Today's Little Patriotic Gesture - Yes We Can!

Me in the garden today

Today's Little Patriotic Gesture was stopping by VA Puget Sound Health Care's Building 101 as part of a study to detect signs of dementia early enough to do something about it; it needs a whole LOT of volunteers like me (presumably a "healthy control" but who knows?) to build a database.

It's fun, they give you tests that are fun (why is remembering 7 random digits easy but remembering 9 random digits is hard?), and it's good to do something positive however small.

Why not sign up for trials like this yourself!

Afterwards, I visited my crusty old friend Cyril Miller, temporarily housed in their Community Living Center while recovering from something to do with being d@mn old. From his hospital be,d he's fielding phone calls to connect veterans in need with resources - King County has a lot of good stuff thanks to our levy, but you have to know about it - he does his part.

Afterward I visited the Healing Garden (for this photo) to which I had made a small contribution so long ago, and am proud to be remembered on the same plaque as Cyril's sister Zelda. She departed our world too soon but left Cyril the kidney that helps him p1ss off the footdraggers.

None of us can do everything, but all of us can do something!

VA Day - Thursday, May 9, 2024

Here's my motion capture outfit, sadly not for the next Marvel movie, but helping the VA develop the next generation of orthotics. I was a volunteer "healthy control" for a study of how bones and other parts move as people walk, in the hope of better understanding body mechanics and therapeutics. 

This was for a Center for Limb Loss and Mobility (CLiMB) study, which is looking for volunteers: https://www.amputation.research.va.gov/ There are plenty of other studies across the country - Why not join a "healthy control" study today?

Copilot Hallucinates Intelligent Design Lies

 I entered "do ants break coriander seeds into 4 parts?" in Copilot (Microsoft's version of ChatGPT) and got the response:

"Indeed, ants exhibit fascinating behaviors when it comes to seed manipulation. While it’s common for ants to break apart larger food items into smaller, more manageable pieces, the case of coriander seeds adds an intriguing twist. Scientists were initially surprised to discover that coriander seeds stored in ant nests were broken down into four pieces instead of the expected two halves. Upon closer examination, researchers observed that ants meticulously break down collected coriander seeds into these four parts1. This unique process serves a purpose: it prevents germination, setting coriander apart from other seeds manipulated by these industrious insects. The intricacies of ant behavior, such as their handling of coriander seeds, remind us of the interconnectedness of life and the wisdom embedded even in the smallest corners of the natural world. Whether one leans toward the concept of an Intelligent Creator or a result of cosmic accident, the ant’s precision in seed manipulation invites us to explore the depths of natural intelligence" Well. The only source it gave for that claim was a blogpost with no scientific citations. I then asked CoPilot: "what evidence do you have for this claim?" And got: "I apologize for any confusion in my previous response. Upon reviewing the available information, I realize that I made an error. There is no scientific evidence specifically supporting the claim that ants break coriander seeds into four parts. I appreciate your attention to accuracy, and I apologize for any misinformation. In reality, ants exhibit diverse behaviors when handling seeds, and their actions can vary based on the species of ant and the type of seed. While some ants may break seeds into smaller pieces for storage efficiency, the specific behavior of breaking coriander seeds into four parts remains unverified. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, and I appreciate your commitment to factual accuracy! If you have any other questions or need further assistance, feel free to ask" Yes, creationist dishonesty can infect artificial intelligence

"A City On Mars" - Not The Book We Wanted, But The Book We Needed

I've been enjoying SF since 1966, so I looked forward with pleasure to a popular science account about how humanity can accomplished the colonization of Mars, neatly organized for quick reading and complete with a 20-page bibliography for backup.

Kelly and Zach Wienersmith, the authors of "A City On Mars", delivered.

We see in the Amazon reviews that not everyone likes the answer - humanity lacks the technology - but facts are facts. You can't have an independent colony using technology to manufacture air, water and food without a big population base; even if we could ship X number of humans to Mars, they die easy. Meanwhile, Earth after a Giant Meteor Strike plus nuclear war is still friendlier to human life than Mars.

I don't *like* the answer, but that's the answer. The universe doesn't care what I like.

Let's try building a sustainable city on Earth first. It's not as much fun as Star Trek - but then, what is?

(my review)

The Biologist And The Creationist

(From a chat on a Creation/Evolution FB page):

In my youth, finishing up a doctoral program in evolutionary biologistics, I had a drinking buddy who was a creationist. We completed our degrees at about the same time and vowed to meet, once a year, at our favorite pub for of pint of the best.

My first year back, I was triumphant. "My friend," I announced, "I have discovered a fossil of a species (call it Species A) that is the clear ancestor of an existing species (call it species Z).'

"Not so," demurred my creationist friend, "For you are missing a transitional fossil between Species A and Species Z".

We drank up and left.

My second year back, I was again triumphant. "My friend," I announced, "I have discovered a fossil of a species (call it Species M) that is transitional between Species A and Species Z.'

"Not so," demurred my creationist friend, "For you are missing a transitional fossil between Species A and Species M, and another transitional fossil between Species M and Species Z".

We drank up and left.

My third year back, I was even more triumphant. "My friend," I announced, "I have discovered TWO fossils; Species G which is a transition between A and M, and Species T which is a transition between M and Z."

"Not so," demurred my creationist friend, "For you are now missing FOUR transitional fossils between A and G, G and M, M and T, and T and Z".

We drank up and left.

The next year back, I had noticed a pattern. "My friend," I announced, "I have discovered species D, K, P and W, each transitional between the ones I mentioned last year."

"Worse and worse for you," said my creationist friend, "Now you are missing transitional fossils between A and D, D and G, G and K, K and M, M and P, P and T, T and W, and T and Z".

We drank up and left.

At last I had assembled a complete line of 26 species - A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z - and revealed them to my creationist friend.

"Oh, dear friend of my youth," said he, "You have now 25 missing transitional fossils. Every time you learn something new, it only makes it worse. Why not recognized that your quest is futile?"

"I agree," I said. "The evidence proves that humanity is the product of intelligent intervention by a Power greater than any of us. I shall join a UFO cult and search the heavens for the Alien Overlords who created us. One day they will return."

We drank up and left.

Responding to a Creationist complaint about criticism

On Facebook, I wrote a brief response to an article by Dembski that promised to demolish a criticism of the book. I might need to reuse this content, so here it is:

Well, I read the article that this article links to, and it is pretty funny. Apparently, Mr. Dembski's Theory relies upon improbability and what he calls "specification".

Since he is talking in theoretical terms only at this point, and not with reference to the data, we can only interpret what he means by in probability in terms of the arguments from improbability commonly made by creationists or, as he calls it, believers in intelligent design. These arguments generally fail due to a number of fallacies. The most fundamental such fallacy is the assumption that because a particular thing that happens is highly improbable, it could not have happened by chance. For example, if you deal out 52 cards into four Bridge hands, that particular configuration of cards in that particular order in those particular for hands is improbable. And yet, somehow, people manage to play bridge. The fallacy is obvious.

His specification argument is basically an example of the lakebed fallacy. It will be observed that the water in every lake exactly matches the shape of the lake bed. Every lake!!! How could this be? It could not have happened by chance! Clearly lakes are intelligently designed!!!

Finally, this article is a good example of the snooze fallacy. The author evidently thinks that he throws enough words on a page, we will fall asleep and accept the validity of his argument. This frees him from having to actually make the argument; he can simply promise to make the argument at some point in the future if we can stay awake long enough for that future to occur.

This may enable him to sell a few more books or even draw salary from a creationist institution, so I applaud him for having a business model. It's got to be easier than doing stand-up comedy.

Neural Network Jokes ....

...You have to learn to love them!

How to break your diet.... Permanently!

NASA Brings Voyager 2 Back To Life

Cool story: "NASA Brings Voyager 2 Fully Back Online, 11.5 Billion Miles From Earth"


Also for fun:

There's More To Learn About Sex

Fascinating discussion about at least 4 variables in determining sex in humans. Wow!

• Chromosomal Sex (XX female vs XY male)
• Genetic Sex (SRY gene)
• Hormonal Sex (Doesn't always match the above)
• Cell Receptor Sex (Hormones don't matter much if the cells don't have the receptors)
  
  So that is 2-to-the-4th power combinations that we know of.
  Maybe it's best just to be cool about this.

Best Webcomics: XKCD

One of the smartest comics in the world is "xkcd". Every day it offers something intelligent or funny, often based on science or philosophy. Here's just one example:

https://xkcd.com/2256/

Debunking a Meme about Scalia and Evolution

Late in the evening, my chores all done, I noodled around Facebook and found this on a Creation vs Evolution Public group:

Now Scalia was many things (chiefly a royalist who used "Originalism" when it suited and ignored it when it didn't) but he was not a dummy. (Others have said that he didn't really understand science, but who knows?)
It seems to me that the key to this meme is that the quote has no citation. Was it for real and what was the context?
Those words are from the "Edwards v Aguillard" case (Louisiana's 1990s attempt to mandate teaching Creationism.) In this quote, Scalia was summarizing what someone else believed. That's something judges do all the time without asserting what they themselves believed. When a judge says  "The defendant said he didn't do it" it doesn't mean the judge believes  "he didn't do it".

That's right: Scalia DID NOT SAY HE BELIEVED what is in that meme. He was just summarizing the argument of the losing side so he could explain his position (which was roughly that if the belief was sincere then it didn't matter if it was nonsense).

The big lesson in this s to be wary of unsourced quotes; you're likely to be repeating something false.
The small lesson in this is that if you want to debunk a quote, go to the source.

Neither Gender Nor Anatomy Are Binary

Gender Isn't Binary, And Neither Is Anatomy by Archie Bongiovanni and Sarah Mirk   explores the science behind the misunderstanding of gender and anatomy that underlies so much of our contemporary culture and politics.
"About 1 in 1,000 people have a different configuration of internal and external parts. They're intersex."
Frequently they are surgically altered while babies (and unable to give consent) to conform their anatomy more closely to our binary notions, not for medically necessary reasons. Typically, they are lied to thereafter.
 This is stuff I didn't know but makes sense when you think about the science and politics. It will be interesting to see if our next generation does better.
This is another great graphic explainer by The Nib.

I've been making electricity all morning

APT Web Study: Try It!

Every three months I fill out an Alzheimer Prevention Trials (APT) Webstudy assessment. You can too! See www.aptwebstudy.org Together we’ll help find new treatments for Alzheimer’s disease!

Eye Color Science Mystery

Why are my eyes in this photo the color of my hat, when in reality they are the color of my shirt?

Emailing A Tool To The ISS

The International Space Station's 3-D printer completed the first phase of a NASA technology demonstration by printing a tool with a design file transmitted from the ground to the printer. The tool was a ratchet wrench. https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/news/3Dratchet_wrench

SkyTruth

SkyTruth is a great source of information using publicly available aerial or satellite images! https://skytruth.org/

The Evolution Of The Gish Gallop

Creationists argue that the Gish Gallop is proof of a Creator, because it is so unlikely that a string of unrelated nonsense would assemble by itself.
However, scientists hypothesize that Gish galloping developed from simpler forms of arguments by a form of evolution, although the exact process has yet to be determined. Some posit a sea of simple arguments floating around, jostling each at random, and occasionally linking up, until long chains of unrelated arguments form. Others posit the most common terminator on a creationist argument ("Go To Start") occasionally misreads as "Go To Another". Virtual argument chains with this latter characteristic compete more effectively than the original form; even a simple two-segment Gish Gallop can run longer than the average single argument.
There is consensus, however, that the Gish gallop could not be the product of an intelligent designer, due to its high noise-to-signal ratio. As proof of an Unintelligent Designer, it remains unparalleled.
--- REW
--
The above report is in response to discussions on the "Creation Vs. Evolution" Facebook page. If you follow the "debate" it will make sense, to the extent that Gish Galloping makes sense at all.

Theory Of Continental Drip Explained

The North-to-South bias in the distribution of Earth's visible land mass at last has an explanation.

How often have you noticed that most of the Continents are broad at the top and narrow at the bottom, as if they were dripping away from the North Pole? Asia is no exception, because of its peninsulas - India, Thailand, Korea, Kamchatka.  In the far South the effect is even more obvious, as land appears to pool at the bottom in Antarctica.
"Fundamentally,"  says Professor Gorice of at the Michigan State University Tolkien Memorial Lecture in Hubbard Hall, "The Earth's dry land is dripping like the Sherwin-Williams paint can. And this can all be explained by astrophysics."

The Earth's motion through the Galaxy, as we orbit the Sun, tends in the direction very roughly correlating with North. (It's much more complicated than that, of course.) Every day we collide with trillions of particles large and small with a slight bias toward a North-to-South collision. The effect is slight, but the result is an obvious orientation in the Earth's visible landmasses, as particles of every size down to the sub-atomic rain down upon us with a pronounced orientation, kicking up the dirt slightly more often to the South.

The effect is less pronounced for masses under the ocean. "Water impacts don't impact with the same impact as dry land impacts," explained Gorice, "Fluids are displaced but backfilled by the rest of the fluid in the same body of water. Dry land doesn't do that, and thus the effect."

Why hasn't this been noticed before?

The effect is complicated by many factors. Earth's techtonic plates move around and obscure the effect of galactic motion. As greenhouse gasses wax and wane over the eons, the sea level rises and falls, shielding different areas from the effect.

But the long-term result is as clear as a map. "Ultimately," says Gorice, "All our dry land will lump together at the bottom. Of course, we'll be dead by then."