In trying to defend the position that the blood clotting cascade is irreducibly complex creationists have tried to discount the evidence that dolphins, puffer fish, and lampreys lack some of the blood components that terrestrial mammals require to clot correctly. Their explanation went like this:
Bicycles have two wheels. Unicycles, having only one wheel, are missing an obvious component found on bicycles. Does this imply that you can remove one wheel from a bicycle and it will still function? Of course not. Try removing a wheel from a bike and you'll quickly see that it requires two wheels to function. The fact that a unicycle lacks certain components of a bicycle does not mean that the bicycle is therefore not irreducibly complex.
Another ID argument for irreducible complexity falls flat or, in this case, pulls a 36km wheelie... Sweet.
~A Puff of Logic~
(Notes: image retrieved from http://www.23mag.com/tricks/guiness.htm)
For infertile couples desperate to have a child IVF seems like a godsend, but to the catholic church IVF is the work of the devil, resulting in the 'death' of thousands of souls.
The problem is that during the course of IVF many more embryos are made than will actually be implanted, this is due to the relatively low success rate of a single artificial implantation. During the process the excess embryos are stored in a deep freeze. but what happens to them once the couple have had their baby?
Several options do exist, the couple can opt to preserve their embryos in case the want to have another child. Another possibility is to donate the excess embryo to another couple who are unable to undergo IVF themselves or discard the embryo. Finally, the embryos could be donated to medical research. This last option is permitted in Australia and the UK but currently banned in New Zealand despite being recommended by government advisers and the preferred choice for many IVF parents.
At this point the catholic church had to wade into the debate saying that an embryo must be given the unconditional respect due to all humans. The New Zealand Catholic Bioethics Centre said that the only way to uphold [the embryos'] dignity is to allow them to die. Forgetting that the catholic bioethics centre is unlikely to have any special expertise in this area, my question is: can a single cell have dignity or be deserving of unconditional respect? And is the Catholic answer of letting die really the ethical solution?
In a research environment it is true that these cells would eventually be destroyed but this occurs at the 200 cell stage called a blastocyst. The blastocyst has no recognisable human features, it has no complex nervous system to fell pain, and no brain with which to perceive the surroundings. It makes no difference to the embryo whether it is killed at the one cell stage or at the 200 cell stage. Allowing this research to be conducted could help to cure debilitating diseases and will save many lives. Couples should be allowed to donate their embryos to medical science without the unwelcome interference of the catholic church.
~A Puff of Logic~
(Notes: image retrieved from http://ecuprophets.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/jj_blastocyst.jpg)
The name of this blog comes from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, originally a radio series but I came across it in book form. At one point there is a small digression on the (non)-existence of God where the fideist viewpoint of religion is shown to be ridiculous.
On the babel fish...
Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this:
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
Here in New Zealand there is a brand of beer called "Tui" which has a rather clever advertising campaign. They have billboards with a witty comment, usually relating to current events, followed by a large "Yeah Right".
For example Winston Peters was a NZ politician who got into a bit of trouble over a donation which he said he didn't take.
Recently, one of these billboards has gone up with a message about the Christmas holiday but it appears to have been damaged. Take a look:
As you can see the "Right" in "Yeah Right" has been removed. If this was not done on purpose it is awfully convenient damage to only have effected one word. No doubt this petty vandalism cost Tui thousands of dollars to fix.
It just goes to show when you have God on your side everything is permitted.
~Cogito, ergo deus non est~
(Notes: image retrieved from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/legislation/news/article.cfm?c_id=247&objectid=10524701)
I recently sat a third year genetics exam as part of my undergraduate degree. It struck me while I was reading the final question what a brilliant subject biology is. Here's the question: "Describe a procedure for the generation of a genetically engineered mouse that is fluorescent when viewed under UV light." Awesome, and that's what I get to write about in exams.
~A Puff of Logic~
(Notes: image retrieved from http://www.medicineatyale.org/v1i3_october2005/graphics/mouse.jpg)
Recently, the Diocese of Bath and Wells enacted a ban on plastic flowers, teddy bears, and garden gnomes in the cemeteries at Wrington and Congresbury. The church called these decorations tacky and "inappropriate" for a dignified cemetery.
Perhaps this is fair enough after all it is supposed to be a solemn locale not the place for 'cheerful' gnomes, flowers, and teddy bears. The land itself also belongs to the church and the rules are clearly displayed. A spokesman added "Things such as gnomes and plastic flowers are not permitted because they are aesthetically unattractive and they make it harder to maintain the grounds." Fair enough.
However, the spokesman also had this to say, "There is no such thing as a real gnome so why should we have such unnatural creatures in churchyards?" Whoops, now they're in for it. Here are some images from the nearby churches, St. Andrews at Congresbury and All Saints' at Wrington. This picture of a stone corbel at St. Andrews suggests that maybe the church isn't so against comical little men dressed up in bright colours. Although it is supposed to represent a man with a headache in medieval times.
Even worse is All Saints' church which has angels
and gargoyles!
Hopefully the Diocese will immediately remove these "unnatural" creatures from the churches and increase the "aesthetic" of the buildings for all who visit them.
~Cogito, ergo deus non est~
(Notes: images retrieved from http://www.standrewscongresbury.org/history.php, http://www.wringtonsomerset.org.uk/allsaints/description3.html, http://www.wringtonsomerset.org.uk/allsaints/description2.html)
Mini nuclear power plants that can power up to 20,000 homes are close to becoming a reality. The devices are no larger than a garden shed and cost $25 million US dollars ($45 million NZD). They use a non-weapon grade low-enriched uranium fuel, are buried deep underground, and encased in concrete. All of which makes them very difficult to steal.
These 25 megawatt nuclear batteries have no moving parts (so no risk of a Chernobyl-like event) and are left in the ground for 5-10 years before they are dug up and refueled. Hyperion has already recieved over 6 years worth of orders, so look for these to come to a suburb near you. Except, of course, in New Zealand where a ban on nuclear power of all kinds still inhibits progress and makes us reliant on coal and gas technologies.
~A Puff of Logic~
(Notes: image retrieved from http://dvice.com/archives/2008/11/hyperion_starts.php)
There were many reasons to question Sarah Palin as the choice of potential vice-president for John McCain but one of the more disturbing moments came when Palin questioned the value of work done on fruit flies “in Paris, France.”
Fruit flies, scientific name Drosophila melanogaster, are arguably the most useful model organism that a geneticist has access to. The fully sequenced genome is publicly available at http://flybase.org ready to be searched and compared with newly isolated genes in other species. When a match is found it can give a researcher a head start in discovering the likely function of their new gene. Approximately three quarters of human disease genes show homology to coding regions in the fruit fly genome. This has made Drosophila useful as a model for diseases like Alzheimer’s, Huntington’s, and Parkinson’s. Do we really want to end funding for important research areas such as these?
Incredible scientific advancements have been made using Drosophila, these include:
·The first mutation – white eye
·Proving that genes were located on chromosomes
·The discovery of polytene chromosomes
·Elucidation of the receptor tyrosine kinase pathway – important for growth signals and in cancer
·Drosophila was the second multi-cellular organism to have its genome sequenced.
This is to name only a few. Drosophila also provides an outlet for the biologist’s sense of humour. Mutant flies are often named after the phenotype that they display. For example, the cheap date mutant is especially sensitive to alcohol whilst the tin-man mutant fails to develop a heart.
Research into genetics, development, and disease will continue in this amazing model organism, even in “Paris, France” whether Sarah Palin thinks it benefits the public good or not. Thankfully, Palin will not be entering the White House let’s hope she fades to obscurity with…
~A Puff of Logic~
(Notes: image retreived from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drosophila_melanogaster)
Posts
