Slashdot Mirror
Worst Jobs in Science: Year Three
mmoyer writes "Popular Science just published their annual rankings of the worst jobs in science. Highlights of this year's list include a human lab rat, orangutan pee collector, and, surprisingly, a NASA ballerina. Think your science job belongs on the list? You can nominate your job as well. Slashdot also covered the worst jobs in science in 2004 and in 2003."
6. Volcanologist When the earth heats up, they head in
Volcanologist? Can't take the heat, get out of the crater? Sounds like a dream job, just get my Indiana Jones get-up on and grow a good 5 o'clock shadow and the babes will be swarming like deerflies! w00. "Danger is my middle name. Unfortunately my first name is Melvin and my last name is Blortman."
3. Kansas Biology Teacher On the front lines of science's devolution
*snort* This has initiated so many flame-wars on USENET lately, yeah, that's gotta suck having to face extremists and dum-dum board members. The irony is 'Intelligent Design' is an Evolution of Creationism :)
2. Manure Inspector The smell is just the start of the nastiness
Reminds me of Farley Mowat in his cabin in Never Cry Wolf. All those wolf turds and then the water came in...
1. Human Lab Rat Must read slashdot for research lab. aaiiiieeeee!!!
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Ha! Great story.
A few years back, I knew a fellow (he had the unfortunate name of Willie Williams) who'd been involved in the re-introduction of pergrine falcons to the canyon lands of south texas. The problem was that the birds wouldn't breed in captivity. The answer: artificial insemination.
This dude's job was to collect the sperm from the male falcons. He'd go in to their enclosures wearing a special hat with a very-anatomically-correct model of a female falcon on it.
I nominate this dude for the worst job in the world - the guy that replies 'yes' to verizon's (tm) 'can you hear me now?'
movie url -
http://www.compfused.com/directlink/950
From http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_0 11_01.html
Evolution of the Eye:
When evolution skeptics want to attack Darwin's theory, they often point to the human eye. How could something so complex, they argue, have developed through random mutations and natural selection, even over millions of years?
If evolution occurs through gradations, the critics say, how could it have created the separate parts of the eye -- the lens, the retina, the pupil, and so forth -- since none of these structures by themselves would make vision possible? In other words, what good is five percent of an eye?
Darwin acknowledged from the start that the eye would be a difficult case for his new theory to explain. Difficult, but not impossible. Scientists have come up with scenarios through which the first eye-like structure, a light-sensitive pigmented spot on the skin, could have gone through changes and complexities to form the human eye, with its many parts and astounding abilities.
Through natural selection, different types of eyes have emerged in evolutionary history -- and the human eye isn't even the best one, from some standpoints. Because blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it, it's easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision. So, the evolution theorists say, the anti-evolution argument that life was created by an "intelligent designer" doesn't hold water: If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design.
Bilogists use the range of less complex light sensitive structures that exist in living species today to hypothesize the various evolutionary stages eyes may have gone through.
Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.
Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.
In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.
My Stuff: pspChess and foobar2000 plugins
and i find my placement in this poll to be very insulting. it is a job which is rewarding on MANY LEVELS, both personal and professional!
Is there a response? What incremental, random changes produced an eye such that each step conferred an evolutionary advantage?
It's well understood; the progression is roughly: light sensitive cell, opaque pigment in back, retreat into concavity, formation of pinhole camera, transparent covering, fixed lens, adaptable lens. Each of those has distinct and individual evolutionary advantages, sometimes related to improved predator evasion and sometimes merely related to improved protection of the existing structure. It seems to have happened several times in evolution, so it's not even anything unusual; if we ever encounter aliens, they probably have eyes, too.
The problem for teachers is that ID can't be tested using the scientific method, the system of making, testing and retesting hypotheses that is the bedrock of science.
That's false. ID can be tested (in the same way astronomy can be), and the answer is: there is not a shred of evidence to support ID. Every single test of evolution has come down on the side of evolution (mutation and selection) and against intelligent design (interference of an intelligent agent in the development of different life forms on earth). ID has the form of a scientific theory, but it happens to be an incorrect scientific theory according to overwhelming evidence.
every time they run this thing, it takes me back to this crap job I had years ago entering data from documentation in huge class action court cases into searchable databases for teams of attorneys. Lab results from animal fertility experiments crossed my desk and I must have looked at the phrase a dozen times before it occured to me what it meant to extract semen from dogs via "digital manipulation."
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
If so, I'd like an example-- because I've never heard of a creature with a deep, light-sensitive pit in its body.
Google search terms: "light-sensitive pit bacteria".y es_part_one_opening_up_the_russian_doll.php
First entry: http://www.corante.com/loom/archives/2005/02/15/e
Next?
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Anybody who wants to cling to a young earth.
Continental drift, after all, presupposes a time line about four orders of magnitude greater than that of young earth "theory." Hence, if you believe continental drift, you have a very hard time simultaneously buying into young earth.
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
Here I present you The only debate on Intelligent Design that is worthy of its subject
Moderator: We're here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution versus Intelligent Des---
(Scientist pulls out baseball bat.)
Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?
(Scientist breaks Intelligent Design advocate's kneecap.)
Intelligent Design advocate: YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH! YOU BROKE MY KNEECAP!
Scientist: Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap. Certainly, all the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your kneecap. For example, your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh wound; and I am holding a baseball bat, which is spattered with your blood. However, a mere preponderance of evidence doesn't mean anything. Perhaps your
kneecap was designed that way. Certainly, there are some features of the current situation that are inexplicable according to the "naturalistic" explanation you have just advanced, such as the exact contours of the excruciating pain that you are experiencing right now.
Intelligent Design advocate: AAAAH! THE PAIN!
Scientist: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of this particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find this hypothesis implausible --- it just is. Your knee must have been designed that way!
Intelligent Design advocate: YOU BASTARD! YOU KNOW YOU DID IT!
Scientist: I surely do not. How can we know anything for certain? Frankly, I think we should expose people to all points of view. Furthermore, you should really re-examine whether your hypothesis is scientific at all: the breaking of your kneecap happened in the past, so we can't rewind and run it over again, like a laboratory experiment. Even if we could, it wouldn't prove that I broke your kneecap the previous time. Plus, let's not even get into the fact that the entire universe might have just popped into existence right before I said this
sentence, with all the evidence of my alleged kneecap-breaking already pre-formed.
Intelligent Design advocate: That's a load of bullshit sophistry! Get me a doctor and a lawyer, not necessarily in that order, and we'll see how that plays in court!
Scientist (turning to audience): And so we see, ladies and gentlemen, when push comes to shove, advocates of Intelligent Design do not actually believe any of the arguments that they profess to believe. When it comes to matters that hit home, they prefer evidence, the scientific method, testable hypotheses, and naturalistic explanations. In fact, they strongly privilege naturalistic explanations over supernatural hocus-pocus or metaphysical wankery. It is only within the reality-distortion field of their ideological crusade that they give credence to the flimsy, ridiculous arguments which we so commonly see on display. I must confess, it kind of felt good, for once, to be the one spouting free-form bullshit; it's so terribly easy and relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments backed up by empirical
evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue, then it would be habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid you adieu.
Open Source Alternatives