Pet Peeve: Faux-superiority from publicly announcing that you do not do something that most other people do. In my circles, this usually involves not watching television, following sports, or consuming alcohol.
For example:
I do not[1] watch television. I do not even own a television.
Bully for you. Apparently, you are better than I. I watch television. I follow sports. And, I consume alcohol. Continue reading “The Theatre and The Tube”
From Melville’s under-appreciated Mardi:
On a quest for his missing love Yillah, an AWOL sailor pretending to be a demi-god travels the (imaginary) Mardi chain of Polynesian islands via canoe fleet, in the company of fellow demi-god King Media and his entourage. After viewing some fossils, the group’s resident philosopher, Babbalanja is asked how the islands were created. A scientific explanation being unsatisfactory to the group, Babbalanja presents an alternate hypothesis:
Media said:—”Babbalanja, you love all mysteries; here’s a fitting theme. You have given us the history of the rock; can your sapience tell the origin of all the isles? how Mardi came to be?” Continue reading “Melville on Science vs. Creation Myth”
For Jason Kuznicki says he does not grok relativity:
“I’ve read several books about evolutionary theory, and they seem convincing to me. I’ve read Darwin. I’ve read Gould. I’ve read Dennett. In college, my physical anthropology textbooks made sense to me, although I admit I’ve forgotten their authors’ names. I haven’t read Dawkins, but I suspect I can do without him. I’m already quite convinced.
Now this is not always the case when I read about science. I’ve also read several books about relativity, and I’m not convinced. The stuff just makes no sense to me, and I sort of have to shrug and give up. Where my rational side agrees that evolution is correct, I’m taking relativity on the authority of others. You don’t really want to hear what my rational side says about relativity. It’s too embarrassing.
I strongly suspect that most non-scientists who say otherwise about relativity are either talking out their asses or else have turned relativity into a sort of well-boundaried micro-religion… They can’t explain it, but fie on you if you don’t believe. Now, plenty of people do not, in fact, believe it, and not because it is nonsensical to them, but because they have never tried to understand it — what they’ve heard about it gives them the howling fantods, and they give up before they try.”
The existence of functional, non-protein-coding DNA is all too frequently portrayed as a great surprise uncovered by genome sequencing projects, both in large media outlets and in scientific publications that should have better quality control in place.
Eric Lander, writing a Human Genome Project 10th anniversary retrospective in Nature, explains the real surprise about non-coding DNA that was revealed by big omics projects.
Despite ravings about the newly identified mysteries of the ‘dark genome’, it remains a fact that functional, non-protein-coding DNA has been known for more than half a century, well before such interesting things as micro RNAs, ribozymes, and long ncRNA were discovered. The diversity of functional (and dubiously functional) RNAs has been genuinely interesting, but, in my humble opinion, not nearly as surprising as the discovery made about the relatively small slice of the human genome that shows strong evolutionary conservation (and is therefore most likely to be functional). Lander writes:
Continue reading “Non-coding DNA function… surprising?”
The big controversy from the weekend, amongst rugbyphiles[1], was about Jonathan Davies (center for Wales) tripping Chris Ashton (wing for England) in their recent Six Nations[2] match. Tripping is illegal in Rugby (but not in Glastonbury[3]) and considered quite dangerous, leading fans to wonder/worry whether Davies would be disciplined for the incident[4], seen here:
The Finch and Pea 