151. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #133585 by Epinephrine on February 26, 2008 at 11:53 am

I'll admit to only having read GEB by Hofstadter, but I'm aware of his other works, and bought my dad a copy of "Le Ton Beau de Marot", since he's very into language and translation.

152. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #133521 by Epinephrine on February 26, 2008 at 9:33 am

Epeeist,

Isn't that just Russell's paradox?

I always liked Hoffstadter's use of self-descriptive and non-self-descriptive words. Pentasyllabic really is pentasyllabic, so we can call it autological - self-describing. Heterological words then are words like "long", which certainly isn't, or "unpronounceable" which can certainly be pronounced. Then the question is simply, "is heterological heterological?".

153. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133345 by Epinephrine on February 26, 2008 at 5:18 am

Emmet -

Thanks for putting him straight about Sweden; I just didn't have the strength to argue yet again that the US is in no position to criticise other countries. Well stated.

154. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133094 by Epinephrine on February 25, 2008 at 3:32 pm

Wyattroberts, re: natural law

And for the record, I think it comes from God.

155. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #132999 by Epinephrine on February 25, 2008 at 1:56 pm

Wyattroberts:

It would seem unfair to simply lump all of the "flea" books as one, and to discount them all as being without value. Luckily we do have people who do read the books, though not each of us reads every book. Often the arguments presented by the author in interview, or the excepts selected showcase the logical failings that are likely throughout the text. As has been mentioned, not one of the flea books actually proves the existence of god; if they did it would be major news indeed.

Sadly, while I would love to read every book ever written, I have a limited amount of time on my hands, and thus I select several dozen books a year to read; I'm not likely to select reams of flea books in the hopes that perhaps one of them has managed a proof of the existence of a god.

The arguments from the theists tend to be the same few, simply rephrased. That atheists don't understand the theology, that the universe is too complex, that design is "evident", that atheists are morally bankrupt, that Stalin was atheist and was not nice, thus atheism is not nice, "God spoke to me, so I know He's real"... One can only take so much of this sort of illogical argument.

I'll gladly do my share, and read a flea book should the need present itself, otherwise I am happy to read the reviews of the flea books presented by those I trust. I don't actually investgate every news report, nor do I replicate every science experiment, and I certainly don't plan on trying to read everything ever written.

It certainly isn't the case that atheists don't want to hear a good argument, and thus shut out the theists - it's that when we see the burner on the stove glowing we (rightly) conclude that it's hot, and have no need to extend our hand yet again to check.

Edit - oh, and on Prof. Dawkins and his arguments. Even if a flaw is to be found in an argument (or several), that still doesn't prove atheism wrong. It would still leave several very valid arguments, which is more than are needed. The only thing that would shatter an atheist view is the proof that there is a god(s), something that hasn't been provided yet.

156. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #132862 by Epinephrine on February 25, 2008 at 10:11 am

Ah, Peacebeuponme, it's you we have to thank for the [wooter] meme :)

As for ignoring trolls, I'd be happy to do that.

157. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #132850 by Epinephrine on February 25, 2008 at 9:44 am

I'd still like to see (as some wit posted a while back) the tags expanded to read

Flag as: [troll][spam][offensive][wooter]

158. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #132817 by Epinephrine on February 25, 2008 at 8:27 am

I was intrigued reading about this in The Ancestor's Tale, as it brought to mind the Wallace effect; does anyone know if there is support for the Wallace effect in these ring species?

I suppose that in both cases the Wallace effect might be observed, but I guess the question I have is whether it could be the generator of such a ring species effect - whether the differences could in fact start where the overlap occurs. A temporary isolation (for example, the south end of the valley in the salamander's tale) that presented a barrier, then was removed, and which again perhaps presents a barrier could in fact have begun the separation of the species at the south end. When the two populations that had begun to differ only slightly from each other met again, they had a reduced fertility due to their separation, which causes the Wallace effect to kick in - mating with the other population is punished in essence, so traits which emphasise the differences grow stronger, resulting in the highest degree of contrast at the overlap. These genes can then flow northward along the valley, giving the appearance of having had its start either at the top or on one side, when in fact it could have started from a separation of species at the south end, kicked into overdrive by the penalising Wallace effect on hybrids.

159. Revealed: Secrets of the Camouflage Masters

Comment #131328 by Epinephrine on February 22, 2008 at 9:00 am

Pedant's corner: "octopuses"

Oh, dear!

160. Fleabytes

Comment #130386 by Epinephrine on February 20, 2008 at 12:57 pm

Well done Paula, that's a lot of work! Marked it excellent too, sorry I'm so late posting but didn't have time to read it till now.

161. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #130317 by Epinephrine on February 20, 2008 at 9:38 am

htt://www.tccsa.tc/articles/hoax.html

htt://www.tccsa.tc/adventure/archaeopteryx1.html

htt://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/20hist08.htm

I donna wanna upset you, irate and but the logic and scientific facts and plain truth is getting in the way again. Just check the web pages above.

162. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130189 by Epinephrine on February 20, 2008 at 6:59 am

Lol at that one Bishop. Clearly it's the vegetarians that we have to fear. Hitler was a vegetarian!

163. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130168 by Epinephrine on February 20, 2008 at 6:44 am

Well, if a god condemns or destines to salvation people at birth (as is implied numerous times), then punishing them is cruelty - they didn't choose their actions, in that he has predestined them to suffering. There is no justice in creating something for the purpose of later torturing it, yet that's what is suggested.

164. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130163 by Epinephrine on February 20, 2008 at 6:41 am

Bishop you ignorant git

Well, I guess that is one way of winning converts!!

165. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130151 by Epinephrine on February 20, 2008 at 6:29 am

Bishop -

Even your quote is (2 Cor 4:4) is an example of why the bible paints the Christian god as cruel. If he were interested in saving people, why would he ensure that some don't see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ? 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 likewise refers to god deluding people, and Romans 9:14-21

What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

166. Bart Ehrman, Questioning Religion on Why We Suffer

Comment #130139 by Epinephrine on February 20, 2008 at 6:14 am

Agreeing with Zakie Chan and evaporated; NT studies is a perfectly legit academic pursuit. Having taken some courses on the new and old testament as text, it's a non-religious study of the bible as the product of human authors. Of course, there are many religious scholars in the field, but at its roots it's about looking at the book, not at religion.

167. Study: Religion colors Americans' views of nanotechnology

Comment #129696 by Epinephrine on February 19, 2008 at 1:25 pm

Juxtamonkey -

I agree that bashing people for stereotypes isn't acceptable. I also agree that it would be nice to know exactly what was said in the survey, the level of significance and all that, but clearly that's beyond the scope of the article.

The study says that people are informed in the survey, but who knows what this means? Also, since science education differs in the USA and in Europe, who's to say that the Americans and the Europeans had the same understanding of the issues?

You noted the article's word, "significant". To what significant score are they referring...the percentages?

168. Potentially Habitable Planets Are Common, Study Says

Comment #129657 by Epinephrine on February 19, 2008 at 12:33 pm

I had little problem with funding, I was in neuroscience; we have pretty decent funding for grad students with good grades, and the research assistantship/teaching assistanships help enormously. I'm not sure how it works at other schools, but it was ~30 dollars an hour to do TA work.

Clearly the answer is to come to Canada and get an NSERC scholarship.

169. Holy missing link! Ancient bat flew without 'sonar'

Comment #129524 by Epinephrine on February 19, 2008 at 8:58 am

Wow, that was touching - I love how the mom told the boy that he could still see with his hands. I can't imagine having to make that choice for one of my children, it would be terrifying for them.

Also, I wonder if they could echolocate using a machine? After all, if you can only click every half second, perhaps it would be better to have a "clicker" putting out clicks faster (maybe with a throttle that you control, to ramp the speed of clicking up and down as needed).

It might be annoying for others if done at a frequency they can hear, but you could have a hearing aid that is dual function, leaving normal frequency sounds alone, but picking up high frequency clicks and frequency shifting them down for you. Fascinating to think that one can adapt so readily.

170. Potentially Habitable Planets Are Common, Study Says

Comment #129519 by Epinephrine on February 19, 2008 at 8:50 am

-annabanana,

Thanks, I saw both you and Steve update your avatars and thought, "why not?" I don't normally post pictures of myself online (not even on facebook, where I have relentlessly un-tagged myself from all photos) but this place is so friendly that it seemed better than being renovation-man forever :)

171. Potentially Habitable Planets Are Common, Study Says

Comment #129501 by Epinephrine on February 19, 2008 at 8:18 am

@rod-the-farmer

I too am a SETI supporter, and have several computers at home running the software, plus I have created a team of some colleagues who do SETI as well.

172. Study: Religion colors Americans' views of nanotechnology

Comment #129477 by Epinephrine on February 19, 2008 at 7:26 am

JuxtaMonkey -

It doesn't matter what the sample sizes were, they said "significantly". This is the word that cues us to realise that they performed a statistical analysis. With smaller samples it would be harder to show significance, meaning that the observed differences would need to be greater. Essentially, saying "significatly" means, "yes, we accounted for sample size, thank you," and suggests that it is a true difference, rather than chance.

I get that you are an enthusiastic defender of America (as I saw in your post about Americans and knowledge), but statistics have a legitimacy to them. Yes, it would be nice to know the p-values, the confidence intervals, sample sizes and all that, but unless you are reading a technical paper you are likely only to see a reference to significance.

Referring to "European" surveys doesn't necessarily mean "all of Europe"; it probably refers to the fact that the surveys done on European populations scored differently.

And I suspect you meant to say "alluded", not "eluded" - I don't however see much of an allusion, they flat out state, "In European surveys that posed identical questions about nanotechnology to people in the United Kingdom and continental Europe," making it clear that the questions are identical.

173. Study: Religion colors Americans' views of nanotechnology

Comment #128378 by Epinephrine on February 16, 2008 at 9:41 pm

Idiocy. There are over 500 nanotech products already in use in Canada, and probably more in the US.

Those stain-proof pants? Nanotech. The special paint on high end cars? Nanotech. Bandages with silver for antibacterial properties? Nanotech. High spf sunscreens with zinc that go on clear? Nanotech.

Nanotech simply means technology at very small scales; a precise definition hasn't been agreed on worldwide. The nanoscale particles of zinc in the sunscreen, of silver in the bandage, the carbon nanotubes on the pants, and the special coating on the paint are all nanotechnologies. So is the ferrofluid used in a computer hard drive, exploiting the properties of very small magnetic particles in a carrier, to form a seal around the drive shaft.

People are scared, because they don't know that these things are already in use, and they interact with them daily.

That's not to say that they shouldn't be a little apprehensive. Very little toxicological work has been done on nanotech, and most is on carbon fiber (or other nanoscale particle) inhalation (and even that work is tricky, due to the number of ways of creating carbon nanotubes, their varying lengths and so on). Small paricles of silver can be absorbed by bacteria, killing them, but what happens when they are absorbed by us? Where are they transported? Same holds for the zinc particles in the sunscreen.

174. Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?

Comment #128375 by Epinephrine on February 16, 2008 at 9:32 pm

Oh, especially when travelling I tend to meet very nice Americans. I have many American friends in fact, and respect them all, and many here are American.

I do believe that these are not *random* samples though, and I wouldn't suggest that they are representative - only about 5% of Americans have passports to my knowledge, and the American friends I have tend to be people with whom I am comfortable, so a screening of sorts goes on, much like my friends at home. And again, I doubt that RD.net is a typical cross section of ANY country's demographic.

That said, my points earlier were that despite a cultural phenomenon in which ignorance can be viewed as a good thing (not limited to the USA, but certainly present there as well as here in Canada) there are hopeful signs. I think that acknowledging that there are issues and working to fix them is the right solution, not getting prickly because it's Americans being looked at in this article and rankling at the thought of others judging you.

I don't think anyone here is foolish enough to say that all the 300 million Americans are the same, but there are worrying trends in many countries. Rather than get defensive that the article is about Americans (when we know that similar cultural issues are at work elsewhere), why not talk about the issue, and about how to improve things?

175. Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?

Comment #127936 by Epinephrine on February 15, 2008 at 6:57 pm

mkcarbs -

You are comparing knowledge of a country and capital with knowledge of a state and capital?

And come on, thinking Europe is a country? "Umm, is France a country?". Granted, this is one *incredibly* ignorant person, and not a reflection of a true average, but it's still sad.

I don't want to get the Americans on the board really defensive (one has already lashed out at Canada, I'm not entirely sure why), but there is something profoundly wrong with the education system. Not saying ours is much better, it's pretty sad here too.

176. Inventor Doesn't Dare Say 'Perpetual Motion Machine'

Comment #127678 by Epinephrine on February 15, 2008 at 2:04 pm

@annabanana - this time I was talking about the article (at least, the "assuming the guy is right" bit). I think the troll was unspeakably rude, and expressed that, but now I'm happy to ignore him, and let you defend yourself if you feel you must - since leaping to your defense in this case would be tantamount to suggesting that I feel that you couldn't hand him his ass in discourse as effectively as I could, and I rather suspect you're perfectly qualified for the job (not that it's worth your time).

@Prankster - the source is The Toronto Star. It's not from the PNAS or anything, this is some reporter for a newspaper. Given that every perpetual motion machine ever put to the test has failed, I won't be surprised when this one does.

177. Inventor Doesn't Dare Say 'Perpetual Motion Machine'

Comment #127653 by Epinephrine on February 15, 2008 at 1:46 pm

Indeed, I don't know why we are bothering; mark the troll and ignore him.

Prankster - "assuming the guy is right" amounts to defying the laws of thermodynamics. I find it slightly more probable that he's wrong, and that an examination of the machine would show why. Certainly, it's possible that everything we've learned is wrong, but I wouldn't bet on it.

178. Murder plot against Danish cartoonist

Comment #127576 by Epinephrine on February 15, 2008 at 12:42 pm

Man, you get the feeling that they're touchy about that comic. Maybe we should reprint it in every paper in the world. A bit of systematic desensitization might cure some of this bizarre phobia.

179. Inventor Doesn't Dare Say 'Perpetual Motion Machine'

Comment #127573 by Epinephrine on February 15, 2008 at 12:34 pm

See, now ThermoThug's REALLY being offensive.

I see why annabanana has a low tolerance for this kind of crap, having to put up with it all the time.

180. Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?

Comment #127547 by Epinephrine on February 15, 2008 at 11:50 am

al-rawandi;

Sorry, who are you addressing when you say "Stupid American"?

On the off chance that it's me, I'm not American, and while I did dismally the first time I took them, I made the effort to learn what I recognised that I was lacking and score 100% on all of them now.

Edit: Actually, it doesn't matter to whom your comment was addressed - not knowing something isn't stupidity, it's ignorance.

Taking the time to learn is a good thing, whether someone does badly or not. We can combat ignorance.

181. Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?

Comment #127533 by Epinephrine on February 15, 2008 at 11:31 am

sidfaiwu,

I'm American as well (NC) and smart=attractive in the circles that I run. Unfortunately, my circles (and likely yours) aren't exactly run-of-the-mill. All most of my friends and acquaintances have post-graduate degrees. That's far greater than the public at-large.

182. Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?

Comment #127501 by Epinephrine on February 15, 2008 at 10:51 am

annabanana,

Sorry, I didn't mean that you were completely dismissive, but when one labels someone a conspiracy theorist it tends to suggest that their remarks aren't worth paying attention to.

I don't always associate optimism with naivety, though there *can* be a correlation (how many naive cynics are there?) ;) I'm pretty optimistic myself.

Btw, I liked your old avatar, made me think of the docks in Oban.

183. Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?

Comment #127491 by Epinephrine on February 15, 2008 at 10:44 am

MPhil,

I think the logic is that whether it is figurative or literal, it is a comparison of distances.

I know I squirmed as soon as he said it. Sure, one might get away with using "further", but it certainly sounds wrong to me. Then again, I can't stand the use of "less" in place of "fewer" when referring to discrete measurements. I'm a bit of a stickler.

"I took my bike to work today, one less car on the streets." Grr. FEWER! If you can count them, it's "fewer"!

184. Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?

Comment #127482 by Epinephrine on February 15, 2008 at 10:37 am

ordeneus -

I agree that people should pay more attention to things that matter, and that people are easily distracted from serious issues by fun, exciting, sensationalised media. Still, I think that there is hope, and that small steps are sometimes needed to shift things.

Changing attitudes is hard, and if the attitudes are that education is unecessary (or worse) it doesn't bode well. Making intelligent people on TV attractive, and showing exciting things that one can do with an education, teaching people to learn about the world, all of these can help shift attitudes and priorities. Removing stigmata from intelligence will likely open more people to learning. I'm not suggesting that this is the only thing we should do, but given the power of the media we should certainly not ignore it. After all, if splashing P. Hilton across every form of media known to man is enough to make her a celebrity, the same might be true of science...

P.S. Why do so many posters have names that lack capitilisation? I have a habit of capitalising the names of people I am responding to, but I am trying not to in case it is deliberate.

185. Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?

Comment #127464 by Epinephrine on February 15, 2008 at 10:20 am

@MPhil

I have to laugh that the reporter who introduced the piece made an error in his first sentence, using "further" in place of "farther".

186. Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?

Comment #127460 by Epinephrine on February 15, 2008 at 10:10 am

Annabanana -

I try to treat everyone based on how they behave, not their avatar. I suspect most people do; I don't expect that al-rawandi is actually Duff-Man for example ;)

Optimism is associated by many with naivete (darn post won't accept accents), just as many view comments like elfinabout's as "conspiracy theory" - you're both dismissive of each other. I'd like to think others are reacting to your optimism rather than your image, but either is possible.

Yes, making a change and presenting fixes are better than just complaining, but complaining is a good start *when nobody seems to think there is a problem*. If you are denying the problem, why would you even listen to complaints? Raising the issues in the first place, with some data behind it, is a good idea.

Where I live (Ontario, Canada) we had a conservative government come into power a while back, and they hacked up the funding for universities. University tuitions have skyrocketted, and as a result fewer people will go to school. It's not a "conspiracy theory" to start to wonder about whether there is more to the decision than simply saving some money short term. There are real benefits to the wealthy and conservative of keeping higher education elite and of having more people in trades; it allows companies to hire cheaper labour, makes industry grow, and puts money in the pockets of the wealthy. Those who are behind the changes have the money to put their kids in school, so it won't affect them, their children will still benefit from higher education. Is it a conspiracy theoristic point of view to lok at the facts and try to determine why some actions are taken?

I do think that there is some good coming out of some newer media; shows that engage the public with science and mathematics in non-boring ways, that present them as interesting pursuits and fields are on the rise; Numbers, House, CSI, and on the "discovery"-type channels you see shows that try to bridge the gaps somewhat - How it's Made, Mythbusters, Guinea Pig and so on. Sure, watching Adam and Jamie blow things up is entertaining, but there's a lot of physics in there for the layperson.

That's a good thing - make science seem fun. I'd like to see fewer shows with characters like Professor Frink, and more scientists like those on CSI - attractive, confident, showing off their knowledge in an impressive but not arrogant manner, getting young people thinking about wanting to learn that stuff.

187. Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?

Comment #127393 by Epinephrine on February 15, 2008 at 8:24 am

- bentleyd,

Wow, that clip is BAD...

188. Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?

Comment #127384 by Epinephrine on February 15, 2008 at 8:12 am

Sounds like a good book; people are amazingly ignorant. Granted, I cant tell you who an actor is on sight, nor what roles he played or what movies won prizes, so I'm guilty of ignorance too, but I'd like to think the things that I do follow are a little more important than following football trades (or whatever people discuss) and awards ceremonies.

Maybe I'm the ignorant one...

@Quetzalcoatl -

Sure, America is big, and there are smart folks there too, but stupidity is almost appreciated. As long as you have kids pulling low grades because they don't want to be uncool, schools offering huge celebrations for athletic achievement but scarcely any recognition for academic achievement, and media continually portraying science, math, and education as boring, repressed and laughable you'll have problems getting people interested in learning.

The grossly unfair portrayal of science (and mathematics, or learning in general) as nerdy, uncool, mostly pointless and arrogant isn't going to help matters. Thankfully there are some interesting shows nowadays with a science edge that aren't portraying all scientists in a poor light. As much as I can't stand watching CSI, since the science is absurd and drives me up the wall, it portrays a very scientific field in an interesting and even attractive manner. I'll say bravo to that.

189. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #127052 by Epinephrine on February 14, 2008 at 8:18 pm

-Shmeezers

Evolution isn't doubted by pretty much anyone who understands it, and isn't supposing there isn't a god. It is an explanation that doesn't require a god, but doesn't specifcally assume that there isn't one.

Intuition is wrong so often that it's next to pointless, and "reasonable" is clearly subjective in the manner in which you are applying it.

I think you misunderstand the nature of posterior probabilities if you think I didn't have a point.

If you want to say that a designer does not exist, then you have to provide a better explanation. This has never been provided. THUS, if evolution were to be honest with itself, it would say, "Maybe a designer exists. I don't know. I will not rule out this possibility unless I can assuredly say one does not exist." You cannot simply throw away the need to answer this question. It is fundamental to evolution’s worldview.

The burden is on evolution to prove an alternative explanation, because it assumes something that flies in the face of reason

190. New meat-eating dinos identified

Comment #126905 by Epinephrine on February 14, 2008 at 1:04 pm

righton -

Look at timelines, dinosaurs were around for over a hundred million years (~160 million); Neanderthal existed less than a million years ago, only a few hundred thousand years. Even going back to Australopithecus it only extends to about 4 million years ago, so Dinosaurs existed for 40 times that length of time, and were composed of hundreds of genera and thousands of species.

Not surprising then? With 500 genera and thousands of species over 40 times the period of time, they've got a lot more chances of being fossilised.

191. New meat-eating dinos identified

Comment #126893 by Epinephrine on February 14, 2008 at 12:47 pm

You know, it explains a lot, this fundie idea that every animal ate plants designed for it.

Clearly carrots and parsnips were designed for easy consumption by snakes, they'd be easy to swallow whole! Not quite sure what the venom was for, but meh...

192. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #126878 by Epinephrine on February 14, 2008 at 11:56 am

I've never liked looking at probabilities in hindsight.

Looking at the hand of cards one is dealt, one could say "Wow, what are the chances of getting this exact hand of cards! It's incredible!". Of course, that's true of every hand of cards one is dealt. And you had to be dealt a hand of cards, so the probability is an illusion.

The same type of thing holds with any of these arguments about constants or how well the earth is situated; only in a universe suited to life could the question be asked, so it is irrelevant to look at values in which life couldn't ask the question. This is simply the Anthropic principle. While there may be an underlying reason for the values (and science might discover some rules) it's also possible that it just is. Whether this is the only universe, or whether there are many, the only way anyone can ask the question of whether the constants are finely tuned is if the constants are right to support asking the question, which somewhat deflates the sense of improbability.

193. New meat-eating dinos identified

Comment #126854 by Epinephrine on February 14, 2008 at 11:00 am

Oh, that's so depressing. You are absolutely right, elfinabout, they've done a giant disservice to science with their choice of words.

194. Pleas for condemned Saudi 'witch'

Comment #126851 by Epinephrine on February 14, 2008 at 10:56 am

;)

---- more seriously,

Sad that in the modern world we have these throwbacks to the middle ages. It's not just in the middle east either, when my wife was growing up in Toronto one of her neighbours killed another neighbour for using voodoo on him. The superstitions are everywhere. Granted, it wasn't in the legal system...

195. Murder plot against Danish cartoonist

Comment #126847 by Epinephrine on February 14, 2008 at 10:51 am

I'd have gone with adrenaline, but that's too common a handle in the gaming world, and phenylethanolamine N-methyltransferase was too long ;)

196. Pleas for condemned Saudi 'witch'

Comment #126845 by Epinephrine on February 14, 2008 at 10:47 am

You think that's bad, she turned me into a newt!

197. Murder plot against Danish cartoonist

Comment #126839 by Epinephrine on February 14, 2008 at 10:42 am

Perhaps Annabanana meant "should" in the sense of "would be expected to"; as in "given the flight schedule, she should be in Ottawa by now".

That seems a legitimate way to use the word in that sentence; it would be expected that given our evolutionary history as social animals, we would (should) not be intentionally harming one another.

198. Earliest bats did not 'see' with sound

Comment #126589 by Epinephrine on February 13, 2008 at 3:53 pm

Yup, the d'oh! sounds like a click now, because they say it so much faster. The beauty of evolution :D

199. Bill Maher on Larry King Live

Comment #126527 by Epinephrine on February 13, 2008 at 12:51 pm

Heh, recent article showed that obesity and smoking cost governments less money, not more - they cause early death, saving money in the long run.

200. Earliest bats did not 'see' with sound

Comment #126515 by Epinephrine on February 13, 2008 at 11:48 am

Given that fruit bats (megachiroptera) as a rule don't have echolocation either, I'm not that surprised. The exceptions are stunning - the fact that some microchiroptera are most closely related to megachiroptera, rather than other microchirpotera suggests that echolocation evolved more than once, as does the exception of a type of megachiropter that uses echolocation in caves.

Tree of life:bats
Bat genetic analysis
Egyptian fruit bat

The other possibility is that an ancestor of both mega and micro bats had echolocation, and various classes of megabats lost it (but not the Egyptian fruit bat, nor the rhinolophoids), or that it was lost and subsequently re-emerged. Given that echolocation evolved independently in various animals (cetaceans, some shrews, bats) it's not impossible that it could have arisen separately in the microbats.