Denying evolution by denying evolution

by jonrawlinson

Also, the sharks are smarter than Eric Hovind
[Via Freethought Blogs]

The news a few weeks ago was that hybrid sharks had been found off the coast of Australia. They looked like tropical Australian black-tip sharks, but genetic testing revealed that they’d hybridized with the common black-tip, which has a wider range; these hybrid black-tips were similarly extending their range and living in colder waters.

This is an excellent example of evolution: it’s a population shifting its range, correlated with an observation of novel genetic attributes. This is exactly the kind of gradual transition that we’d expect to be compatible with evolutionary theory.

Unless you’re a creationist, of course. Or an idiot. But I repeat myself.

I wonder if they ever considered that when you stand back and look at them, they are all sharks. That means they are the same kind of animal. That is not evolution taking place; there is no changing from one kind of animal into another kind of animal happening here. We started with a shark and now we have a shark. That is not evolution!

[More]

Yes. define evolution as something that is not evolution. That is how creationists role.

When I read the story, my first thoughts were how the hybrids reacted to changing conditions, did the hybrids exhibit a greater ability to deal with the new environments and, if so, how much better was it than either parent alone.

To a creationist, the story leads to denialism and no further questions.

Scientists knew this over 400 years ago. Johannes Kepler, when describing the first nova seen in the West in the Middle Ages, stated:

Priusquam autem ad creationem, hoc est ad finem omnis disputationis, veniamus: tentanda omnia existimo.
However, before we come to [special] creation, which puts an end to all discussion: I think we should try everything else.

Even then, scientists realized that  special denialism stopped discussions and prohibited understanding of the world around us.

A nice explanation of why this winter is so unusual

Remarkably dry and warm winter due to record extreme jet stream configuration
[Via Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog]

Flowers are sprouting in January in New Hampshire, the Sierra Mountains in California are nearly snow-free, and lakes in much of Michigan still have not frozen. It’s 2012, and the new year is ringing in another ridiculously wacky winter for the U.S. In Fargo, North Dakota yesterday, the mercury soared to 55°F, breaking a 1908 record for warmest January day in recorded history. More than 99% of North Dakota had no snow on the ground this morning, and over 95% of the country that normally has snow at this time of year had below-average snow cover. High temperatures in Nebraska yesterday were in the 60s, more than 30° above average. Storm activity has been almost nil over the past week over the entire U.S., with the jet stream bottled up far to the north in Canada. It has been remarkable to look at the radar displayday after day and see virtually no echoes, and it is very likely that this has been the driest first week of January in U.S. recorded history. Portions of northern New England, the Upper Midwest, and the mountains of the Western U.S. that are normally under a foot of more of snow by now have no snow, or just a dusting of less than an inch. Approximately half of the U.S. had temperatures at least 5°F above average during the month of December, with portions of North Dakota and Minnesota seeing temperatures 9°F above average. The strangely warm and dry start to winter is not limited to the U.S–all of continental Europe experienced well above-average temperatures during December.

[More]

Even with a La Nina that should bring colder and wetter weather, the Atlantic is having effects to drive a warmer and drier one. SOme of the most extreme data readings ever have been seen so far.

Cold Arctic air simply can not make it down into the States. It is very likely that the rest of the winter will bring few storms and little moisture for much of the country. This could make for a very dry Spring.

Innovation during times of danger

Coffee Cup Alerts Mount Rainier Campers
[Via Discovery News - Top Stories]

When a helicopter pilot needed to alert several Mount Rainier campers that a deadly attacker was on the run, he used a low-tech solution: coffee cups.

[More]

With a killer on the loose in the park, the helicopter pilot needed to warn the campers. But they could not  hear what he was saying.

Luckily he had a cup and a pen. Low tech way to communicate but it worked.

Okay, this is the iPad case we all need

Soft Exoskeleton Shields iPad from Bowling Balls
[Via Discovery News - Top Stories]

G-Form’s iPad Extreme Sleeve 2 utilizes super impact-absorbing material to protect tablets from drops and shocks.

[More]

They dropped it from 60 feet onto concrete with no problem:

They launched it into space and, after falling 100,000 feet, it returned the iPad to the ground unscathed:

They dropped a bowling ball on it – from a height that destroyed the screen on a normal iPad:

Wow. Sad to see some iPads destroyed.

More stupid legislation from the lapdogs of corporations

by Images_of_Money

Raising the barriers: restricting access to scientific literature will hurt STEM education
[Via Discovering Biology in a Digital World]

This morning, I learned that congress wants to reverse the advances made by NIH and go back to restricting access to scientific publications. Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (New York) and Congressman Darrell Issa (California) are co-sponsoring a bill to restore the limits on public access to NIH-funded research.

I’ve written many times before (here, here, here, and here) about the challenges that community college faculty and students have in getting access to scientific papers.

In an era where the economic benefits of educating students in science are well-known (1), the idea of crippling science education by cutting off access to the primary literature is puzzling. If anything, I would expect congress to support science education by asking the National Science Foundation (NSF) to follow NIH’s lead and require that publications from NSF funded research be made open access, too.

Instead, bill H.R. 3699 will roll back the NIH Public Access Policy and block similar policies at other federal agencies. The effects would be horrific.

[More]

Yes, let’s roll back legislation that has made scientific information available to the public – much of it research funded by our tax dollars – so that for-profit publishers can increase their profits.

Who benefits from this law? As I mentioned earlier, the profits of only a couple of these publishers could serve to print every single scholarly paper in an Open Access journal – making the work paid for by our tax dollars to be available to everyone, not just those who can afford to pay.

And who generally pays for access to those journals, who provides the profits they have – mostly University libraries again using our tax dollars to pay for subscriptions.

Today, we pay for the research and we pay to access that work. Yet, there is a model where we can all read about the research we have paid for without having to pay anything more.

So why is the research paid for by our scientists being used to provide profits for publishers who restrict access to this work when the same money could be used to make the work available to us all? And why are legislators proposing bills that hurt the public need while helping only corporations?

Instead of pushing a bill to save the failing business models of their corporate masters, these politicians should be pushing legislation providing better incentives for publishing what is inherently our research in journals that make that work available to us.

But then I guess I do not understand the necessities of political corporatism.

Anti-science candidates demonstrate inability to think

by snowlepard

Rick Santorum and Science: Bad Combination!
[Via DeSmogBlog - Clearing the PR Pollution that Clouds Climate Science]

As Republican primary season schizophrenia continues, former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum is now in the spotlight, having very nearly beaten Mitt Romney in Iowa. So what do we people who care about science, and global warming in particular, know about Santorum?

Whoa boy.

None of the Republican candidates, with the possible exception of pro-science Tweeter Jon Huntsman, have distinguished themselves as science allies. Even sometime moderate Mitt Romney famously flip-flopped and cast doubt on human caused global warming; Rick Perry, meanwhile, thinks climate researchers are making it all up.

But Santorum? Arguably, his attacks on science surpass all of theirs.

Santorum, let us not forget, not only denies evolution, but has been an active anti-evolutionist in the past. In other words, he has made attacking fundamental scientific knowledge a key priority.

[More]

The main thing about Presidential candidates who deny what science is telling us – they demonstrate a tremendous inability to think clearly, to analyze deeply and to seek proper conclusions.

They think with their gut demonstrating why it is apparently the stupidest part of their anatomy.

And they amply demonstrate all the reasons why they should not be placed into arguably the most powerful job in the world.

Making decisions based on non-facts, lies and distortions – something every one of them has displayed when denying science – is not something I would like to see in the person responsible for life and death matters.

Some of the meanest periods in human history have been when nations were led or influenced by those who denied science.

La Nina still impacts the next few months

Water woes likely to continue
[Via CEJournal]

 

As Colorado snowpack suffers, La Niña could persist into summer

According to the latest forecast from the Climate Prediction Center, issued yesterday, the La Niña conditions that have contributed to the continuing drought in Texas and other regions are likely to persist through at least the Northern Hemisphere winter. And one ensemble modeling forecast from the CPC predicts that the abnormally cool sea surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean characteristic of La Niña could continue at least through summer.

La Niña favors weather patterns that tend to bring drier than normal conditions across a large swath of the southern United States (as the map on the right in the graphic above shows). And that’s more bad news for Texas and New Mexico.

[More]

This La Nina does seem to be providing warmer temperatures in the NW this year and the rain is about average. But we still have some more winter months to go.