to a perfectly diffuse batch of sun pouring through a modest layer of clouds outdoors. For this shot, the lens was about 1 inch from the fly. Here's two more thoughts. This little animal is on the same phylogenetic tree as human animals. This fly is my cousin. Hello, cousin! It puts this fly in such a different light to remember that. Second, how in the hell can a fly fly? I'm reminded of the conclusion reached in 1934 by French entomologist August Magnan, who calculated [albeit thinking of bees] that their flight was aerodynamically impossible. But they somehow can fly (and eat, poop, compete for mates and--oh my--mate). Utterly fantastic. OK, this is an aside: scientists have found that fruit flies compete by "displacement and incapacitation of a previous male’s sperm." Highly sophisticated stuff. Image by Erich Vieth

Continue ReadingFly

Bill O’Reilly’s math

This 22 second statement has got to be seen to be believed. Anyone this math-challenged shouldn't be discussing the Canadian health care system and shouldn't be on the air at all. Via Media Matters. Interesting statistic that the average Canadian lives almost 2 years longer than the average American. BTW, did you know that O'Reilly's average viewer is 71 years old? Who is he going to replace those viewers with in coming years?

Continue ReadingBill O’Reilly’s math

Verbing the net noun.

The word "texting" sounds harsh and garbled when it comes out of a speaker's mouth. A sentence where "text" is used as a verb, such as , "I texted him yesterday but he didn't text me back," instantly summons an image of a slack-jawed, gum-popping teenage girl- all ignorance and frivolity. The words just sound stupid. Don't blame me- some of us Gen-Yers fought off the term "texting" the same way we did bad fads like Crocs and Ugg boots. Even deep into the aughts, years after "texting", we still said "sending a text message" instead. "Texting" prevailed however, for the same reason that Crocs and Uggs became ubiquitous: aesthetics aside, it was damn comfy and easy. "Texting" might make for an ugly-sounding word, but it came out more smoothly and quickly than the correct "sending a text message".

Continue ReadingVerbing the net noun.

But is it still live music?

Back when I was in high school and college, I played the guitar and sang backup for my band. We called ourselves "Ego," and described ourselves as a "jazz-rock" band. There were eight of us, including a brass section--this splits the take rather painfully--but it was intensely satisfying for 18 and 19-year-olds to earn paychecks playing tunes by Chicago and Blood Sweat and Tears. I only sang a couple songs lead—I hid behind two incredibly talented singers who did most of the vocal work. The attached photo is Ego performing back in 1974. ego Since then, we've all gone on to pursue careers as such things as an engineer, teacher, letter carrier and lawyer (though our percussionist/lead singer, Charles Glenn, continues to make a living as a singer in the St. Louis area). Fast forward to 2009. I would love to play music with other musicians again, but I have a day job and a family (and a blog). It would be extremely difficult to arrange for rehearsals that didn't interfere with my many other obligations. I've recently started picking up my guitar to play and sing. It’s not sounding all that bad, and I’m starting to consider performing for others again. [BTW--I had a scary episode where my left hand became numb cause by a pinched nerve in my neck. After surgery, the feeling in my hand is returning nicely, which probably explains my renewed interest in playing music again.] I've never thought of myself as a singer, but I thought that I would have a much better chance of getting a solo gig if I learned to sing rather than just playing the guitar. Therefore, I recently took a singing lesson from Leslie Sanazaro, from whom I learned that my breathing was all wrong, a condition that can reportedly be remedied by doing exercises that would look and sound rather silly to anyone other than a singing teacher. Leslie advised me that my pitch is okay but that I need to get out there and get some confidence. She said that the best way to get confidence is to go out and sing in public, over and over. That's easy to say, of course. If you are not enamored with your voice, though, it is a daunting task. It brings back memories when, in the second grade, every student was required to stand up in front of the class and sing a song (my voice trembled and my knees knocked as I sang “Ooey Gooey Was a Worm"). And even when I can sing a couple short songs that sound half-decent, I've noticed that in extended sessions, my voice grates on me. The fears that I'm experiencing are common, according to Leslie. She sent me this caveat by email: "Don't get too burned out on your own voice, it's the only one there is!" My quest is thus to go out with a guitar and sing songs. It's something that I intend to do within the next month or two at an open mic session at a local bar or coffee shop. Not a big deal, perhaps. But my voice and my guitar make for such a tiny band, nothing like that eight-piece jazz rock ensemble that I surrounded myself with when I was a young musician. Are there other ways to spruce up my little band without collaborating with other musicians? Yes, indeed, there are many reasonably-priced options, but these options raise issues about the authenticity of one's "live" performance. For purists, there is no substitute for an acoustic guitar and an un-amplified voice. That's how I often practice at home. Over the years, however, various devices have been offered to musicians which make performances less pure, acoustically speaking. We are all now familiar with electronic amplifiers for voices and guitars. Those of us who like the acoustic sound can amplify it by sticking high-tech pickups into our acoustic guitars. I use a Fishman brand "Blend" pickup in my guitar, which combines a piezo microphone with a tiny acoustic microphone, giving you impressive control over the sound. Even when it is amplified substantially, the guitar still sounds "acoustic." So what else can you do to enhance the sound of a guitarist/singer?

Continue ReadingBut is it still live music?