First of all - Happy New year! I still haven't managed my goal of more frequent posts but I will keep trying. This post is about one of the (many) areas of biology I find fascinating.
I could list hundreds of reasons why I chose to study biology because it really is a rich and diverse field which is thoroughly fascinating in many ways. If I had to specify an overarching theme of biology to explain why it sustains my interest, then I would perhaps say the astounding complexity and powerful beauty that underlies biological processes and systems.
Whilst I was considering this recently one thing struck me very strongly, and that is how some very surprising and often highly complicated biological processes are taken for granted by all people; whilst some others which are based on the same underlying biological themes can be challenged and sometimes derided as fanciful.
To give a good example of the kind of thing I mean I will chose a process familiar to everyone – because it is a key moment in how we all came to be here in the first place. I am referring to fertilization; when a sperm entered an egg and produced a single-celled zygote (the initial product of fertilization prior to development into an embryo). Immediately after fertilization a human zygote is roughly around 150 micrometres in diameter (one micrometer is one millionth of a meter); please take a moment to consider the kind of size we are dealing with. However, the key point I want to press home is that the zygote forms the first cell of a new human body. The zygote has one cell only, but importantly that cell contains the full complement of DNA that will go on to produce the embryo and finally a new baby.
It is not my intention to provide a technical account of development despite the fact it is thoroughly absorbing and well worth reading into (although, my level of knowledge would only allow me to give detail to a certain point in any case). What I primarily want to get across is the almost unbelievably complex and ordered process which takes place to turn one tiny cell into a human body with at least 10 trillion cells (estimates vary of the total number of human cells). Please dwell on that difference – one single cell turning into trillions of cells. Whilst a human body is developing the various tissues, blood vessels, nerves, bones, organs and limbs develop in the correct order, in the right place and at the right time of development relative to each other.
Every cell in your body derived from that initial and tiny zygote. That single cell contained the instructions for making every part of a human body. Again, in an almost mind-boggling feat of complexity the relevant instructions were only turned in each appropriate part of the body. That’s why your eyes became eyes and not fingernails – even though the cells in your eyes contain the instructions for making fingernails as well as the instructions for making a heart, a strand of hair, a toe or any part of the body you could name.
I don’t know about you but I find this truly wonderful and amazing and it drives me to learn more about how this transformation takes place. I have been focusing on humans but let’s not forget that the equivalent happens for all other animals, plants or fungi - and for all multicellular life with specialisation of form (as an aside, a great deal can be said about the complexity of bacteria and other unicellular life – but that is off the point here).
Think for a moment how readily this feat of transformation is accepted by us all. We all accept that a human develops in this way. Again, we have no issue with the fact that a tiny seed can develop into a Giant Redwood tree (Sequoia) over 100 metres tall – again note the difference in size and form between the seed and the tree. We are equally familiar with the fact that a caterpillar will pupate and change form quite remarkably into a butterfly or moth that takes to the air; again consider the difference in form between the stages. To me, these facts are all astounding and yet I have barely scratched the surface of biological wonders.
Having made plain the quite astonishing developmental processes which we often take for granted, I am left to wonder why many people will argue that similar transformations of an evolutionary kind are not possible. I have heard many people tell me how absurd it is to suggest that life as we know it arose from simple unicellular organisms. I don’t wish to claim that ontogeny (development) is exactly the same process as evolution because that would be slightly misleading. What I do wish to suggest is that we should be no more incredulous about unicellular life evolving into complex multicellular life over 3,500 million years, than we are at a single fertilized egg becoming a fully formed human in around 9 months. They both involve a complex, step-wise and highly ordered biological process of change over periods of time. Furthermore, understanding development sheds light on evolution.
Recent progress in evolutionary-developmental biology (or Evo Devo) has cast light on how changes in development drive large evolutionary change. It can be shown how changes in the timing of gene activation, or even in the location of where genes are turned on, can produce quite striking differences of form. One interesting example I recently learnt of during lectures is how the webbing in ducks feet are formed. During development bird feet are webbed but the expression (turning on) of certain genes causes the webbing between the toes to die; the toes themselves do not die off because another gene called ‘Gremlin’ is expressed on the toes - this prevents the toe cells from being killed. In Ducks, Gremlin is also turned on in the webbing and therefore it does not die and they are born with aquatic webbed feet. If chicken embryos are manipulated so that Gremlin is expressed in the webbing (before it is killed off) then they too are born with webbed feet. This is quite a complex process and difficult to sum up easily in a few sentences, the take-home message is that by changing where a gene is expressed can change the form of feet quite dramatically – a simple genetic change produces an evolutionary step. We may think ducks and chickens have very different feet but the underlying genetic changes are very small.
If you are intrigued by this idea of ‘Evo Devo’ then I would recommend reading “Endless forms most beautiful” by Sean B Carroll for some greater clarity and insight than I have just provided.
I was inspired to write about this because both evolutionary change and developmental change stir up a sense of awe inside me, and that is a primary reason I have chosen to study biology. I hope that I have been able to give a glimpse into the remarkable complexity and beauty that biology offers and that you may decide to find out a bit more about it. I can only touch upon things in a blog but rest assured there are many more examples I could give – and more interestingly there are many more waiting to be discovered!
Many thanks for reading,
Dominic
Tuesday, 8 February 2011
Wednesday, 25 August 2010
Inception and the genesis of our thoughts
I haven’t kept up with my idea of more frequent blog posts but better late than never. This is a blog entry which is part film review and part an exploration of a concept within that film. The film, which I have seen twice in order to try and absorb it, is Inception by Christopher Nolan.
The first thing to state is that the film is excellent; it’s an entertaining, engaging and thought-provoking film which is brilliantly shot and contains solid acting. I expect that most people will have heard of the film by now and it is receiving rave reviews. However, one word of caution – if you have been looking at the ratings on imdb.com (the internet movie database) you will note that it is currently ranked the 4th best film of all time by the users of the site. It was ranked 3rd best for a long time but I note it has dropped down to 4th. Over time I expect it will fall more than this but I have to say that I think it’s a slightly inflated rating. This puts it up there with The Shawshank Redemption and Godfather Part 1 and 2 as well as making it a better rated film that Schindler’s List and many other notably great films. At this stage it’s hard for me to say whether it’s a classic and I haven’t rated it yet on imdb.com. It would at least go into a shortlist of my top 50 favourite films but where it would end up I can’t say yet. In short though, if you haven’t seen it – go and see it at the cinema, it’s a brilliant cinematic experience.
Returning to the content of the film itself it’s a highly complex plotline which takes a difficult but fascinating concept and manages to make the complex ever more complicated; the story plumbs deeper into the subconscious distorting the concept of what is reality and what is not. This is a high budget film and it makes a wonderful change to see a summer blockbuster that challenges the viewer to think deeply and doesn’t dumb down to appeal to the perceived tastes of the mass market. I believe that one explanation of its high rating on review sites is down to its broad appeal; this is a psychologically puzzling film but it is also a special effects laden action film. Christopher Nolan has managed to keep the high quality of his screen-writing whilst also producing a highly exciting and action-packed film.
The idea of exploring the subconscious, and also of playing with the human perception of reality, is not new at all and can be seen in different forms in Nolan’s Memento and The Prestige. These ideas are also explored in other films like The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (and most films written by Charlie Kaufman, but I pick this as having the strongest parallels), Mulholland Drive and The Matrix, and that’s to name only a few that come straight to mind. Inception does provide a nice twist on this idea and it takes it into a very fascinating direction. The storyline is so complicated and I am unsure if it all makes sense when examined carefully; but I trust Nolan enough to believe that he thought deeply about the screenplay. I won’t write too much in case somebody reads this who hasn’t seen it yet, but for those who have I would ask you to consider carefully some aspects of the totems and the concept of limbo in particular (which seems to have been a plot device which was necessary to add more drama to the idea of death in a complexly layered dream, but of all the ideas explored in the film this seems the most vaguely conceptualized).
Manipulating our concept of reality and also exploring the genesis of our beliefs are subjects I have spent much time considering and this for me is the best part of Inception (which derives its name from the inception of an idea in the mind). In the film Leonardo DiCaprio’s character (Cobb) compares an idea to a resilient parasite and that once it has taken hold in the mind it can be extremely powerful and have massive consequences (I am paraphrasing and not quoting the script). This notion is one that interests me and one that I think is very true. In the film Cobb’s team are tasked with planting an idea so deeply in somebody’s subconscious that they believe it to be their own and they therefore shape their future choices around it; this is described in the film as very hard to achieve because we can identify the root cause of the idea in our mind and recognise it was planted there by someone else. I am not sure this is entirely true.
Many writers have explored in detail the possibility that some major ideas we embrace in our lives, in many cases in the form of strong beliefs that even shape a person’s character, are adopted when we are young due to the influence of our elders (primarily but by no means exclusively our parents and close family). Richard Dawkins has written on this matter with specific reference to people embracing their parent's religion, which likely has some implausible facets to its teaching, without questioning it when they are young. Even as a person grows older such an idea can become so deeply imbedded it cannot easily be changed. Furthermore I think that when challenged people would claim that their choice of religion, for example, was entirely their own idea and a free choice. Could it be possible in cases like these than an 'idea' has been implanted so deeply in somebody's mind that they now recognise it entirely as their own? Practically I am sure that people can recognise the impact of their early upbringing and what they were taught, but I think we often don't recognise how much we are absorbing from others rather than deciding for ourselves. I do not suggest that we cannot overcome this or change our beliefs as we grow older; this undoubtedly happens but in many cases it does not.
It should not be assumed that I place religious beliefs in this category alone. All kinds of ideas could fit into this category, for example political persuasion, attitudes to different social groups, or even a favourite sports team. I may be stretching what should be considered as a person’s idea rather than as a cultural identity of some sort but hopefully this stimulates you to consider this matter to some degree. How many of our ideas, deeply held beliefs or other aspects of our identity can be considered as something that we alone crafted and adopted? There are massive grey areas in this line of thinking and my intention is not to provide answers but to stimulate thought and conversation on the matter.
As I have written this I realise how massive this subject is and how much more I could write about. I have no clear conclusions to draw and there are many authors who have expressed this sentiment with more clarity and eloquence than I have managed. Nonetheless I think it is a fascinating area which I will certainly give more thought.
Many thanks for reading,
Dominic
The first thing to state is that the film is excellent; it’s an entertaining, engaging and thought-provoking film which is brilliantly shot and contains solid acting. I expect that most people will have heard of the film by now and it is receiving rave reviews. However, one word of caution – if you have been looking at the ratings on imdb.com (the internet movie database) you will note that it is currently ranked the 4th best film of all time by the users of the site. It was ranked 3rd best for a long time but I note it has dropped down to 4th. Over time I expect it will fall more than this but I have to say that I think it’s a slightly inflated rating. This puts it up there with The Shawshank Redemption and Godfather Part 1 and 2 as well as making it a better rated film that Schindler’s List and many other notably great films. At this stage it’s hard for me to say whether it’s a classic and I haven’t rated it yet on imdb.com. It would at least go into a shortlist of my top 50 favourite films but where it would end up I can’t say yet. In short though, if you haven’t seen it – go and see it at the cinema, it’s a brilliant cinematic experience.
Returning to the content of the film itself it’s a highly complex plotline which takes a difficult but fascinating concept and manages to make the complex ever more complicated; the story plumbs deeper into the subconscious distorting the concept of what is reality and what is not. This is a high budget film and it makes a wonderful change to see a summer blockbuster that challenges the viewer to think deeply and doesn’t dumb down to appeal to the perceived tastes of the mass market. I believe that one explanation of its high rating on review sites is down to its broad appeal; this is a psychologically puzzling film but it is also a special effects laden action film. Christopher Nolan has managed to keep the high quality of his screen-writing whilst also producing a highly exciting and action-packed film.
The idea of exploring the subconscious, and also of playing with the human perception of reality, is not new at all and can be seen in different forms in Nolan’s Memento and The Prestige. These ideas are also explored in other films like The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (and most films written by Charlie Kaufman, but I pick this as having the strongest parallels), Mulholland Drive and The Matrix, and that’s to name only a few that come straight to mind. Inception does provide a nice twist on this idea and it takes it into a very fascinating direction. The storyline is so complicated and I am unsure if it all makes sense when examined carefully; but I trust Nolan enough to believe that he thought deeply about the screenplay. I won’t write too much in case somebody reads this who hasn’t seen it yet, but for those who have I would ask you to consider carefully some aspects of the totems and the concept of limbo in particular (which seems to have been a plot device which was necessary to add more drama to the idea of death in a complexly layered dream, but of all the ideas explored in the film this seems the most vaguely conceptualized).
Manipulating our concept of reality and also exploring the genesis of our beliefs are subjects I have spent much time considering and this for me is the best part of Inception (which derives its name from the inception of an idea in the mind). In the film Leonardo DiCaprio’s character (Cobb) compares an idea to a resilient parasite and that once it has taken hold in the mind it can be extremely powerful and have massive consequences (I am paraphrasing and not quoting the script). This notion is one that interests me and one that I think is very true. In the film Cobb’s team are tasked with planting an idea so deeply in somebody’s subconscious that they believe it to be their own and they therefore shape their future choices around it; this is described in the film as very hard to achieve because we can identify the root cause of the idea in our mind and recognise it was planted there by someone else. I am not sure this is entirely true.
Many writers have explored in detail the possibility that some major ideas we embrace in our lives, in many cases in the form of strong beliefs that even shape a person’s character, are adopted when we are young due to the influence of our elders (primarily but by no means exclusively our parents and close family). Richard Dawkins has written on this matter with specific reference to people embracing their parent's religion, which likely has some implausible facets to its teaching, without questioning it when they are young. Even as a person grows older such an idea can become so deeply imbedded it cannot easily be changed. Furthermore I think that when challenged people would claim that their choice of religion, for example, was entirely their own idea and a free choice. Could it be possible in cases like these than an 'idea' has been implanted so deeply in somebody's mind that they now recognise it entirely as their own? Practically I am sure that people can recognise the impact of their early upbringing and what they were taught, but I think we often don't recognise how much we are absorbing from others rather than deciding for ourselves. I do not suggest that we cannot overcome this or change our beliefs as we grow older; this undoubtedly happens but in many cases it does not.
It should not be assumed that I place religious beliefs in this category alone. All kinds of ideas could fit into this category, for example political persuasion, attitudes to different social groups, or even a favourite sports team. I may be stretching what should be considered as a person’s idea rather than as a cultural identity of some sort but hopefully this stimulates you to consider this matter to some degree. How many of our ideas, deeply held beliefs or other aspects of our identity can be considered as something that we alone crafted and adopted? There are massive grey areas in this line of thinking and my intention is not to provide answers but to stimulate thought and conversation on the matter.
As I have written this I realise how massive this subject is and how much more I could write about. I have no clear conclusions to draw and there are many authors who have expressed this sentiment with more clarity and eloquence than I have managed. Nonetheless I think it is a fascinating area which I will certainly give more thought.
Many thanks for reading,
Dominic
Friday, 2 April 2010
Thoughts on truth.
I haven’t kept up with my idea of writing smaller and more regular post on here at all. I like doing it but I’m so busy with study that I never make the time.
Anyway here goes one off the top of my head whilst I’m thinking about it. It was celebrated Japanese filmmaker Akira Kurosawa’s 100th birthday last week (or would have been if he hadn’t died in 1998). There were therefore quite a few articles circulating around about him. I knew of him due to ‘The Seven Samurai’ (which to my shame as a film fan I still haven’t seen) but I hadn’t heard of any of his other films directly. When reading an article about his work I was struck by the synopsis of a film called Rashomon. I sought it out and watched it last week.
I wasn’t entirely sure what to make of it in its entirety although many elements of it were certainly outstanding. I liked the concept of the film very much and enjoyed the story. The main issue for me was probably trying to appreciate a Japanese film from the early 1950s as if it was just being shown for the first time – which of course is impossible. Many of the innovative ideas used by Kurosawa would not seem so to me because cinema has moved on since his time – and what’s more, many of my favourite directors have been influenced by Kurosawa so it is natural to be familiar with some of his techniques. Having said that, it was clear that the cinematography and editing were exemplary and they have stood the test of time.
What is best about the film is the idea behind the story. Put simply, four eyewitnesses describe the event of a rape and murder and all of them describe events quite differently. We don’t know who is telling the truth, nor do we know if any of them are deliberately misleading us or if they are recalling events to the best of their ability. In my mind the films asks us to question the nature of truth. What is truth? Is truth absolute or is it subjective?
Certainly when it comes to eyewitness accounts then we can explain anomalies by the imperfect nature of human memory and also by the propensity of those telling a story to be influenced by their past experience and unique understanding of the world. Perhaps we all see things very differently (although we can certainly tell if someone has been killed and by whom if we are watching at the time). However, when we are speaking, the audience that we have, the pressure we are under and the situation we are in will greatly affect what we actually say – whether this is done consciously or at some subconscious level. To get a really good idea of this I suggest you watch “Capturing The Friedmans”. It is a quite brilliant documentary, and although the subject matter may be tough going it is a wonderful film which makes you think about these issues in real detail (see more here - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0342172/).
So where am I going in all this? Well, eyewitness accounts are perhaps more likely to get distorted than other kinds of ‘truths’. So the question can be posed more widely – is there such a thing as ultimate truth? For many people the basic tenets of their religion (whichever it may be) are the absolute truth. But again here we get into subjective truth again; if I speak to a devout Muslim he or she will give me one version of ‘ultimate truth’, but a devout Christian will tell me that this is false and will provide another ‘ultimate truth’. Both cannot be true, and as far as I can tell there is no independent arbiter of the veracity of these beliefs. We can extend this argument to contain hundreds of contradictory belief systems all of which are 100% ‘known’ to be true by its firm followers.
I cannot hold to any religious belief as ultimate truth - but I can take those religious teachings which inspire me and use them, I hope, to lead a better life and to draw strength from. So do I believe there is ultimate truth? Well I do think there are things that are as representative of the truth as it is possible to know as human beings. I have spoken in other blog posts about how the scientific method can help us to determine some things as true, and I hold to that strongly. Although, I would certainly not go as far as saying that science is ultimate truth. Those things I do know as true can be verified against observable evidence (or testable hypotheses). In this way we can have truth without certainty, any scientific fact has to be disprovable and thu is only 99.99999…% true. I have used this quote from Ashley Montagu previously but it sums up what I’m trying to say here:
“The scientist believes in proof without certainty, the bigot in certainty without proof”.
I want to remain as rational and logical about certain truths as possible, but please note that this doesn’t equate to being unemotional or uncreative. I try not to believe what I read in the papers, what I hear in the office, what I see on TV about the new ‘miracle health cure’, what I’m told by politicians or what is preached about in certain literature. I remain open to other people’s point of view and do not hold anybody’s beliefs against them, and I’m very happy to hear why people may disagree with me, but I am careful to evaluate the information I receive before readily adopting it into my worldview. I am training to become a scientist, but I am far from one yet so my understanding still needs much developing. I am willing to learn and to keep investigating my perception of ‘truth’ and I am sure I will continue to enjoy the journey.
I have no idea if any of this makes sense as I wrote it in one go without a planned structure. Anyway, I hope that if anybody does read this then you enjoy it. As always, I’m open to comments.
Thanks for reading – Dominic.
Anyway here goes one off the top of my head whilst I’m thinking about it. It was celebrated Japanese filmmaker Akira Kurosawa’s 100th birthday last week (or would have been if he hadn’t died in 1998). There were therefore quite a few articles circulating around about him. I knew of him due to ‘The Seven Samurai’ (which to my shame as a film fan I still haven’t seen) but I hadn’t heard of any of his other films directly. When reading an article about his work I was struck by the synopsis of a film called Rashomon. I sought it out and watched it last week.
I wasn’t entirely sure what to make of it in its entirety although many elements of it were certainly outstanding. I liked the concept of the film very much and enjoyed the story. The main issue for me was probably trying to appreciate a Japanese film from the early 1950s as if it was just being shown for the first time – which of course is impossible. Many of the innovative ideas used by Kurosawa would not seem so to me because cinema has moved on since his time – and what’s more, many of my favourite directors have been influenced by Kurosawa so it is natural to be familiar with some of his techniques. Having said that, it was clear that the cinematography and editing were exemplary and they have stood the test of time.
What is best about the film is the idea behind the story. Put simply, four eyewitnesses describe the event of a rape and murder and all of them describe events quite differently. We don’t know who is telling the truth, nor do we know if any of them are deliberately misleading us or if they are recalling events to the best of their ability. In my mind the films asks us to question the nature of truth. What is truth? Is truth absolute or is it subjective?
Certainly when it comes to eyewitness accounts then we can explain anomalies by the imperfect nature of human memory and also by the propensity of those telling a story to be influenced by their past experience and unique understanding of the world. Perhaps we all see things very differently (although we can certainly tell if someone has been killed and by whom if we are watching at the time). However, when we are speaking, the audience that we have, the pressure we are under and the situation we are in will greatly affect what we actually say – whether this is done consciously or at some subconscious level. To get a really good idea of this I suggest you watch “Capturing The Friedmans”. It is a quite brilliant documentary, and although the subject matter may be tough going it is a wonderful film which makes you think about these issues in real detail (see more here - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0342172/).
So where am I going in all this? Well, eyewitness accounts are perhaps more likely to get distorted than other kinds of ‘truths’. So the question can be posed more widely – is there such a thing as ultimate truth? For many people the basic tenets of their religion (whichever it may be) are the absolute truth. But again here we get into subjective truth again; if I speak to a devout Muslim he or she will give me one version of ‘ultimate truth’, but a devout Christian will tell me that this is false and will provide another ‘ultimate truth’. Both cannot be true, and as far as I can tell there is no independent arbiter of the veracity of these beliefs. We can extend this argument to contain hundreds of contradictory belief systems all of which are 100% ‘known’ to be true by its firm followers.
I cannot hold to any religious belief as ultimate truth - but I can take those religious teachings which inspire me and use them, I hope, to lead a better life and to draw strength from. So do I believe there is ultimate truth? Well I do think there are things that are as representative of the truth as it is possible to know as human beings. I have spoken in other blog posts about how the scientific method can help us to determine some things as true, and I hold to that strongly. Although, I would certainly not go as far as saying that science is ultimate truth. Those things I do know as true can be verified against observable evidence (or testable hypotheses). In this way we can have truth without certainty, any scientific fact has to be disprovable and thu is only 99.99999…% true. I have used this quote from Ashley Montagu previously but it sums up what I’m trying to say here:
“The scientist believes in proof without certainty, the bigot in certainty without proof”.
I want to remain as rational and logical about certain truths as possible, but please note that this doesn’t equate to being unemotional or uncreative. I try not to believe what I read in the papers, what I hear in the office, what I see on TV about the new ‘miracle health cure’, what I’m told by politicians or what is preached about in certain literature. I remain open to other people’s point of view and do not hold anybody’s beliefs against them, and I’m very happy to hear why people may disagree with me, but I am careful to evaluate the information I receive before readily adopting it into my worldview. I am training to become a scientist, but I am far from one yet so my understanding still needs much developing. I am willing to learn and to keep investigating my perception of ‘truth’ and I am sure I will continue to enjoy the journey.
I have no idea if any of this makes sense as I wrote it in one go without a planned structure. Anyway, I hope that if anybody does read this then you enjoy it. As always, I’m open to comments.
Thanks for reading – Dominic.
Friday, 15 January 2010
Global warming
I have left it some time since my last blog entry so I should start by saying happy New Year to anyone who might read this blog. I think I’m my own worst enemy when it comes to making time for writing on the blog because I tend to want hours to produce a polished and coherent article. However, this is a blog and not a piece of academic work so I’ll try and take a more relaxed attitude to blogging in 2010.
One thing that has been on my mind in the last few weeks has been the issue of climate change and global warming. In the UK we have had an extremely cold spell of weather which has caused heavy snowfalls, icy roads and travel chaos up and down the country. It’s rare, especially for those of us living in the south of England, to see such consistently cold weather and persistent snow on the ground. I have heard (or read on Facebook) several people making comments along the lines of “So this is global warming is it? I can’t see how the scientists can be telling us that the climate is warming when it’s been freezing cold and snowy for weeks”.
Perhaps this is quite a natural thing to think but I wanted to address it here because I believe that global warming is a huge problem and one that must be dealt with. It’s worth mentioning in advance that I am no scientific expert in this field, although I have studied some areas of climate change, and seen a great deal of robust scientific data, so I do feel able to discuss the topic.
What we should understand about climate change is that scientists look at average surface temperatures taken from monitoring stations in multitudes of locations across the globe. Each area provides data on the local mean (or average) surface temperature and all of these averages are then taken and collated to produce figures for the global mean surface temperature (GMST). I am not going to give references to all of those figures and sets of data here only to say that the measurements are reliable and accurate. Looking at the data it is certain that over the last century the temperature at the Earth’s surface has been warming (if not before).
The key thing to note here is that climate change is evaluated by looking at average (mean) temperatures going back over centuries of data. Isolated periods of unusually cold weather do certainly occur but that is of no direct impact to the question of whether the climate is warming. Furthermore, instances of cold weather in one region of the world may occur whilst other areas in the world see unusually hot weather; whilst people in the UK were shivering in the icy weather the residents of Melbourne in Australia were sweltering in a heat wave. During a year the weather fluctuates and we will see cold weather, hot weather, rainy weather, windy weather but none of these isolated occurrences tell us about the overall picture. That is why we need to look at the wider picture and the average temperatures globally compared to the averages in past years.
It is also very true that over the Earth’s long history the climate has experienced fluctuating high and low average temperatures. What scientists studying climate change do is to work out if the recent rises in GMST are to be expected (looking at the background of continuous climate change) or if the period of current warming is atypical. To do this they evaluate ancient temperature records which can be done through various methods (such as proportions of fossil pollen grains). The consensus is that the rate of warming we see across the globe today is unusually higher than seen in the past.
To go further into this I could now digress in to carbon dioxide levels but I was originally attempting to keep this blog relatively short - something which seems to be extremely difficult for me to achieve. As a budding biologist one of my main concerns regarding this level of warming, which is almost certainly thanks to anthropogenic activity, is the devastating environmental effects it is having. The Earth’s climate has always varied considerably due to natural causes and equally the extinction of species has always been a commonplace occurrence over the vastness of the Earth’s history. But events in recent times are not natural and since we can now understand the potential consequences it seems bizarre that we would choose not to act.
Those people who claim global warming is a huge conspiracy would do well to seek out and evaluate the scientific data for themselves. The scientific facts on this matter have no political or economical agenda; the data speaks for no organisation or pressure group but stands alone as pure factual data that we ignore at our peril. It may not be to the detriment of the current adult population if the trend of warming isn’t tackled but our children will surely suffer. What is more, the ecological and environmental consequences will not be easy to recover from and a great many species will be lost from this Earth never to evolve again.
As always, many thanks for reading.
Dominic (who, whilst writing this, realised that I too am not doing enough to make a small difference to the problems of global warming).
One thing that has been on my mind in the last few weeks has been the issue of climate change and global warming. In the UK we have had an extremely cold spell of weather which has caused heavy snowfalls, icy roads and travel chaos up and down the country. It’s rare, especially for those of us living in the south of England, to see such consistently cold weather and persistent snow on the ground. I have heard (or read on Facebook) several people making comments along the lines of “So this is global warming is it? I can’t see how the scientists can be telling us that the climate is warming when it’s been freezing cold and snowy for weeks”.
Perhaps this is quite a natural thing to think but I wanted to address it here because I believe that global warming is a huge problem and one that must be dealt with. It’s worth mentioning in advance that I am no scientific expert in this field, although I have studied some areas of climate change, and seen a great deal of robust scientific data, so I do feel able to discuss the topic.
What we should understand about climate change is that scientists look at average surface temperatures taken from monitoring stations in multitudes of locations across the globe. Each area provides data on the local mean (or average) surface temperature and all of these averages are then taken and collated to produce figures for the global mean surface temperature (GMST). I am not going to give references to all of those figures and sets of data here only to say that the measurements are reliable and accurate. Looking at the data it is certain that over the last century the temperature at the Earth’s surface has been warming (if not before).
The key thing to note here is that climate change is evaluated by looking at average (mean) temperatures going back over centuries of data. Isolated periods of unusually cold weather do certainly occur but that is of no direct impact to the question of whether the climate is warming. Furthermore, instances of cold weather in one region of the world may occur whilst other areas in the world see unusually hot weather; whilst people in the UK were shivering in the icy weather the residents of Melbourne in Australia were sweltering in a heat wave. During a year the weather fluctuates and we will see cold weather, hot weather, rainy weather, windy weather but none of these isolated occurrences tell us about the overall picture. That is why we need to look at the wider picture and the average temperatures globally compared to the averages in past years.
It is also very true that over the Earth’s long history the climate has experienced fluctuating high and low average temperatures. What scientists studying climate change do is to work out if the recent rises in GMST are to be expected (looking at the background of continuous climate change) or if the period of current warming is atypical. To do this they evaluate ancient temperature records which can be done through various methods (such as proportions of fossil pollen grains). The consensus is that the rate of warming we see across the globe today is unusually higher than seen in the past.
To go further into this I could now digress in to carbon dioxide levels but I was originally attempting to keep this blog relatively short - something which seems to be extremely difficult for me to achieve. As a budding biologist one of my main concerns regarding this level of warming, which is almost certainly thanks to anthropogenic activity, is the devastating environmental effects it is having. The Earth’s climate has always varied considerably due to natural causes and equally the extinction of species has always been a commonplace occurrence over the vastness of the Earth’s history. But events in recent times are not natural and since we can now understand the potential consequences it seems bizarre that we would choose not to act.
Those people who claim global warming is a huge conspiracy would do well to seek out and evaluate the scientific data for themselves. The scientific facts on this matter have no political or economical agenda; the data speaks for no organisation or pressure group but stands alone as pure factual data that we ignore at our peril. It may not be to the detriment of the current adult population if the trend of warming isn’t tackled but our children will surely suffer. What is more, the ecological and environmental consequences will not be easy to recover from and a great many species will be lost from this Earth never to evolve again.
As always, many thanks for reading.
Dominic (who, whilst writing this, realised that I too am not doing enough to make a small difference to the problems of global warming).
Wednesday, 18 November 2009
Inherit the Wind
I recently saw a wonderful play at the Old Vic Theatre in London called Inherit the Wind. Taking in account the production, acting, subject matter and execution it was one of the very best plays I have ever seen.
Before I explain why I enjoyed the play so much I am also keen to give the background to the real life event which inspired the screenplay. By 1925 a Christian fundamentalist movement had made strong opposition to the teaching of evolution in schools and what they saw as a threat to the very moral structure that supported American society. A rough representation of their argument runs along these lines: evolution denies the literal truth of the Bible, denying the literal Biblical truth will lead to doubts about God, doubting God is abhorrent and will soon lead to pure atheism, atheism destroys morals and leads to the downfall of all that is good, our society will be destroyed and evil will prevail.
On the 23rd March 1925 the Butler Act was passed by the state in Tennessee; this act stated that:
“It shall be unlawful for any teacher to teach any theory that denies the Story of Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man had descended from a lower order of animal” (E.C.Scott, 2004).
It was therefore no longer legal for a science teacher to advance the theory of evolution. With much justification the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) took it upon themselves to challenge a law that they felt was a denial of free speech and directly opposed to the First Amendment.
John T. Scopes was a science teacher in the small town of Dayton (Tennessee) and he agreed to a proposition by the ACLU that he would admit to teaching evolution in school so that it could be taken to trial; the ACLU wished to use the trial to generate publicity and highlight a law they felt was unjust. The Scopes trial did indeed receive much publicity; not least due to the involvement of William Jennings Bryan for the prosecution and Clarence Darrow for the defence. Bryan was a devout Christian with fundamentalist views (and an extreme distaste for evolutionary theory) whilst Darrow was a noted agnostic and an extremely famous defence attorney. A key stage of the trial was when Darrow called Bryan to the stand as an expert witness on the Bible; hoping to preach to the non-believers Bryan accepted. Bryan was made to appear somewhat foolish due to his ignorance of many issues and a naïve explanation of certain Biblical stories, which he felt should be taken as written - word for word.
Scopes was convicted; mainly because the case was brought to trial focused on the sole issue of whether Scopes broke the law by violating the Butler act (which was never in question as he had admitted doing so). Eventually, however, the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the decision due to a slight technical transgression and the case was thrown out. What mattered most was that it was a wonderful success for the ACLU in highlighting the issues to the popular press.
The trial, and the events both before and afterwards, is extremely fascinating and very important in understanding the battle that still rages today between Christian fundamentalists and the scientific community. Many of these issues were represented intelligently in Inherit the Wind.
The play takes certain dramatic license, as one would expect, and a large amount of it is based on a dramatization of the exchange between Darrow and Bryan (the characters have different names in the play). But the most important thing for me is that the central theme of the play is the advancement of free-thinking and the benefits to society when we encourage other to consider matters in depth - free from suppression. Even today the suppression of free-thought is a commonplace occurrence and frequently takes place under the banner of religious “teaching”. I place teaching in quotes because I feel that even though it is called teaching it lies more firmly in the realm of indoctrination.
If people consider the evidence for evolution carefully, read unbiased scientific literature and carefully consider all angles, and still reject it – I would have no issue (although I would be keen to discuss what conclusions such a person came to). However, to either suppress the knowledge of this rich and wonderful field of scientific knowledge, or greatly distort it, leaves me deeply saddened and frustrated. Laws such as the Butler Act no longer exist in the USA so the main Creationist groups have turned to the tactic of misrepresenting evolution, and more often presenting blatantly false information about it. Falsehood, out of context quotes, and bad science permeates the Creationist literature, and yet millions accept it on face value; a religious community tends to be structured in such a way that authority is trusted completely - those in charge often take full advantage of this fact when presenting misleading information.
The creationist movement in America tried for many years to get evolution banned in schools but time and time again their attempts were thwarted in court (where they are under oath to tell the truth). Today they focus on a movement advocating equal time in science class for Intelligent Design (the new name for Creation Science but equally vacuous on scientific grounds). I have no issue with Creationism being discussed in religious classes, or perhaps in history or other lessons where it may be appropriate to consider its impact. But Creationism, Creation Science or Intelligent Design are simply not scientific theories and not suitable for science class. In school there is still some control over the broad range of subjects a child is allowed to explore; at home or in church there are no such rules. If science class is invaded by religious and personal views then it ceases to be science – will religious leaders give evolution equal time in Sunday school I wonder?
One final thought, I have written as though it is only in America that science is under attack and where religious groups seek to undermine education – however, many ripples have spread out from the epicentre in America. This can be seen by this article on the BBC website which details a recent survey in which 60% of those questioned in Britain felt creationism should be taught alongside evolution in science lessons (perhaps indicating that bad information and misunderstanding clouds views on this matter) :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8322781.stm
I think this is more than enough for now. I can only finish by highly recommending Inherit the Wind, it is still showing in London and it is a wonderful play. Kevin Spacey plays Henry Drummond (based upon Clarence Darrow) and was truly brilliant – but it is unfair to highlight only Spacey because each and every person on the stage put in a wonderful performance.
Before I explain why I enjoyed the play so much I am also keen to give the background to the real life event which inspired the screenplay. By 1925 a Christian fundamentalist movement had made strong opposition to the teaching of evolution in schools and what they saw as a threat to the very moral structure that supported American society. A rough representation of their argument runs along these lines: evolution denies the literal truth of the Bible, denying the literal Biblical truth will lead to doubts about God, doubting God is abhorrent and will soon lead to pure atheism, atheism destroys morals and leads to the downfall of all that is good, our society will be destroyed and evil will prevail.
On the 23rd March 1925 the Butler Act was passed by the state in Tennessee; this act stated that:
“It shall be unlawful for any teacher to teach any theory that denies the Story of Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man had descended from a lower order of animal” (E.C.Scott, 2004).
It was therefore no longer legal for a science teacher to advance the theory of evolution. With much justification the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) took it upon themselves to challenge a law that they felt was a denial of free speech and directly opposed to the First Amendment.
John T. Scopes was a science teacher in the small town of Dayton (Tennessee) and he agreed to a proposition by the ACLU that he would admit to teaching evolution in school so that it could be taken to trial; the ACLU wished to use the trial to generate publicity and highlight a law they felt was unjust. The Scopes trial did indeed receive much publicity; not least due to the involvement of William Jennings Bryan for the prosecution and Clarence Darrow for the defence. Bryan was a devout Christian with fundamentalist views (and an extreme distaste for evolutionary theory) whilst Darrow was a noted agnostic and an extremely famous defence attorney. A key stage of the trial was when Darrow called Bryan to the stand as an expert witness on the Bible; hoping to preach to the non-believers Bryan accepted. Bryan was made to appear somewhat foolish due to his ignorance of many issues and a naïve explanation of certain Biblical stories, which he felt should be taken as written - word for word.
Scopes was convicted; mainly because the case was brought to trial focused on the sole issue of whether Scopes broke the law by violating the Butler act (which was never in question as he had admitted doing so). Eventually, however, the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the decision due to a slight technical transgression and the case was thrown out. What mattered most was that it was a wonderful success for the ACLU in highlighting the issues to the popular press.
The trial, and the events both before and afterwards, is extremely fascinating and very important in understanding the battle that still rages today between Christian fundamentalists and the scientific community. Many of these issues were represented intelligently in Inherit the Wind.
The play takes certain dramatic license, as one would expect, and a large amount of it is based on a dramatization of the exchange between Darrow and Bryan (the characters have different names in the play). But the most important thing for me is that the central theme of the play is the advancement of free-thinking and the benefits to society when we encourage other to consider matters in depth - free from suppression. Even today the suppression of free-thought is a commonplace occurrence and frequently takes place under the banner of religious “teaching”. I place teaching in quotes because I feel that even though it is called teaching it lies more firmly in the realm of indoctrination.
If people consider the evidence for evolution carefully, read unbiased scientific literature and carefully consider all angles, and still reject it – I would have no issue (although I would be keen to discuss what conclusions such a person came to). However, to either suppress the knowledge of this rich and wonderful field of scientific knowledge, or greatly distort it, leaves me deeply saddened and frustrated. Laws such as the Butler Act no longer exist in the USA so the main Creationist groups have turned to the tactic of misrepresenting evolution, and more often presenting blatantly false information about it. Falsehood, out of context quotes, and bad science permeates the Creationist literature, and yet millions accept it on face value; a religious community tends to be structured in such a way that authority is trusted completely - those in charge often take full advantage of this fact when presenting misleading information.
The creationist movement in America tried for many years to get evolution banned in schools but time and time again their attempts were thwarted in court (where they are under oath to tell the truth). Today they focus on a movement advocating equal time in science class for Intelligent Design (the new name for Creation Science but equally vacuous on scientific grounds). I have no issue with Creationism being discussed in religious classes, or perhaps in history or other lessons where it may be appropriate to consider its impact. But Creationism, Creation Science or Intelligent Design are simply not scientific theories and not suitable for science class. In school there is still some control over the broad range of subjects a child is allowed to explore; at home or in church there are no such rules. If science class is invaded by religious and personal views then it ceases to be science – will religious leaders give evolution equal time in Sunday school I wonder?
One final thought, I have written as though it is only in America that science is under attack and where religious groups seek to undermine education – however, many ripples have spread out from the epicentre in America. This can be seen by this article on the BBC website which details a recent survey in which 60% of those questioned in Britain felt creationism should be taught alongside evolution in science lessons (perhaps indicating that bad information and misunderstanding clouds views on this matter) :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8322781.stm
I think this is more than enough for now. I can only finish by highly recommending Inherit the Wind, it is still showing in London and it is a wonderful play. Kevin Spacey plays Henry Drummond (based upon Clarence Darrow) and was truly brilliant – but it is unfair to highlight only Spacey because each and every person on the stage put in a wonderful performance.
Saturday, 14 November 2009
Welcome
Welcome to my blog.
I have recently been contributing to a blog that belongs to a friend of mine which is still online and can be found here:
http://apathyeveolved.blogspot.com/
However, the blog was set up for certain purposes and I began to worry that what I was writing may not reflect what all the authors wanted to say. Hence – this is my blog where I will post without fear of upsetting fellow authors (and hoping not to offend any readers – if there ever are any).
My main passion is the advancement of scientific understanding and trying to fight through the wealth of misinformation, superstition and bad science that seems to dominate a lot of the popular media. In particular, as could be seen by some of my posts in the apatheyevolved blog, I am a keen defender of evolutionary theory against those who attack it for religious, political and personal reasons. Evolution continues to create controversy – but never in the scientific community where its validity is not under debate. There are debates between scientists about the mechanisms of evolution and how each of them may contribute to evolutionary change – but that is the nature of science and does not indicate that evolution is somehow contentious.
Anyway, as soon as I start on evolution I get carried away (and why not, as I feel it’s a thoroughly fascinating and amazingly beautiful process). But, this is just my introduction.
I write best when inspired to do so by a certain book, article or documentary and I will often do that here. I will not constrain all I write about to scientific topics and I will try to comment on matters that interest me most. I also hope to raise awareness of the threat to biodiversity through anthropogenic activity, and perhaps advance understanding of climate change and the dynamic nature of our wonderful planet and its environmental and ecological systems.
I am not a particularly great writer and although I am studying to become a zoologist I am by no means a scientist yet – and certainly no expert. I encourage comments and feedback and I enjoy a good debate so if you disagree then let me know – but only in a constructive way please.
Well enough for now. Have a look at the blog (linked above) if you want to read some of my previous posts and comments.
Thanks for reading,
Dominic
I have recently been contributing to a blog that belongs to a friend of mine which is still online and can be found here:
http://apathyeveolved.blogspot.com/
However, the blog was set up for certain purposes and I began to worry that what I was writing may not reflect what all the authors wanted to say. Hence – this is my blog where I will post without fear of upsetting fellow authors (and hoping not to offend any readers – if there ever are any).
My main passion is the advancement of scientific understanding and trying to fight through the wealth of misinformation, superstition and bad science that seems to dominate a lot of the popular media. In particular, as could be seen by some of my posts in the apatheyevolved blog, I am a keen defender of evolutionary theory against those who attack it for religious, political and personal reasons. Evolution continues to create controversy – but never in the scientific community where its validity is not under debate. There are debates between scientists about the mechanisms of evolution and how each of them may contribute to evolutionary change – but that is the nature of science and does not indicate that evolution is somehow contentious.
Anyway, as soon as I start on evolution I get carried away (and why not, as I feel it’s a thoroughly fascinating and amazingly beautiful process). But, this is just my introduction.
I write best when inspired to do so by a certain book, article or documentary and I will often do that here. I will not constrain all I write about to scientific topics and I will try to comment on matters that interest me most. I also hope to raise awareness of the threat to biodiversity through anthropogenic activity, and perhaps advance understanding of climate change and the dynamic nature of our wonderful planet and its environmental and ecological systems.
I am not a particularly great writer and although I am studying to become a zoologist I am by no means a scientist yet – and certainly no expert. I encourage comments and feedback and I enjoy a good debate so if you disagree then let me know – but only in a constructive way please.
Well enough for now. Have a look at the blog (linked above) if you want to read some of my previous posts and comments.
Thanks for reading,
Dominic
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)