Monday, January 9, 2012

"The Ten Most Beautiful Experiments" Book Summary

Mix serendipity, with just the right historic context, with army of prior scientific geniuses to build on, with strokes of insight, with creativity, with gruelingly boring repetition, with unflagging tenacity, with an insatiable curiosity and you have the makings of the ten men that this book is about.  I recommend this book highly if you find scientific inquiry, creativity and empirical experiments interesting on any level.  I shall give brief sketches to hopeful wet appetites either for the book or to further investigate yourself or to simply bask in the glow that is these luminaries.

What you get from the book, as opposed to this blog, is fascinating details about the historical context these experiments arose from, an abundance of other related experiments that these scientists fiddled with and biographical details that bring these stories to life.

  1. Galileo - There are some more snobbish scientists who look down upon the more observational sciences like biology and astronomy because it's rare or difficult to be able to actually preform experiments.  Most of the science is simply "sitting back" and making careful observations.  Galileo, of course, was most well known for his work on confirming Copernicus's assertion that, no, the Earth was not the center of the solar system--there were moons that even revolved around other planets. (Aside: the term 'revolutionary' was popularized after Copernicus publication of his work "revolutionizing" our understanding of space and the revolution of the heavenly bodies.)  Galileo insightfully wanted to understand the principles underlying the movement of Jupiter's moon's or that of Earth's.  He wanted to understand motion and gravity.  For this, he completed his well known (and likely apocryphal) drop of two different weights off the Leaning Tower of Pisa giving support to gravity's equal attraction of the two different weights.  He did, however, likely complete something very similar to that leading him to attempt to slow down the experiment in order to make more accurate measurements.  What he did was this, roll objects of various weights down inclines timing them with drops of water coming from a hole in the bottom of a bucket.  There's hardly a variable he didn't tinker with: weight of the objects, incline, method of timing, use of bells to be hit by the rolling objects, etc.  What's more is his deft analyse of the math.  By dividing the time elapsed by the distance covered he quickly realized that the acceleration was exponential and, as a bonus, that exponents are the sum of the odd integers proceeding it.  
  2. William Harvey - Hard to believe, but during the 1600s there was much confusion and debate about what the function and mechanics of the heart were.  With many a vivisection, pinching veins and arteries off and on, by considering valve construction, location and function he discovered that blood flowed one direction by the systolic push of the heart.
  3. Isaac Newton - The Presocratics believed that we saw by beams emanating from our eyes.  Others thought that light could be 'stained' by bouncing off colored objects.  How, indeed, did light work?  And how could we test it?  One man, cloistered away for fear of the plague ravaging Europe, set out to find out.  He experimented by taking a blunt probe and pushing on  his eye and making careful recordings and sketches of the colors and shapes that action produced.  He separated the colors of the rainbow by the use of a prism.  And, insightfully, he recombined the broken colors with a lens showing that they weren't a product of the prism, colors were fundamental and the constituents of white light.
  4. Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier - How does fire work?  What are the main components of the atmosphere?  Lavoisier completed a number of experiments to help answer these questions, one of which was using lens as wide as eight feet to focus light and burn such things as diamonds (they are, after all, carbon).  He also completed experiments burning mercury compounds thereby consuming oxygen from the air.  By preforming other reactions he could then release that oxygen back into the air.  
  5. Luigi Galvani - How does electricity work?  How does the body use electricity for muscle contraction?  A charge, it was previously known, could make frog legs twitch.  Galvani hooked frog legs up to wires outside during thunder storms, he poked and proded while touching/not touching the metal of the probe, he contacted experiments near rudimentary generators/far from/hooked up/not hooked up, with the same kind of metal/with two different kinds of metals making a simple battery.
  6. Michael Faraday - Could there be a connection between light and electricity?  Among many other experiments one of the more illustrative used a candle, a relective surface, Nicol prism (polarized lens) and an electromagnet.  He bounced the image of the candle light off the surface and through a piece of glass and then made his observations through the polarized lens.  Moving the the lens such that the polarized light disappeared from sight he then turned on the electromagnet running adjacent to the glass that the image went through.  He could then see the image.  A magnetic field changed the polarization of the light.
  7. James Joule  - What is heat?  How is it related to work?  He vigorously stirred water to show that heat wasn't an ethereal substance spoken of as 'caloric' that caused objects to heat; it was work (friction).  He devised a way to measure the amount of work done (mass moved) and temperature of water stirred.  
  8. A. A. Michelson - Was able to calculate the speed of light by bouncing light off a spinning  mirror.  The light would return to bounce again off the mirror, but in the time elapsed the mirror has moved causing the reflection to move.  How did he know the speed of the spinning mirror?  By attaching a mirror to a electric tuning fork.  The reflected image of the spinning mirror would stroboscopicly freeze at an equal speed.  He also disproved that Earth was moving through an ether realm by bouncing light at right angles and showing that light was reacted the same both in the direction of the Earth's movement through a theoretical ether and at right angles to it. 
  9. Ivan Pavlov - He preformed minor surgery on dogs to move a salivary gland from the inside to the outside of the mouth.  This could then be used to measure the physiological response to various stimuli such as sand in the mouth, dry bread, and classical conditioning, or pairing reward with reward cue.  Even though the reward is removed the cue still triggers the response.
  10. Robert Millikan - 

Sunday, January 1, 2012

The Palate - Yet Another Difference Between Mammals and Other Vertebrates

You wanna know one of the biggest reason that mammals are special?  We chew.

In fact, only mammals chew. (Pretty much.  It's hard to make absolute statements in biology.)

More on this here.

The gist:  We mammals have evolved warm bloodedness because it helps us move quickly and with sustained energy (reptiles have to bask in the sun, etc. to get warm).  Hot bodies are costly, though--they burn something like 10 times more energy than being cold blooded.  Not only do warm blooded animals have to eat way more (big snakes can go months without eating--try that sometime!), but we have to get every possible calorie out of the food we eat--and fast!  Thus, we chew.  So, what does it take to chew?  Proper teeth, of course.  And...the ability to breath and chew.  Not choking to death is nice, too.

Therefore, the palate was born.  The palate is the bone/flesh separating you nasal passage from your mouth.  I never would have realized this, other than through reading about evolution, but other critters like birds and most reptiles (with the exception of crocodilians who hold their food underwater to drown it without, hopefully, drowning themselves) don't have palates.  They breath through their mouth.

Birdy mouth nasal passages entering mouth (it's the thin slits in the middle of the roof of the mouth):
http://yourownvet.com/?tag=how-to-warm-baby-birds


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palate


Dinos were mostly mouth breathers.
http://faculty.plattsburgh.edu/thomas.wolosz/turbinates.htm  (And images below.) 
Mouth Breather

Not Mouth Breather

Also Not (they're exceptions to the rule)

Thursday, December 29, 2011

Clitoris Evolution

It's hard to write a blog like this without seeming a little prurient.  Forgive me, but this is an important question to 50% of the world's population plus the cerca 98% of males that claim to be heterosexual.

How did the clitoris evolve?  Why does it seem so related but separate from the vagina (and therefore direct reproduction)?  Why isn't it in or a part of the vagina?  Is it just a baby penis?


By-Product: Maybe women  have clitorises for the same reason that males have nipples--we share a common developmental template.  You can't change the female mold because the male mold is so necessary for reproduction.  This template crossover is also the explanation of the G-spot, sometimes known as the female prostate.  One possible argument against this line of thinking is that the clitoris has more nerve endings than the penis, thus showing individuation, distinction and possibly selection for.

Imprinting:  Maybe it's current form wasn't shaped so much by successful copulation as it was maturation masturbation.  I would be interested to see a study of women from Sudan and Somalia that were victims of genital mutilation (the ritual removal of the clitoris and vulva) and see how their brains are possibly wired differently.  Though the study would be rife with confounding variables, it could be enlightening to see if there were differences in what they were attracted to and how much they enjoyed vaginal stimulation (as separate from other forms of stimulation).  Would they be wired the same or does the clitoris play a significant sexualization function in humans?

Secondary Stimulation:  Maybe its shape and function is to cause stimulation by pelvic or scrotal thrusting (depending on position).

Nice Guy Hypothesis:  Since I've read that it takes, on average, five months of intercourse to get pregnant, perhaps the women that are more discriminating about sleeping with men that are more foreplay accommodating end up with men that are better spouses and fathers.  Perhaps a man that pleases his woman as she wants also gives more food to his children and is a longer term mate.

In Other Animals:

  • Pigs have the clitoris where it makes sense--in the vagina.
  • Spotted Hyenas have clitorises as large as their counterpart's penis.  What's more is that they urinate, mate and give birth through it.  It also comes complete with a pseudo-scrotum and fat lumps shaped like testicles.  There are powerful muscles that cause the clitoris to retract in the females, but the shape and awkwardness of the set up still causes 20% of first time female pregnancies to end in the death of the mother.  Some scientists think that the clitoris size wasn't necessarily selected for, but the high testosterone was selected for among the females (it's higher than in males), which, in turn, causes the growth of the hyperclitoris pseudopenis.  

  • Spider Monkeys have the largest clitorises among the primates.  It's as long as the males penis, but has the urethral opening down the length of the clitoris creating a long slit.  Studies have suggested that the size and shape of the clitoris aid in the splash distribution of scent signalling urine while the spider monkey moves through the canopy.  



Saturday, December 10, 2011

Symbiosis - Sermon by Painting




This painting is a sermon.  It’s the foundation and basis for how I think about morality, how I struggle to live and essentially my worldview.  Captured best by the Bible quote, “It is more blessed to give than to receive,” symbiosis, or the living together of two different organisms, provides tangible evidence of sorts that cooperation works.  In fact, put better, that cooperation out competes competition.  Far from nature being a ruthless typification of, “Red in tooth and claw,”  these six panels highlight the generosity and love woven throughout life. Explanation of the six panels provided below (from left to right starting with the top row):  

1. Gaia (the Greek goddess of the Earth) is the idea of thinking of the Earth as one massive self-regulating, cybernetic organism.  This idea is also combined with a concept that life promotes life.  E.g., a tree existing in a field makes it possible for squirrels to live in its branches, eat its nuts, birds to nest in it, wasps to pollinate its flowers, the shade provides a moist microclimate for fungi and other plants, etc.  Life promotes life.  Because the tree exists a multitude of life is possible.  The other classic example from the book Gaia by James Lovelock is our atmosphere.  Because life has come before us our atmosphere now is composed of 21% oxygen (a by-product of photosynthesis), 78% nitrogen (a bacterial byproduct) and .0039% carbon dioxide (removed from the atmosphere by photosynthesis).  Without life having proceeded us to make a hospitable atmosphere we'd have a very, very similar atmosphere to our nearest neighbor Mars--95% carbon dioxide (runaway greenhouse).  Life has made our life possible--Gaia.

2. The second panel is about endosymbiosis, which is the concept that the mitochondria within our bodies, who essentially power our body by the production of ATP, are former bacteria.  This should truly hit you if it hasn’t before--the best science out there says that you aren’t one organism.   You’re the combination of at least two different critters that have become so mutually dependant for the last 2 billion years or so that we’re inseparable now.  Evidence for this can be seen that mitochondria has its own set of DNA (a plasmid just like bacteria, which is very important for phylogenetics), that they divide just like bacteria (which is why it’s important for genetics; it passes uncombined with another sex cell from the mother’s egg cell.  Meaning you only have your mother’s mitochondria, not your father’s.), they have peptidoglycan cell walls like bacteria and so on and so forth--basically they are *just* like a bacteria.  Billions of years ago an anaerobic bacteria (“us”) combined with a aerobic bacteria (our mitchondria) to create a cell that could survive in either condition.  We teamed our forces and made all complex life, including us, possible.  Go cooperation!

3. The next panel highlights how we’re a host for bacteria.  I’ve seen vastly varying numbers, but one source said that humans are generally composed of somewhere around 10 trillion cells.  Guess how many bacteria cells you have on and in your body?  Around 100 trillion!!  So, not only are you the combination of at least two different bacteria, but by cell count you are 10 times more actual bacteria than human!!!  Why?  Because that bacteria, generally speaking, majorly benefits us by breaking down organic matter that our body isn't good at breaking up--you can thank bacteria for helping digest carbs, proteins and fats as well as producing essential vitamins like vitamin K and many B vitamins.  We depend on trillions of other organisms just to eat.

4. Maybe around a billion years ago life had a great idea.  Let’s not just cooperate in energy production (endosymbiosis) and structure/division of labor (multicellularity) but also genetically--thus sex was born.  By combining genes the best of one organisms genes can be put with the  best of another’s.  Contrast that with bacteria that mostly evolve through random mutation--which is more often than not quite deleterious.  We sexually reproducing organisms survive and evolve by teamwork.  We pool the best of what we have and create something even better--synergy.

5. The 5th panel highlights the interconnection of our foods--the substances that make our survival possible.  Plants cooperate with bugs to transport their DNA to reproduce in exchange for a tasty, nutritious treat of pollen/nectar.  That’s why flowers exist.  Their beauty is a physical display and celebration of cooperation.  The same is true for fruit. Fruit exists to give nutrition in exchange for seed dispersal.  

6. The final panel focuses on the love of a mother and child.  From a biological perspective that mother needs the child to pass on her DNA and the child needs the mother for nutrition and socially relevant information for future reproduction and survival.  From an experiential perspective the two experience a level and power of connection and love unrivaled in the universe.

The Bible speaks truth--it is more blessed to give than to receive.  Why?  Because it works.  The winnowing pragmatism of evolution proves it.  If we try and live our lives in defiance of this truth we only hurt ourselves.  Cooperation out competes competition.  We ought to make this the basis of every relationship, government, family, economic system.  It works.  To paraphrase Ben Franklin, we shall hang together or surely we shall hang apart.