Slashdot Mirror

Yes, it's not the oldest DNA, but on further study, that plant example is thought to be bacterial contamination [PDF]. The oldest-known current examples are things like extinct mammoths and mastodons that are much younger than 20 million years.

I'm completely unbiased on the male vs female front

Well that's a pretty strong claim. On what do you base that?

You probably don't discriminate on purpose, but according t studies our impression of a person varies based on factors that we are not consciously aware of.

If makeup can make a woman look more trustworthy, and tall people earn more that short people, I'd say that people can hold biases that they're themselves unaware of. Some may be biological rather than cultural. Men have been shown to take different economic choices after being shown a photograph of an attractive women.

Given all that I wonder if you can state confidently that you're unbiased on something as ingrained in both our culture and nature as the issue of gender without actually having performed a blind test.

The statement about mean IQ is somewhat accurate. However, there are subtle issues going on here. IQ is to some extent impacted by early childhood nutrition :, how much children are subject to disease http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/277/1701/3801, http://www.economist.com/node/16479286, toxin exposure http://www.ricknevin.com/uploads/Nevin_2000_Env_Res_Author_Manuscript.pdf and stereotype threat (essentially there's evidence that reminding a group about negative stereotypes about the group can cause them to perform more poorly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat ). So the problem with 11 isn't so much that it is false (the statistics are very robust) but that they likely don't reflect actual differences in underlying intelligence except at a very broad level. In this case, one could actually respond that the issues of nutrition and disease aren't that relevant if one cares about the actual intelligence of the individuals one is interacting with; their functional intelligence is likely higher than their tested intelligence, since stereotype threat can plausible explain most of the remaining difference. So in this single issue he is hitting on a potentially true statement, but even that statement is somewhat misguided. And most of the rest of the article, including the other bits you quote, is just appalling.

in fact, these kids got their research published without any references *at all*. http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/site/misc/BlackawtonBees.xhtml

i particularly like the section headings "once upon a time" and "the puzzle duh duh duhhhhh". i think however in the context of this article, the following exerpt from the background puts the corruption that has been highlighted by TFA to shame:

"So what follows is a novel study (scientifically and conceptually) in ‘kids speak’ without references to past literature, which is a challenge. Although the historical context of any study is of course important, including references in this instance would be disingenuous for two reasons. First, given the way scientific data are naturally reported, the relevant information is simply inaccessible to the literate ability of 8- to 10-year-old children, and second, the true motivation for any scientific study (at least one of integrity) is one's own curiousity, which for the children was not inspired by the scientific literature, but their own observations of the world. This lack of historical, scientific context does not diminish the resulting data, scientific methodology or merit of the discovery for the scientific and ‘non-scientific’ audience. On the contrary, it reveals science in its truest (most naive) form, and in this way makes explicit the commonality between science, art and indeed all creative activities."

According to this study, reading requires approximately a field of 3 by 5 degrees. With the retinal implant used (38x40 pixels) a field of view of 11 x 11 degrees was restored.
I do not think that the number of electrodes is the limiting factor. I guess the size of the electrodes and therefore the resolution achieved is really important. Another thing is that the contrast has to be sufficient to be able to detect things.

I lately had to present a paper dealing with these retina implants from Germany. It is quite amazing what can be done.
To have a quick view on what was possible there are some videos as additional material: Videos

Actually...that 'fish' in your sushi...is not what you think it is...

"report on genetic identification of ‘whale meat’ purchased in sushi restaurants in Los Angeles, CA (USA)"
http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2010/04/08/rsbl.2010.0239.full

You can submit a DNA sample online to identify the 'fish' in your sushi :D
http://www.dna-surveillance.auckland.ac.nz/
Plenty of evidence out there that whale and dolphin meat from endangered species is sold as 'fish' both in Japan and exported to various countries in the world.

Well the "aimed at" part might actually produce a bunch of hooey considering that some researchers somehow figured out that duck spoof has antibiotic properties. And if that makes you squeamish at the thought, the Scandinavians have figured out that human spoof does too! Now to convince your girlfriend/wife that you are really trying to help her when she gets strep throat.

From Newton (1671)

A Letter of Mr. Isaac Newton, Professor of the Mathematicks in the University of Cambridge; containing his New Theory about Light and Colors.

7. But the most surprising and wonderful composition was that of Whiteness. There is no one sort of Rays which alone can exhibit this. 'Tis ever compounded, and to its composition are requisite all the aforesaid primary Colours, mixed in a due proportion. I have often with Admiration beheld, that all the Colours of the Prisme being made to converge, and thereby to be again mixed as they were in the light before it was Incident upon the Prisme, reproduced light, intirely and perfectly white, and not at all sensibly differing from a direct Light of the Sun, unless when the glasses, I used, were not sufficiently clear; for then they would a little incline to their colour.

Cool stuff...

|"When you get right down to it, behaviour doesn't fossilise

True, mostly. But sometimes we get very lucky... Velociraptor vs. Protoceratops [bhigr.com]. This gave some insight to how velociraptors used their big claws. (For gripping and stabbing, not slashing.)"

That is a very famous and spectacular specimen, although the picture you've linked to isn't the real one, but a reconstruction. Anyway, it didn't provide a great deal of insight into the mechanics of Velociraptor's claws. It was this experiment by Manning et al. that did (and for once you can read the whole paper without needing a subscription).

It must be quite a trick, estimating how those larger brains must have been structured, considering they're ... entirely decayed by now. Their paper http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/07/12/rsbl.2011.0570.full doesn't appear to substantiate it either. Where exactly did the BBC get that quote?

Modern debate regarding the extinction of non-avian dinosaurs was ignited by the publication of the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K-T) asteroid impact theory and has seen 30 years of dispute over the position of the stratigraphically youngest in situ dinosaur. A zone devoid of dinosaur fossils reported from the last 3 m of the Upper Cretaceous, coined the '3 m gap', has helped drive controversy. Here, we report the discovery of the stratigraphically youngest in situ dinosaur specimen: a ceratopsian brow horn found in a poorly rooted, silty, mudstone floodplain deposit located no more than 13 cm below the palynologically defined boundary. The K-T boundary is identified using three criteria: (i) decrease in Cretaceous palynomorphs without subsequent recovery, (ii) the existence of a 'fern spike', and (iii) correlation to a nearby stratigraphic section where primary extraterrestrial impact markers are present (e.g. iridium anomaly, spherules, shocked quartz). The in situ specimen demonstrates that a gap devoid of non-avian dinosaur fossils does not exist and is inconsistent with the hypothesis that non-avian dinosaurs were extinct prior to the K-T boundary impact event.

For the non-geologists, "floodplain" = "overbank". With currents only strong enough to carry a "silty mudstone"? So, it becomes untenable that the 45cm fossil has moved much from it's original location, either horizontally or vertically (in time, most likely upwards for a depositional environment like this). No doubt excavations have occurred or will occur shortly in search of the rest of the ceratopsian fossil,though it's possible that the fossil has been eroded already.

What does the paper say about the preservation of the fossil? Any evidence of erosion? Rounding of what should be sharp points, or removal of blood vessel groves on exterior surfaces compared to interior surfaces?

Bug-watching ("palynology" if you like polysyllabic designations) to establish the section's K-T boundary. Solid.

Phrasing it as a "the stratigraphically youngest in situ dinosaur" carefully leaves no verbal hostages to fortune : if another fossil is found at 20cm below the K-T boundary in a basin with three times the net deposition rate, then all that would happen is that the holder of the title changes. With a stochastic event like fossilization, eventually there will be a new holder. Of course, finding an un-reworked non-avian fossil from 13cm above the K-T boundary would really be news. Though Professor Challenger does claim such.

Damn, I'd better go and do this month's expenses claim.

Here ya go:
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/01/07/rspb.2010.2504

The theoretical arguments are supported by numerical simulations

I am all for keeping an open mind but after reading that last sentence, I suspect the paper is quite ridiculous and may actually be a funny read.

You probably haven't done much statistical or scientific work, but it's quite common to propose models that cannot be solved analytically. Instead, the models are tested with methods like Monte Carlo simulation against empirical observations or common sense boundary conditions. If you actually read TFA, you'd see that the simulations (section 3b of the paper) are merely used to show that the equations given imply that the hypothetical gene frequency would stabilize at less than 100% of the population.

Yeah, you might think using simulations in social science is funny, but it would be like this dialogue:

• Computer Tech: Sorry, your computer is fried, it needs a new motherboard.
• You: You dumbass, everyone knows computers are made in factories, they don't have mothers!!1! HAHA

The funny thing is that I thought academics would lean towards the free will argument, but I guess sometimes they take "there must be an explanation for everything" too far and convince themselves that human behaviour is easily explained with statistical models with ridiculously weak premises.

TFA itself sites a lot of work done on this. It even mentions specifically one bit of evidence: "twin studies that quantify the genetic and environmental determinants of what they call the ‘traditional moral triad’ of authoritarianism, conservatism and religiousness ... show that 40 to 60 per cent of the observed variation in such personality traits is explained by genotypic variation."

So yeah, professional scientists actually try to do science and then believe what their science seems to tell them. Those silly academics!

AKA i'm going to deliberately ignore a "nature vs nurture" debate that has raged on for centuries

The first six footnotes of TFA support the point that religiosity is based in genetics. I'm not endorsing his position, but citing eight[1] books all written in the last 5 years is hardly "deliberately ignoring" the debate. I wonder why your post got modded up so highly.

[1] Footnote 1 seems to be to a three volume series.

Yes I said it, this should have never made the front page:

Religious people nowadays have more children on average than their secular counterparts. This paper uses a simple model to explore the evolutionary implications of this difference. It assumes that fertility is determined entirely by culture, whereas subjective predisposition towards religion is influenced by genetic endowment. People who carry a certain ‘religiosity’ gene are more likely than average to become or remain religious. The paper considers the effect of religious defections and exogamy on the religious and genetic composition of society. Defections reduce the ultimate share of the population with religious allegiance and slow down the spread of the religiosity gene. However, provided the fertility differential persists, and people with a religious allegiance mate mainly with people like themselves, the religiosity gene will eventually predominate despite a high rate of defection. This is an example of ‘cultural hitch-hiking’, whereby a gene spreads because it is able to hitch a ride with a high-fitness cultural practice. The theoretical arguments are supported by numerical simulations.
link to abstract

I am all for keeping an open mind but after reading that last sentence, I suspect the paper is quite ridiculous and may actually be a funny read.

I was skeptical as well but according to the reviewers:

"What is novel in the experiment presented here is that bees learned colour and pattern cues in a spatially complex scene composed of two-coloured local and global patterns. Coloured patterns at small and large spatial scales have been little studied, and hence our knowledge of how colourful patterns and scenes are perceived by insects is still scarce."

I am assuming that the above statements are true and the paper is novel. There are citations in the reviewers' comments indicating that the reviewers referred previous work in this area but still found the kids' research to be novel. Finally, even though the reviewers appreciate dthe fact that the paper was written by children and lacked advanced analysis, they didn't seem too biased. All this has made me less skeptical now.

I was skeptical as well but according to the reviewers:

"What is novel in the experiment presented here is that bees learned colour and pattern cues in a spatially complex scene composed of two-coloured local and global patterns. Coloured patterns at small and large spatial scales have been little studied, and hence our knowledge of how colourful patterns and scenes are perceived by insects is still scarce."

I am assuming that the above statements are true and the paper is novel. There are citations in the reviewers' comments indicating that the reviewers referred previous work in this area but still found the kids' research to be novel. Finally, even though the reviewers appreciate dthe fact that the paper was written by children and lacked advanced analysis, they didn't seem too biased. All this has made me less skeptical now.

Allow me to refer you to the REAL research paper, which says no such thing:

http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2010/09/06/rsbl.2010.0663.full?sid=b26a2194-7a63-4bfc-acdd-b62460fffa9a

the linked article is not well written in my opinion. But more information is available.

the full text of the base article is available under creative commons license if you chase links and find the right link. Try this http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2010/11/01/rspb.2010.1747.full

I think the short answer is that when not used the visual nerves and processing are repurposed. If you live in complete darkeness for many years (not using these nerves) they can go domant and not useable even if there is nothing mechanically wrong with the eyes.

so there seems to be two effects here. The retina stops detecting light and thus stops sending signals. The nerves stop being used. the brain stops paying attention to the nerves. If the signals are started again but too late, they are ignored. This is how I understand the full article after a breif skim.

They are using this as treatment for both RP and Macular degeneration. I have not finished reading the full text yet.

The Abstract has more technical details, such as the fact that this chip is externally-powered, and has a "38 × 40 pixels" resolution.

The mother in question gave birth to not one, but two snake litters of all-female snakes with WW-chromosomes. Male snake cells have two Z chromosomes, while female snakes have a Z and a W. This is the first time a reptile has been seen with two W chromosomes, something thought peculiar to fish and amphibians. The snakes' litters also retained the mother's rare genetic coloring

Also direct links to the study are here and here(pdf). The paper is "Evidence for viable, non-clonal but fatherless Boa constrictors" by Warren Booth, Daniel H. Johnson, Sharon Moore, Coby Schal, and Edward L. Vargo.

The mother in question gave birth to not one, but two snake litters of all-female snakes with WW-chromosomes. Male snake cells have two Z chromosomes, while female snakes have a Z and a W. This is the first time a reptile has been seen with two W chromosomes, something thought peculiar to fish and amphibians. The snakes' litters also retained the mother's rare genetic coloring

Also direct links to the study are here and here(pdf). The paper is "Evidence for viable, non-clonal but fatherless Boa constrictors" by Warren Booth, Daniel H. Johnson, Sharon Moore, Coby Schal, and Edward L. Vargo.

The guy who posts a link to actual research on the subject gets modded flamebait while the guy who makes unsupported claims, some of which are contradicted by that very research which was linked to gets modded insightful.

Some of the possibilities are:

(A) The guy making unsupported claims has a lot of sock puppets with mod points.
(B) Slashdot is filled with people that don't care about the facts.
(C) Slashdot is the victim of an organized astroturf.

Wow. I'm hurt Mr. Anonymous.

NO, I don't have any sock puppets. I don't have that sort of time.

But as for links, here a few:
Study links more hurricanes, climate change or
Warming doubles number of hurricanes both referring to this paper but containing their own research, too.
Then there is this: Research Meteorologists See More Severe Storms Ahead: The Culprit -- Global Warming

There is a very clear link between storms, hurricanes and increased atmospheric temperature. I actually thought it was common knowledge by now, so I didn't bother posting links. As to why or who modded the other guy flamebait, I don't know, but the idea that I'd spent extra time creating and logging in with sock puppets is so hilarious from my perspective, that it almost made me smile.

Sure thing; as if there wasn't an avalanche of research that anyone with 5 minutes couldn't Google up for consumption. *rolls eyes*

Laury Miller and Bruce Douglas "On the rate and causes of twentieth century sea-level rise" Douglas has several seminal papers on the subject.
Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level -- if you want the raw data itself
Scientific reticence and sea level rise
The Impacts of Sea-Level Rise on the California Coast

60+ references on Current Sea Level Rise @ Wikipedia (yeah, it's wikipedia; take the article with a pillar of salt and read the referenced papers and articles instead.. durrr)

With respect to the original gp post, the PSMSL dataset "defined the following criteria for selecting records from the PSMSL which were long, reliable, and avoided large vertical geologic changes:"

      1. Each record should be at least 60 years in length
      2. Not be located at collisional plate boundaries
      3. At least 80% complete
      4. Show reasonable agreement at low frequencies with nearby gauges sampling the same water mass
      5. Not be located in regions subject to large post-glacial rebound

So, yah, I think the scientists took into account the obvious issues asked about by the gp: "Is the sea level rising? Or are plate tectonics lowering the land level in relation to the sea?".

Need more? Or is that enough to keep you busy reading for a little while?

Isn't this old news? (pun not entirely intended)... A couple of the more prominent abiogenesis hypotheses have been based on this for most of the decade of not more. Here's a paper from 2003 that, while it has its flaws (some of which have been rectified, some of which have been completely rethought over the last 7 years) offers a fairly complete and very compelling hypothesis for how life may have originated at warm, alkaline thermal vents like those found at the Lost City thermal vent fields:

Martin, W. & Russell, M.J., 2003. On the origins of cells: a hypothesis for the evolutionary transitions from abiotic geochemistry to chemoautotrophic prokaryotes, and from prokaryotes to nucleated cells. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 358(1429), 59-83; discussion 83-5. Available at: http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/358/1429/59.abstract.

And here's a similar but competing hypothesis (still based on Fe/Ni-S, but with a different idea on the origins of membranes and cells):

Wächtershäuser, G., 2006. From volcanic origins of chemoautotrophic life to Bacteria, Archaea and Eukarya. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 361(1474), 1787-806; discussion 1806-8. Available at: http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/361/1474/1787.abstract

The latter author has been writing papers about this hypothesis since 1992 (though I haven't read his first paper on the subject).

Point being, this doesn't seem to be a new thing, especially as summarized in the summary here and in the linked article. The original paper on which the article is based offers a bit more fundamental chemical details regarding the transition metals involved, and suggests good directions for experimental confirmation or refutation, but the overall idea remains pretty much the same, it seems. Still, it will be interesting to see what, if any, research and experiments result from this.

Isn't this old news? (pun not entirely intended)... A couple of the more prominent abiogenesis hypotheses have been based on this for most of the decade of not more. Here's a paper from 2003 that, while it has its flaws (some of which have been rectified, some of which have been completely rethought over the last 7 years) offers a fairly complete and very compelling hypothesis for how life may have originated at warm, alkaline thermal vents like those found at the Lost City thermal vent fields:

Martin, W. & Russell, M.J., 2003. On the origins of cells: a hypothesis for the evolutionary transitions from abiotic geochemistry to chemoautotrophic prokaryotes, and from prokaryotes to nucleated cells. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 358(1429), 59-83; discussion 83-5. Available at: http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/358/1429/59.abstract.

And here's a similar but competing hypothesis (still based on Fe/Ni-S, but with a different idea on the origins of membranes and cells):

Wächtershäuser, G., 2006. From volcanic origins of chemoautotrophic life to Bacteria, Archaea and Eukarya. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 361(1474), 1787-806; discussion 1806-8. Available at: http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/361/1474/1787.abstract

The latter author has been writing papers about this hypothesis since 1992 (though I haven't read his first paper on the subject).

Point being, this doesn't seem to be a new thing, especially as summarized in the summary here and in the linked article. The original paper on which the article is based offers a bit more fundamental chemical details regarding the transition metals involved, and suggests good directions for experimental confirmation or refutation, but the overall idea remains pretty much the same, it seems. Still, it will be interesting to see what, if any, research and experiments result from this.

No one is doubting Global Warming.

That's simply not true. There's a large contingency of folks who are outright denying even the temp rises. They're typically the mindless followers of Beck & Limbaugh.

By "solar weather theory" are you referring to the false arguments that AGW is caused by cosmic rays and/or temps are increasing on other planets? If so, no problem. Here's 34 different scientific papers that refute each aspect of them. :)

So, you ready to change your business model now?

No one is doubting Global Warming.

That's simply not true. There's a large contingency of folks who are outright denying even the temp rises. They're typically the mindless followers of Beck & Limbaugh.

By "solar weather theory" are you referring to the false arguments that AGW is caused by cosmic rays and/or temps are increasing on other planets? If so, no problem. Here's 34 different scientific papers that refute each aspect of them. :)

So, you ready to change your business model now?

No one is doubting Global Warming.

That's simply not true. There's a large contingency of folks who are outright denying even the temp rises. They're typically the mindless followers of Beck & Limbaugh.

By "solar weather theory" are you referring to the false arguments that AGW is caused by cosmic rays and/or temps are increasing on other planets? If so, no problem. Here's 34 different scientific papers that refute each aspect of them. :)

So, you ready to change your business model now?

That's a convention now, but it wasn't always the case, and there's no reason why it should be necessary. If you really don't think anything written in the first person is credible then you will have to take issue with thousands of articles in the Proceedings of the Royal Society. For instance: http://rstl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/12/133-142/821).

What came first? The molecule or the cell? The prion or the virus?

Not sure if you want real answers to those or not, but obviously the molecule, and evidence suggests the prion. However, with prions your question doesn't quite make sense because it's not like viruses descended from prions. Prions are simply "rogue" proteins which force proteins that they come in contact with to conform to the same secondary structure (usually beta folded sheets). It is thought that amino acid chains probably formed (perhaps without any necessary "function") early during the origin of life, and were quite possibly prion-like. Here's an interesting paper about it:

Milner-White, E.J. & Russell, M.J., 2008. Predicting the conformations of peptides and proteins in early evolution. Biology direct, 3, 3. Available at: http://biology-direct.com/content/3/1/3.

And, obviously, since molecules are required to make cells (as cells are made up of molecules), the molecule would have to come first. There are some hypotheses about the origins of life suggesting that it is possible that most or all of of the biochemistry of early cells were in place before they even became cells. Here's a good starting point read about that:

Martin, W. & Russell, M.J., 2003. On the origins of cells: a hypothesis for the evolutionary transitions from abiotic geochemistry to chemoautotrophic prokaryotes, and from prokaryotes to nucleated cells. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 358(1429), 59-83; discussion 83-5. Available at: http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/358/1429/59.abstract.

Anyway, like I said, don't know if you were looking for possible answers to those questions, but I'm bored, and these papers are pretty interesting. ;)

I know most people aren't interested, but let's have the URL for the original paper:
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2010/06/14/rspb.2010.0863.short?rss=1

This one is available free (i.e. you don't need a subscription to read it).

I admit one mistake, then, it's not _your_ straw man. You see, this article was written by reporters for the general public. Both of these groups are not known for grasp of technical matters, scientific ones or even numbers. If you'd apply your thinking to actual data, such as papers published by scientists (for example, this and this) you'll see the actual number is about 30kg of water per second per ship, and the proposed method is to use wind powered robotic vessels. The second article, by the way, is very informative.

Scary thing is... they are way ahead of you...
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/366/1882/3989.full

If world temperatures are to be kept steady with no carbon reduction, the working fleet would have to be increased by approximately 50 vessels a year plus extra ones to replace any lost.
If the assumptions used for figure 3 are correct, the cancellation of 3.7Wm2 associated with a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 will need a spray rate of approximately 45m3s1 and perhaps less with skilful vessel deployment.
If 0.03m3s1 is the right design choice for one spray vessel, this could come from a working fleet of approximately 1500.

And from what I can tell from a cursory look at the study - all they need are enough wind and "efficient generators".

These crude engineering lumped calculations should be performed with the actual values at a representative sample of times for every cell that has not been excluded on grounds of being downwind of land with dirty air, upwind of drought-stricken regions or too close to busy shipping routes.
The wind speed data for each cell should be checked to ensure that there is enough input power for, as will be developed shortly, wind energy provides the principal source for driving the vessels and creating the spray.
With an efficient generator, the 30kgs1 flow rate will be reached at 8ms1 wind speed.
If the nucleus lifetime was the longest estimate of 5 days (Houghton 2004), this would bring the concentration up to levels found over land and lead to much reduced effectiveness.
Cells will be placed in rank order to see how many are needed to achieve any target cooling and either how many vessels should be put in each cell or how many cells should be treated by one vessel.
Vessel movements can be planned by looking at the best-cell list for the next month.

Not solar power at all. Flettner rotors.

The only NEW thing about this plan is that they claim that they've actually received $300.000 from Bill Gates.
They have been going around with this idea for years now.
And from what I can tell - all they have to show for so far is the study linked above and this concept rendering.

Looking at "estimated costs", $300.000 seems like about the amount someone with Bill Gates' money might donate to get rid of them politely.

Very few uncertainties will remain after the expenditure of the first £2 million over 2 years.
It will need perhaps £25 million and a further 3 years to complete research and development of the reliable hardware for spray vessels including the first fully instrumented, full-scale, crewed and sea-going prototype.
Once there is experience of its operation, it will cost approximately £30 million for tooling, which will allow a large number of spray vessels to be built rapidly in the event of a global emergency.

About a year later...

The Copenhagen Consensus Centre, which advises governments on how to spend aid money, examined the various plans and found the cloud ships to be the most cost-effective.

They would cost $9 billion (£5.3 billion) to test and launch within 25 years, compared to the $250 billion that the world's leading nations are considering spending each year to cut CO2 emissions, and the $395 trillion it would cost to launch mirrors into space.

Is it vaporware? Not really sure.
The idea is to just spray the seawater into the air, not actually turn it into water vapor.

A lot of human genetics is actually based around some people being designated more as caretakers for their relatives and other community members than sources of future offspring themselves. Take menopause, for example. Menopause extends the life of women by stopping them from risking their health with childbirth. This preserves women to live on as reservoirs of community knowledge and experience to teach to children. (If you'd like to read more about that, I recommend Jared Diamond's book "The Third Chimpanzee.")

Homosexuality (in men, at least) is most frequently found in later born sons. Past a certain point, extra sons are not really needed to pass on the genes of both parents and could fulfill similar societal roles as old people in assisting in the care-taking of the first-born's children. I think I remember reading somewhere that a study in Samoa showed that gay men were likely to dote over their nieces and nephews. Here's an article on that.

In tight-knit communities (i.e. the kind of hunter-gather tribes that dominated thousands of years of human evolution), having additional hunters & gatherers to provide for your grandkids in the forms of sons and daughter that provide for your firstborn's children may be of greater advantage than just another source of mouths to feed. In many hunter-gatherer societies, infanticide was used as a means of "birth control" to keep the task of feeding ones children manageable. This became less frequent with the dawn of agriculture, but having additional relatives around to provide the children of others is a survival strategy for yourself and for your first-born (and best provided for) children because it means that you have less need to limit the children you do have. (You can think of homosexuality as a "parasitic" trait for latter born children to aid the earlier born ones.)

Additionally, cultural norms in many pre-modern societies either forced homosexuals to adopt heterosexual lifestyles or allowed for homosexuals to engage in sex with their own gender for pleasure while being required to perform their "spousal duties" with a wife. (Think of ancient Greek pederasty for example.) Bisexual practices allow for homosexual preferences to survive and even flourish, as in bonobos who use lesbian sex for social bonding.

Another study has suggested that homosexual men tend to have more fertile female siblings and more homosexual relatives on their mothers' side meaning that homosexual genes could be passed down through unaffected maternal lines. This jives well with the theory of homosexuality as a tool for putting more of your eggs in the best basket and designating other children to a support role.

Lastly, as the order of birth examples above hint, homosexuality is only partially genetic. Environmental pressures both before and after birth can influence sexual orientation. Genes that increase sensitivity to these pressures can exist in heterosexuals and be passed on with no ill effect on survivability (or increased effect on survivability by assuring extra care for children with a homosexual uncle).

All of the above factors provide a rationale for homosexuality as a positively adaptive trait and one that has a clear mechanism for being passed on.

[CITATION_NEEDED]

I could point you to scholarly dissertations such as these.... but why bother. The evidence is plain as day and so easy to see that even the greatest dolt could not miss it: homosexuality occurs in all naturally heterosexual species. Dogs, cats, mice, birds ... you name it. If it was all some sort of "Satan's sweet whispers to get the weak-hearted to stray from the Holy path" as the Bible-thumping boneheads would have you believe, it would only occur in humans and its prevalence would be orders of magnitude higher amongst the "Heathen non-believers (pick your Heathen religion here)" then the "pious".

Curiously, I could not locate the paper referred to in the link you pointed out.

I did find this paper talking about two particular bird species that seemed to avoid nesting in highly contaminated sites, which factor might be reflected in the study your article quoted.

Your study quoted "some areas with hundreds of animals per square meter, others with none". I can think of examples of both: right on an ant hill; and the middle of an abandoned paved lot. Without actually looking at the study, it's hard to tell if they were playing fair with the numbers. ... and sometimes not even then.

The code is a non-story.
The offending code was commented out, and the corrected MXD data was not included in the paper.
Here's the paper. Figure 6 is the graph produced by the code. None of the corrected data was used.

As such they do make a very interesting and non-gruesome read. We have come a long way.

I also found the article itself to be remarkably readable in every aspect (language, spelling and fonts). I did not expect that at all, but then again I am not in the habit of reading 17th century English.

This is really cool stuff, and I find it very interesting to scroll the timeline on Trailblazing to get an idea of the historical context of these papers. I just wish there were more than 60 of them and covering more fields. Still, I'm looking forward to reading Watson and Crick's paper, Gould and Lewontin's paper, and perhaps even Maxwell's paper if I can handle it.

I'm a really big fan of the Royal Society. They have so much high quality research available under Open Access, including any papers in Philosophical Transactions B (which I tend to get stuff from the most as my interests are more related to Biology) that are more than a year old. I'm looking forward to their 350th Anniversary Issue which comes out in 2 weeks under Open Access. It's looking to have some interesting articles. In fact, all of the things they are doing for their 350th anniversary are really cool. Check them out: http://royalsocietypublishing.org/site/authors/2010.xhtml

This is really cool stuff, and I find it very interesting to scroll the timeline on Trailblazing to get an idea of the historical context of these papers. I just wish there were more than 60 of them and covering more fields. Still, I'm looking forward to reading Watson and Crick's paper, Gould and Lewontin's paper, and perhaps even Maxwell's paper if I can handle it.

I'm a really big fan of the Royal Society. They have so much high quality research available under Open Access, including any papers in Philosophical Transactions B (which I tend to get stuff from the most as my interests are more related to Biology) that are more than a year old. I'm looking forward to their 350th Anniversary Issue which comes out in 2 weeks under Open Access. It's looking to have some interesting articles. In fact, all of the things they are doing for their 350th anniversary are really cool. Check them out: http://royalsocietypublishing.org/site/authors/2010.xhtml

You know what's cool about the web? Pages can contain hyperlinks to other pages! For example, if you write a post saying that Benjamin Franklin's notes on his kite-flying experiment are available on the web, you can use these fancy "hyperlinks" to help people find the articles!

Of course, it appears that the articles were already on the web, and the trailblazer website is just a very, very cool index of existing information. But, I think it's required that every slashdot summary contain at least one easily verified and incorrect fact, so that readers will be more engaged with the website and read more advertising.

Effectively, having been asked why an incredibly unlikely event came about, you have responded "why not?". It's a non-answer, try again.

You've not given any reason to think it is incredibly unlikely apart from your belief. Try again :-)

Unfortunately the neo-darwinian hypothesis of evolution by natural selection of traits arising from random mutation CANNOT account for biology as we observe it.

Be careful of such sweeping statements, someone may ask you to demonstrate it is the case :-)

If you are simply pointing out we have gaps in our understanding then I agree. If you're claiming those gaps = god, then I guess Zeus causes lightning and Poseidon storms at sea.

Here's a start for soft tissue, whale evolution. I'm sure google could help as well :-)

Yes I'm a fan of CMI's website :)

You probably should be more skeptical of your sources. CMI (and other "creationist" organisations) tend to ignore evidence against their claims, over play the evidence which lends some support to their position, misrepresent research and quote mine, all seemingly driven by ideology and not a desire for understanding.

As a person is our only seriously tenable explanation for the existence of an integrated circuit, so an intelligent agent well beyond humans is our only seriously tenable explanation for the existence of even a single cell.

If you can find me the blueprints of the cell, describe the manufacturing process, show me the design steps, etc (all things we have for the IC), then perhaps you'd have a point. As it is, you are unable even to point to the "intelligent agent" responsible, let alone supply all of the other information. Your analogy fails :-)

I'll recant my whole setup if you can get a cell to arise from non-living components without human intervention. And pay you every cent in my bank account :)

Perhaps you need to read more scientific research into abiogenesis, as you don't seem to have an understanding of the current state.
This and this are pretty interesting to start with.

So again, what is your reasoning process for predicting a rational universe from a non-rational, non-intelligent, impersonal, naturalistic beginning?

To put it simply, what evidence we actually have indicates the universe appears to be open to investigation (through intersubjective empiricism), and as a result of that study there appears to be no rational intelligence behind it, or at least no decent evidence in it's favour.

Agreed, but lets not get ahead of ourselves ;)

I don't think we are. You seem to be arguing specifically for an interventionist deity. If that's the case, it would be nice to have the coherence and correspondence to reality of this being presented, else we should surely just ignore the concept? :-)

Effectively, having been asked why an incredibly unlikely event came about, you have responded "why not?". It's a non-answer, try again.

You've not given any reason to think it is incredibly unlikely apart from your belief. Try again :-)

Unfortunately the neo-darwinian hypothesis of evolution by natural selection of traits arising from random mutation CANNOT account for biology as we observe it.

Be careful of such sweeping statements, someone may ask you to demonstrate it is the case :-)

If you are simply pointing out we have gaps in our understanding then I agree. If you're claiming those gaps = god, then I guess Zeus causes lightning and Poseidon storms at sea.

Here's a start for soft tissue, whale evolution. I'm sure google could help as well :-)

Yes I'm a fan of CMI's website :)

You probably should be more skeptical of your sources. CMI (and other "creationist" organisations) tend to ignore evidence against their claims, over play the evidence which lends some support to their position, misrepresent research and quote mine, all seemingly driven by ideology and not a desire for understanding.

As a person is our only seriously tenable explanation for the existence of an integrated circuit, so an intelligent agent well beyond humans is our only seriously tenable explanation for the existence of even a single cell.

If you can find me the blueprints of the cell, describe the manufacturing process, show me the design steps, etc (all things we have for the IC), then perhaps you'd have a point. As it is, you are unable even to point to the "intelligent agent" responsible, let alone supply all of the other information. Your analogy fails :-)

I'll recant my whole setup if you can get a cell to arise from non-living components without human intervention. And pay you every cent in my bank account :)

Perhaps you need to read more scientific research into abiogenesis, as you don't seem to have an understanding of the current state.
This and this are pretty interesting to start with.

So again, what is your reasoning process for predicting a rational universe from a non-rational, non-intelligent, impersonal, naturalistic beginning?

To put it simply, what evidence we actually have indicates the universe appears to be open to investigation (through intersubjective empiricism), and as a result of that study there appears to be no rational intelligence behind it, or at least no decent evidence in it's favour.

Agreed, but lets not get ahead of ourselves ;)

I don't think we are. You seem to be arguing specifically for an interventionist deity. If that's the case, it would be nice to have the coherence and correspondence to reality of this being presented, else we should surely just ignore the concept? :-)

What is life, apart from very complex chemistry? If you belief there is some "magical" ingredient (something like Élan Vital), then you're going to have problems imagining life coming from complex chemical interactions alone - who gets to put the "magic" in? :-)

Personally, I like this answer from the first of the two papers I linked above: a very simple definition of a living system might be: compartments separated from their surroundings that spontaneously multiply with energy gleaned through self-contained, thermodynamically favourable redox reactions. (Martin and Russell, 2003)

It's not just complex chemistry. It is self-organizing, self-contained complex chemistry. The standard biological definition of "life" requires the following 7 characteristics:

1.) organization - in which the cell is the fundamental unit of organization. The self contained compartments from the above definition.

2.) metabolism - both anabolism and catabolism

3.) homeostasis - maintaining its own internal balance

4.) growth - defined as "anabolism > catabolism"

5.) response to stimuli - very wide open definition, could be as simple as an enzyme changing conformation in the presence of a substrate

6.) adaptation - changing to fit ones surroundings, both in the sense of acclimation and evolution

7.) be the product of reproduction - this used to be "be able to reproduce" but it would be nonsense to argue that a mule is not alive.

For a very good look at what it takes to be a living cell, I recommend this paper for a fascinating read:

Molecules into Cells: Specifying Spatial Architecture - Harold, Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews, December 2005, p. 544-564, Vol. 69, No. 4

Anyway, for those following along, these ideas are what biologists are talking when they talk about life and the formation of life. (Not disagreeing with the parent post... simply clarifying, expanding, and explaining). :)

I have a feeling that this will lead to the speculation that Earth was therefore seeded with fundamental biomolecules from space and this paved the way for life to begin on Earth. I hope people don't jump to this conclusion too quickly. Personally, I find it unlikely and think there is a more likely interpretation, which I will get to in a moment. The reason this is unlikely is that just having biomolecules is not enough to start life processes. Especially in the time frame when life is hypothesized to have originated (~3.8Gya), as the surface of the Earth was completely covered by ocean at that time, and any seeding of organic molecules from external sources runs into the concentration problem: the problem of getting enough of the right molecules in the right place with the right concentration and the right inputs of energy and raw materials for biochemistry to begin. Any such seeding from external sources would end up very dilute, and biomolecules would likely break down before they could be gathered in sufficient concentrations.

Personally, one possible interpretation which I prefer is that these findings (and similar ones of finding amino acids in comets and such) indicate that organic biomolecules are fairly common and will form anywhere you have C, O, H, N, S, etc and energy. Not only would this indicate that biomolecules could form fairly easily on Earth, but that they are common in the universe, and organic life may arise just about anywhere you have an input of energy and raw materials and a way of concentrating those molecules so they will react and form self-organizing and self-replicating biochemistry.

My current favorite hypothesis about the origins of life on Earth are those championed by Martin and Russell. They hypothesize that life on Earth began and alkaline hydrothermal vents in the ocean, around which porous rocks of iron and nickel sulfide would form semi-permeable cell-like compartments in which basic organic molecules formed by the geochemistry of the vent could concentrate and react with each other. Raw materials would be constantly input from the vent, and there would be a constant energy gradient in the form of heat, pH, and proton-motive force. This neatly solves several problems of many hypotheses of abiogenesis: the energy problems, the raw materials problem, and the concentration problem to name a few. They outline the overall picture of going from geochemistry to biochemistry to prokaryotes to eukaryotes in this 2003 paper:

On the origins of cells: a hypothesis for the evolutionary transitions from abiotic geochemistry to chemoautotrophic prokaryotes, and from prokaryotes to nucleated cells - Martin and Russell, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 29 January 2003 vol. 358 no. 1429 59-85

They further clarify the possible pathways for a shift from geochemistry to biochemistry in this 2006 paper:

On the origin of biochemistry at an alkaline hydrothermal vent - Martin and Russell, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 29 October 2007 vol. 362 no. 1486 1887-1926

A search for either of those followed by clicking on the "Cited By" link on Google Scholar will yield many papers, including some actual experiments supporting them, which expand and clarify these hypotheses. Definitely worth a read if you are interested in the possible origins of life on Earth, as well as perhaps some ideas of what to look for when looking for life elsewhere.

Anyway, point being, this is fantastic work by NASA, and an excellent example of showing that these molecules can form naturally. Just be careful about drawing any definite conclusions from them other than the simple conclusion that Uracil can form in these natural conditions, and possibly or probably others.

I have a feeling that this will lead to the speculation that Earth was therefore seeded with fundamental biomolecules from space and this paved the way for life to begin on Earth. I hope people don't jump to this conclusion too quickly. Personally, I find it unlikely and think there is a more likely interpretation, which I will get to in a moment. The reason this is unlikely is that just having biomolecules is not enough to start life processes. Especially in the time frame when life is hypothesized to have originated (~3.8Gya), as the surface of the Earth was completely covered by ocean at that time, and any seeding of organic molecules from external sources runs into the concentration problem: the problem of getting enough of the right molecules in the right place with the right concentration and the right inputs of energy and raw materials for biochemistry to begin. Any such seeding from external sources would end up very dilute, and biomolecules would likely break down before they could be gathered in sufficient concentrations.

Personally, one possible interpretation which I prefer is that these findings (and similar ones of finding amino acids in comets and such) indicate that organic biomolecules are fairly common and will form anywhere you have C, O, H, N, S, etc and energy. Not only would this indicate that biomolecules could form fairly easily on Earth, but that they are common in the universe, and organic life may arise just about anywhere you have an input of energy and raw materials and a way of concentrating those molecules so they will react and form self-organizing and self-replicating biochemistry.

My current favorite hypothesis about the origins of life on Earth are those championed by Martin and Russell. They hypothesize that life on Earth began and alkaline hydrothermal vents in the ocean, around which porous rocks of iron and nickel sulfide would form semi-permeable cell-like compartments in which basic organic molecules formed by the geochemistry of the vent could concentrate and react with each other. Raw materials would be constantly input from the vent, and there would be a constant energy gradient in the form of heat, pH, and proton-motive force. This neatly solves several problems of many hypotheses of abiogenesis: the energy problems, the raw materials problem, and the concentration problem to name a few. They outline the overall picture of going from geochemistry to biochemistry to prokaryotes to eukaryotes in this 2003 paper:

On the origins of cells: a hypothesis for the evolutionary transitions from abiotic geochemistry to chemoautotrophic prokaryotes, and from prokaryotes to nucleated cells - Martin and Russell, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 29 January 2003 vol. 358 no. 1429 59-85

They further clarify the possible pathways for a shift from geochemistry to biochemistry in this 2006 paper:

On the origin of biochemistry at an alkaline hydrothermal vent - Martin and Russell, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 29 October 2007 vol. 362 no. 1486 1887-1926

A search for either of those followed by clicking on the "Cited By" link on Google Scholar will yield many papers, including some actual experiments supporting them, which expand and clarify these hypotheses. Definitely worth a read if you are interested in the possible origins of life on Earth, as well as perhaps some ideas of what to look for when looking for life elsewhere.

Anyway, point being, this is fantastic work by NASA, and an excellent example of showing that these molecules can form naturally. Just be careful about drawing any definite conclusions from them other than the simple conclusion that Uracil can form in these natural conditions, and possibly or probably others.