LuisC

AUSTRALIA


Joined August 30th 2007

Number of Posts:
55

Number of Comments:
9

Karma:
7



Blogs

LuisC's Blogs

4703 Vote(s)
19 Comment(s)
55 Post(s)

Blogs I Follow

Recent Posts

The Firstlings

April 4th 2012 14:41
Check out this really stunning video, everyone:

Be sure to check out UppruniTegundanna's channel on YouTube, from which this awesomeness comes. It's truly amazing. You'll find there some of the most hair-raising, spine-tingling, haunting montages of natural history, cosmology and biology you're ever likely to encounter. Some of the videos are literally enough to bring you to tears. Watching them, I've had feelings that a religious person would surely describe as spiritual and transcendental.

Spread the word, please. His channel is utterly under-viewed.
17
Vote
   


Massive 'sorry'!

January 29th 2012 19:19
To anyone who was reading this website, I'm going to post lots of new and great stuff this year.

Watch this space.
11
Vote
   


Extraterrestrials

January 31st 2011 15:49
I was just thinking the other day about extraterrestrials, and what they might be like. If metazoans (animals) have evolved on other worlds, they will have evolved to adapt to conditions at least somewhat different to those on Earth (though the variety of conditions in which animals can live on our planet is so varied that this by itself might not produce such interesting differences by itself as we at first think. After all, animals here have adapted to all sorts of local conditions, from pressure almost 100 times greater than that of the atmosphere we breathe in, to great extremes of temperature, to no light). I'm willing to bet, if it could ever be confirmed, that aliens won't look weird or 'freaky' so much as ridiculous. Just take a look at some of the animals on Earth. The angler fish, the giraffe, the platypus, and the turkey. In fact, I think that aliens almost necessarily have to appear to be ridiculous to us. Most life on this planet would, to someone who had never seen it before. So it seems to stand to reason that, since we have never seen extraterrestrial animals, a lot of them are going to look comical.
25
Vote
   


Mammal evolution after the dinosaurs

November 27th 2010 04:53
From BBC Science:

26 November 2010


[ Click here to read more ]
52
Vote
   


Look at your hand

September 25th 2010 14:15
I want everyone reading this to do something. I want you to look at your hand for a moment, and think about the following:

Every atom in your hand was once part of a star. Not only a star, but several stars, which exploded and spilled their enriched innards into space, to be reprocessed in other stars. Stars are the engines of creation, the furnaces that produce new types of atoms. Those atoms became part of a planet, which, through a long and tortuous series of events, became hospitable enough to generate, in some corner of itself, the phenomenon we call life. Those atoms, in your hand: those atoms have seen worlds that predate all our dreams, that extend back in time to unspeakable antiquity. Those atoms, if they could speak, would tell you about worlds where the sky was red, where the oceans, which were green or frozen white, were filled with trillions of denizens of an early form of life, a life that knew no morality or any conception of itself. A world in which reason makers didn't exist, but where reason did: in the imperative to survive and reproduce. This unconscious reason, this archaeo-purpose, as Richard Dawkins has called it, is why the myriad and bountiful garden that inhabits this thin sliver of rock exists, on a planet that has circled around a star for over four and a half million centuries. These atoms would tell you about worlds that were punctuated by cataclysms, and that laid the foundations for new flowerings. They would tell you about the majestic beasts we call dinosaurs, and how their dynasty reigned for six hundred times longer than our own species has roamed on this Earth. For these atoms were themselves part of the dinosaurs, and the wasps, and the fish and the seas and the clouds. Those atoms: they travelled through the body of a mother Allosaurus, through the body of an ancient spider, and later an early hominin who looked up at the night sky and, perhaps, had a fleeting sense that there were other worlds beyond our own. Those atoms would tell you about countless sunsets, some polluted by the debris from a collision with an extraterrestrial object. And they would tell you about the countless beings who came and went, and how they changed


[ Click here to read more ]
80
Vote
   


Apologies

July 25th 2010 05:57
Hi people, I'll be back soon. Just finishing up on my thesis
121
Vote
   


Artificial life

May 23rd 2010 03:32
A living cell has been developed that is run entirely by a synthetic genome. Previously, scientists at the J Craig Venter Institute had transplanted the genome from one cell into that of another; now, they are another step closer to developing a truly artificial cell. The latest breakthrough has already stirred controversy, with some critics warning that the technology - which has a wide range of environment, medical and industrial applications - could be used by terrorists to produce bioweapons. There is also a risk that the cells could proliferate out of control and evolve in unanticipated ways.

Read more about this latest news at BBC Science.
145
Vote
   


Poisonous dinosaur

March 28th 2010 03:31
You might remember the movie Jurassic Park, where Dilophosaurus was depicted as spitting a poisonous black goo onto its prey. There was no evidence that this genus actually had such a capacity; it was added into the movie as an interesting possibility. Now, it appears that at least one dinosaur did use poison.

Sinornithosaurus, which lived in what is now China, exhibits fang like teeth similar to those of snakes, with grooves in them that might have channelled poison. Researchers also say that Sinornithosaurs had a pocket in the upper jaw that might have housed the poison


[ Click here to read more ]
81
Vote
   


Avatar is a big budget movie produced with state-of-the-art technology (in fact, Cameron had to wait for several years for the technology to catch up to his vision). Well, the result is stunning. Avatar takes place on Pandora, a moon of a gas giant in the Alpha Centauri system (the moon is fictitious, but the star system is real. At about 4.4 light years away, it is the closest system to our own). Pandora is home to many strange animals and plants. What's great about the film, though, is that these organisms are mechanically feasible, in the sense that such creatures could actually exist and could move the way that they are depicted. Apparently, Cameron hired real biologists to act as consultants for the creature designs, and the effect is wonderful. The plants, too, with their bioluminescence and reaction to physical stimuli. Pandora is utterly believable. Thing is, these organisms might well have evolved on Earth if initial starting conditions had been slightly different. It's not only that the Pandoran organisms are filling niches we would recognise of terrestrial organisms, but are rather similar to the organisms we have on our planet. The Thanator, the giant predator in the film, is quite like a lion, say, except much larger of course (it also has six legs, as do the other animals. I suspect that there's nothing particularly special about the quadruped configuration on Earth; it could well represent a "frozen accident" that was subsequently inherited by thousands of species. And insects, you'll note, do have six legs. Why not four? Or eight - which arachnids have. Or more, which is the case with centipedes and millipedes. We need not suppose that every quadraped was selected to have four legs, only that certain features of embryology constrain them to having four legs. My money is on the number of appendages being relatively variable wherever complex multiceullar life has evolved).

The fearsome Thanator, prime predator on Pandora. Image from www.pandorapedia.com

[ Click here to read more ]
108
Vote
   


Will be back soon, people

December 20th 2009 02:27
Sorry everyone, I've been busy lately. I'll be back soon.
88
Vote
   


 

Recent Comments

Comment by LuisC
on Darwin's 200th Anniversary

February 19th 2009 06:27
Hi Julie. What's your favourite book on evolution?

I'm currently reading "Scientists confront Intelligent Design and Creationism". My personal favourite would have to be "The Ancestor's Tale".

Delete ] [ Ignore ]

Comment by LuisC
on New hints about turtle evolution

February 10th 2009 07:41
Good stuff, Wilson. I'm glad I was of some help.

Delete ] [ Ignore ]

Comment by LuisC
on 2010 Porsche 911 GT3

January 31st 2009 01:51
She's a beauty.

Delete ] [ Ignore ]

Comment by LuisC
on Polar Ice on Mars is pure water!

January 27th 2009 00:59
Wait, I'm confused. How much of all the ice on the Martian polar caps is water ice instead of frozen carbon dioxode? Are they only talk about the portion that is water being 95 percent pure, or all of it?

Surfing on Mars? Hell yes, that would be awesome. I wonder what sorts of waves you could get with only a third of Earth's gravity.

Delete ] [ Ignore ]

Comment by LuisC
on "Teaching the controversy"

September 2nd 2007 04:54
"Who cares what makes sense in scientific terms? Hmm?"

You're asking that whilst using a computer? (That's my irony dosage for the day). I'm sure that the engineers at Dell and IBM don't give a toss. But since science is so "useless", who cares. Right? Who cares about anything except sex and balancing bank accounts? Did it ever occur to you that some students ARE interested in science?

"You think highschool students are all 'OMG! Now I know about evolution! yay!', pfft, right, as if."

Gee, I wonder why that is. The small-mindedness on display here is almost comical.

I can see that we're not going to agree. But thank you for sharing your opinion.

Delete ] [ Ignore ]

Comment by LuisC
on "Teaching the controversy"

September 1st 2007 04:09
"Again, what relevence does it have to high school kids? Oh, thats rihgt, you're trying to teach themyour view is right and the other view is wrong, 'take that creationists, more people agree with me than you!'."

Actually, it's got absolutely nothing to do with spite. This might come as a shock to you, but the reason I'd want evolution to be taught in school is because we're living in the 21st century and we owe it to students to give them an idea about how we actually got here (it’s about time we did, and we should dump all the old superstitious explanations that have no place in a modern world). We teach students about lots of "useless" stuff because we want them to have a bit of cultural grounding and to know how to evaluate information in a highly science-dependent world. Yet we shy away from teaching them about the process that generates the extraordinary complexity we see in living systems because we're afraid of the backlash from religious myopia. We “respect” this state of affairs because we’re too chicken to tell things as they are. In a better world, we wouldn't even be having this debate, because this fake controversy (not of the evolutionists’ doing, by the way) wouldn’t exist. If you don’t teach evolution, you might as well not teach biology, because without the former, the latter is just a bunch of disconnected facts. Evolution is the edifice that binds them all together. Everything makes significantly more sense when placed in an evolutionary framework, and it not only aids in learning the facts themselves; it also gives them a new and more profound dimension.

"Yeah, I'll tell that to a biologist worried about his/her field. Darwinian theory has 'held up' for too long to be true, science is about finding flaws in theories and developing on them. Newtonian laws have flaws, Einsteins findings have flaws but for some inexplicable reason it would appear darwiniasm is absoloutely perfect."

This is so far from the truth it's not even funny. There are many genuine debates within evolutionary biology going on all the time, with, for example, some scientists taking a more "adaptationist" view than others who might place more emphasis on historical contingency as an important factor in certain cases. Darwinian theory has been extensively refined and expanded since its inception, but it's true that it has mainly held up. What, exactly, is so wrong with that? The reason it's held up is because (get ready for it) it contains a good dose of truth. We can argue about the details, but it is largely correct and is the best available explanation we have for explaining the complexity (though some would argue about the diversity) of life.

Your caricature about "perfection" is a complete fantasy. Controversial hypotheses are in fact proposed all the time by evolutionary biologists. It seems to me that you have either been taken in by creationist propaganda that seeks to make evolution look like a "dogma"; or that you simply don't care to look into this at anything beyond the surface level as perceived by the public. It’s completely up to you whether or not you pursue this matter any further, but if you don’t, then please don’t come here to throw around a bunch of ill-gotten accusations.

Delete ] [ Ignore ]

Comment by LuisC
on Exciting new discovery in fruit flies

September 1st 2007 03:09
Hi Harry. Yes, the Wolbachia genes would have to at least make it into the gametes (eggs in this case), either directly or via the germ line cells (those cells that produce gametes). Once they're integrated, they'd be replicated in the somatic line as well, and would become part of the flies "proper" genome. I've not yet read a fuller account of this latest news, but I imagine it's something like that. Let me know if you hear anything different, and I'll post any extra information here as it comes to hand.

Delete ] [ Ignore ]

Comment by LuisC
on "Teaching the controversy"

September 1st 2007 02:59
"That isn't to say knowing it is useless, it's interesting, but practically speaking it is a pure waste of time. No ones going to need to know how evolution works (or spin a truth on it) to make any progress in life unless they're richard dawkins or ted haggard."

Really? Did you know that evolutionary theory is extensively used in disease control, fisheries management, ecology, and farming? Tell these people how it's a "pure waste of time".

"And no, to understand what sex is you don't need to know jack shit about evolution. Were talking practical knoweldge of it, not some bullshitty scientific matter that no one is going to benefit from."

Evolutionary theory is now being applied to psychology, where it can yield insights into the differences between the sexes. Armed with that knowledge, we can have a better idea about how to address problems that arise from sexual differences. We can better understand what it is that makes women and men tick. I'd call that beneficial.

"But, oh, thats right, you have the creationists and the evolutionists trying to make everyone believe they are absoloutely correct, and to do that they go too schools and force their teachings to students who won't ever make any practical use of it."

Do you mean like calculus and differential equations? Obviously you have no idea that creationism is propaganda, and evolution is science. Just because both sides argue with one another doesn't mean they're both bullshit. One side happens to be wrong. Since it is evolution that is science, it should be taught in a science class (or perhaps we shouldn't have science classes anymore?). And since it is the most significant biological discovery ever made, students should at least be made aware of the basics of it. It is creationists who want to "force" their ideas on students, and their motivation is purely religious. As for teaching sex eduction, I fully agree with you. Students should be made aware of the real issues, like STDs as you say. But why should it be a CHOICE between sex education and evolutionary theory? Why not teach both?

"And in the end, thats what it is, a stumped field, ruined by petty rivalry, extremists on both ends and no science."

A stumped field? Tell that to a biologist. They'll look at you as though you should be in a padded cell. It is in fact a flourishing field, with discoveries being made every week in genetics, palaeontology and ecology. As for creationism/ID: that isn't even a field to begin with, but a propaganda front that spreads disinformation about evolution.

Delete ] [ Ignore ]

Comment by LuisC
on "Teaching the controversy"

August 31st 2007 07:34
I'd have thought that the process that shapes life on this planet is more than "relevant" and would warrant more than a snide dismissal of the whole field. You have completely misconstrued what the issues at stake are all about, and your swaggering tone tells me that you have no interest in rectifying your errors. I frankly have little time for this sort of attitude, and I will not pretend to respect it.

Who cares about it, you ask. Obviously I care, which is one of the reasons I'm contributing this blog in the first place. If you're going to employ a bullying tone, do it somewhere else, because this blog is for people (those who are interested) to LEARN, not throw venom at one another. Obviously you don't care, which is fine, but please don't bring your invective over here if you're just going to complain without contributing anything. I suppose I should apologise for writing my own blog rather than yours?

It might interest you to know, however, that to understand what "sex actually is" requires an evolutionary perspective. Otherwise we are left with a bunch of disconnected facts that make little sense. I recommend a book called "The Red Queen - Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature" by Matt Ridley. It is only after you delve into these issues a bit that you can get a real appreciation for why sex matters at all.

Delete ] [ Ignore ]