Mokele

Pea plants are monoecious, possessing male and female parts on the same flower. Self-fertilize it. If it's homozygous, all the offspring will be like the parent. If it's heterozygous, you'll get the usual 3:1 mix of phenotypes.

All statistics have a degree of uncertainty, and I do mean *all*. Any statistical test could be wrong, and the chances of that are actually explicitly given (usually the p value). In science, a p value of less than 0.05 is considered significant, which is to say that there is only a 1 in 20 chance than random effects yielded these results. That, in turn, means that if you get 40 significant results, chances are 2 of them are wrong (though if they're all in your experiment, you can correct for it by dividing the critcal p by the number of tests). The point is, any and every statistical test can be wrong, including direct manipulative experiments, and, furthermore, I'd be flabbergasted if we *never* saw incorrect results. Anything can be wrong. Shit, Newton was wrong (admittedly only for very very small things, very very big things, and things moving very very fast, but still...) Science does not deal in absolute certainty. Yes, it's possible for policy to be formed on science that turns out to be wrong, through nobody's fault. But 1) we know the chances that we are wrong (that's what the p-statistic is, and from it I can tell, for instance, that there's only a 0.01% chance I'm wrong about the effects of perch diameter on velocity of snake locomotion) 2) science-based conclusions are less likely to be wrong than, say, intuition, gut feelings, faith, guessing, etc. So, if I'm reading you right, what makes it PC isn't the science itself, but the media and public's reactions to it? If that's the case, then whether it's PC or not is an irrelevant objection, since the PC-ness has nothing to do with the quality of the research and thus whether the conclusions should be accepted or not. Your last sentence is dead on: it doesn't address whether conservatism is "right" or "wrong". That's not what it's about, it's about the eitiology of political party affiliations: given a person with traits X Y and Z, which party are they most likely to join. That the media ****ed up the interpretation is, frankly, par for the course. You should see me when the media has an article out about paleontology; I'm amazed they don't say things like 'dinosaurs were giant lizards' given their abysmal accuracy. Nobody's arguing that either side is perfect, only pointing out that each side tends to attract people with certain traits, and that it's not beyond reason to expect scientists to trend disproportionately towards one party. I'll bet in a study in the UK, we'd see the same thing: certain traits associated with the Torries, Labor, and Lib-Dems, and scientists trending disproportionately towards one. Personally, I predict that without the Religious Right's major influence on one party, the spread of scientists across UK parties will be less skewed. Mokele

Yes and no. In principle, you could remove the nucleus of an single-celled zygote just after fertilization and replace it with dino DNA. However, that neglects the complexity of the egg's surface proteins, mRNAs and other cytoplasmic contents. Mokele

Honestly, if that's what the data say, yes. Seriously, what is the problem with correlations? Yes, they're inferior to manipulative experiments, but there are situations in which manipulative experiments are unfeasible, unethical or outright impossible. You're making out as if they're only used to make psuedoscience sound legit, when in fact correlations and similar techniques are among the most common methods of analysis used in science. Most of biology is correlations because we can't custom-make organisms (at least not until we learn a bit more about genetic engineering). We have correlations between morphology and environment, between environments and speciosity, between performance traits and survival, between genotype and phenotype, between lattitude and biodiversity. These are not dubious concepts, nor are they poorly supported. Honestly, every time I hear "well it's just a correlation" tossed out to dismiss something with an r-squared of over 0.8, it sounds like an echo of creationists claiming "it's just a theory." Mokele

I did: correlations are fine if the methods support them. The flaws of attempts to claim racial inferiority based on simple correlation with SAT scores (aside from the dubious usefulness of such scores) was the failure to control for other variables. These studies may or may not have flaws, but I can't access the methods to be sure (plus I'm only vaguely familiar with psych research), so I don't think the results should be automatically accepted. But nor do I think they should automatically be dismissed. Mokele

::points to the asterisk and note at the end of my prior post::

Why are they PC? Because they happen to draw conclusions you find unflattering? And simply using correlation isn't necessarily methodological flaw; correlation is nothing more than one way of statistical analysis. If there are substantial flaws, they'll be found in the methods section, not necessarily what stats are used. Unfortunately, I can't get at the methods section of the first one, and the other two are meta-analysis papers (and I don't care enough to track down all of the original references to check their methods). Is it really that hard to believe that traits like traditionalism and intolerance of ambiguity are associated with conservatism? Not that they're exclusive, of course, but I hear arguments incorporating those elements much more often from conservatives. Mokele

I think we should ditch the global warming discussion for now, or at least continue it in one of the 34857 other threads on the subject. It has a tendency to derail things. But the reverse could be also said; conservatives appeal to the Rambo-cowboy "You'll take my gun from my cold dead fingers" sentiment, while liberals point to legions of facts about gun crime rates.* I think it's issue dependent based on what will appeal to their supporters; emotional appeals to cover the issues they don't necessarily have the facts on. Mokele * Actually, IMHO, the facts run the other way, but IME, the opening lines of the gun control debate tend to be an emotional appeal by conservatives and a logical one from liberals.

...... Ok, how about somewhere between "wall of text" and "one-word post"?

Awww, where's the fun in that?

I'd bank on time travel first. To quote a weblog I read, doing that would be like buying two tons of steel wool and trying to knit a Ferrari. The problem is that we'd be missing huge amounts of information. Behavior? Sensory physiology? Mode of sex determination? All unknown, all possibly vastly different between the various dinosaur lineages. You may make something that looks like a dinosaur, but it would no more *be* a dinosaur than a horse with an antler bone graft on its forhead is a unicorn. Mokele

See, that would be a good justification for, say, an art exhibit on the topic, but not for actually creating such a creature. Mokele

For those that want it: http://www.gjfeist.net/PDF/Feist&GormanRGP_1998.pdf There's a summary starting on page 14 showing results of prior studies, and another on 24 comparing scientists and nonscientists. Mokele

I don't really know how divided scientists are on this matter. One study I found was a review of the published material on it, which found plenty of papers talking about anthropogenic climate forcing, lots more that just dealt with the consequences and didn't deal with causes (ecological studies of range shifts, for example), lots of paleoclimatology that didn't really care, but no papers expressing the viewpoint that humans aren't at least involved. The problem is that you can call a group "divided" if even one person dissents; technically scientists are divided over whether birds evolved from dinosaurs, but when Feduccia dies, that'll vanish. I definitely agree about mucking up the water. I've sometimes contemplated writing a book from the POV of someone fed up with all of it and doing their own research from learning basic climatology to reading the peer-review literature on the subject. But then I realized *why* I'm still in lab 12 hours after I came in. Eh, this is kinda OT, but models *can* be testable. For instance, a particular model will predict that the temperature will shift by X degrees in place Y by time T, while another has different predictions. On one hand, as someone smart once said "All models are wrong, but some are more useful than others". But on the other, "Just because we don't know everything about a system doesn't mean we don't know anything about a system." Global warming isn't all modeling; a lot of it is data collection, both of past data from paleoclimatic methods or of modern data to check and refine concepts. Models have their place in all sciences, especially those dealing with systems that are not easily amenable to manipulation, and shouldn't be condemned automatically. For instance, my own field does a lot of modeling for bone stress, which can be very informative, in part because the model tells us what will be the most productive areas to investigate empirically, which much less whining from curators than just destructive testing of every bone we can find. Maybe we should have a whole thread just on modeling and it's place in the various sciences. Mokele

Check the timestamps; I'm actually working as I post, so yours was the most recent at that time. I disagree; there is definitely a correct response to questions such as "can gay people change their sexual orientation?" or "Will logging this area cause problems for the fisheries downstream?" since both subject have been empirically studied and the conclusion is essentially ironclad. On less definite subjects, such as global warming, there's a very large preponderance of evidence which is very convincing (I'll not drag up the problem of whether it's ironclad) and thus will push scientists strongly towards that end. Furthermore, as much as scientists are skeptics, we're also painfully aware of how difficult it is to critique fields beyond our own in any meaningful way due to lack of expertise. As a result, we're more likely to accept the consensus of those in the field, albeit with knowledge that new evidence could overthrow it, since we know that they know what they're talking about better than we do and are thus more qualified to judge the evidence. It's the same sort of problem we see in science; how do I classify all snakes into "terrestrial" "arboreal" "aquatic" etc, and how can I classify someone whose views on various subjects may align to different parties? Obviously the 2-way classification is limited, but if we accept it, self-identification would be the best option, since the individual knows not only their own views, but their relative personal importances. The problem is in your first sentence: "stereotypical". I also think you're confusing the position that all people should have equal rights with the position that they actually are equal in all respects. For instance, I can think of no feminist who would argue the claim that men are, on average, stronger than women. Also, in some of those cases, there's just no evidence; all evidence of race and sex differences is highly dubious and prone to confounding environmental effects. In spite of that, and in fact because of it, we *can* draw a conclusion: any differences that may exist are small enough that the environmental effects differing between individuals and tests can easily swamp them, and thus such differences are likely inconsequential, if they do exist, given how much environment influences humans. As for the Larry Summers thing, I can see the reason for the outrage: he basically made an implication (that women aren't as good as men at science) which was totally unsupported by evidence. On top of this, there is an increasing consciousness of the sex skew in many sciences, and active effort to correct this, not by special treatment but by showing young girls that yes, they can be scientists too. His comments directly undermined that effort. Pretty much, or like saying reptile keepers tend to be non-conformist (*definitely* true); it may be true, but it's not why we keep reptiles, it's just that we lack a barrier to keeping them. I disagree; both sides have conformity, and both have individualism. Liberals may seem to agree on many things, but put 20 in a room and ask what's the most important issue, then run. Then get a mop for all the blood as they eviscerate each other over what should be front-and-center of the party platform. Plus, I find it hard to accept that conformity is a major force of the party with the biggest bunch of sexual non-conformists by far. On those particular stereotypes, or stereotypes in general? In general, it's pretty straightforward: they give people a rubric through which to interpret and predict other's behavior, with a tolerable degree of accuracy. Essentially, they're a cognitive shortcut to allow us to quickly predict the behavior of new individuals, a useful tool for a social primate. I can't speak for all liberals, but part of what bothers me about 'global warming skeptics' is often that their opinions are considered as valid as real climatologists. Just as I'd expect you all to take my input on reptiles above others on this board, I think it's reasonable to take the opinion of professional scientists in the field over non-scientists in what is, after all, a scientific question. It's not quite like creationism, in that there isn't 100% certainty, but I see echoes of it: the superficial objection that's refuted then repeated, the objections couched in ignorance of basic scientific methodology, the blatant politicization of what should be an empirical, scientific issue. It's not the questioning, it's the manner of some of it, and some of the questions themselves. It makes you wonder how much of it is honest skepticism, and how much is just knee-jerk denial. It's not the former that's the problem, it's the latter, and the problem is that the sort of confrontations the latter generate are likely to get more media airtime. A debate on the importance of accounting for shifts in the heterotrophic as well as phototrophic biota in global warming models isn't going to get the same press as someone claiming global warming can't be real because it snowed this winter. Yet another thing that I think that shouldn't be neglected is the different sort of 'world' scientists work and live in. Much of politics involves value judgements (is it better to preserve american jobs via a tarriff that would raise materials cost and thus the cost of goods?) and assumptions that cannot be tested, where a lifetime in science finds you dealing with a system in which great pains are taken to avoid such things and instead rely solely on testable assumptions and observable effects. I know personally I'm a lot more reluctant to speak on political topics where I can't address the issue from at least an empirical standpoint, because I'm uncomfortable with a system that cannot be tested and quantified. Mokele

Not necessarily; even frozen DNA degrades, just more slowly, as evidenced by the DNA recovered from permafrost-encased mamoth bones - the DNA had plenty of damage, just not nearly as much as a non-frozen bone, and it was only about 40,000 years old, IIRC. Multiply that by 2000, and there's not much left. Plus, though there *were* areas where freezing occured during the Mesozoic, there weren't even permanent polar ice caps; Antarctica was a lush forest, and there were alligators in Alaska. Mokele

The list you gave are positions, not personality traits. Phil was talking less about specifics and more about the general underlying traits, such as introvert vs extrovert, relying on intuition vs logic, whether you'd rather have a few close friends or many not-so-close, that sort of stuff. General personality traits, not specific ideological positions. Also, note that the study says that certain traits 'are associated'. This does not mean that they are always/never present in this or that group, only that people with trait Z are *more common* but not *exclusive* to group 1. It's like saying that Garfish are associated with large amounts of underwater cover; you can find garfish in open water, but if you're looking for them, you'll find a lot more in the weeds. I wouldn't say 'nothing'. I think it depends on the subject in question. For example, my scientific knowledge and reasoning don't give me any basis to form opinions on Social Security or international trade relations. However, my opinions on environmental issues are informed by my knowledge of ecology, my opinions on gay rights informed by my knowledge of psychology, and my knowledge of biology dictates my position on creationism. There's no reason to suspect scientists would take a particular position on, say, socialized healthcare. But I don't think you can claim that a biologist be as likely as the average joe to support teaching creationism in school. And I suspect that in a comprehensive survey, that's what you'd find: scientists tend to lean in whatever direction the evidence points and will be all over the map on issues that don't have a scientific component. Another factor here may be perceptual skew about the degree to which scientists line up with 'liberal'. You tend to only see scientists trotted out to support a view and give an expert opinion on certain causes, such as the environment or creationism or gay rights, in which the evidence is on the liberal side, while issues for which conservatives have the advantage in terms of facts (gun control, fiscal conservatism, etc) tend to rely on expert testimony from economists or other non-scientist experts. This creates the illusion that scientists are all liberal because, for instance, the only time we see ecologists on TV is when they're telling us why we shouldn't log this place or dump chemical X in that stream. We never see scientists talking about things like affirmative action or NAFTA, on either side, so we assume their positions based on the few subjects we see them talk on. Mokele

Yes, but in one case (the horse), the result is obviously pleasurable to the animal (since someone drinks the evidence of that pleasure), and in the case of the snake, I can tell you the animal wasn't in pain and was no more alarmed or distressed than is usual in interactions with humans for that particularly high-strung species (body language is quite different between pain and feeding in snakes). Mokele

A very important question was raised earlier in this thread, which has yet to be answered. It's also the simplest question: Why? I don't mean morally, I mean scientifically. Long gone are the days when scientists did stuff 'just to see what would happen'; nowadays everything is hypothesis-driven, and for good reason (it's a hell of a lot better for getting meaningful results. This is especially relevant when the experiment harms the animal or is on dubious moral ground. I'd be able to get away with a "just to see what happens" experiment to see if my personal keeping observations on light quality affecting behavior of boas is true because no harm is done (the conditions would be 'how they've been kept for the past 20 years' and 'something new that's either better or irrelevant'). But when there's harm, potential harm, or serious moral questions, you need to have a good justification for the experiment. And I don't just mean for this one topic; I have to have a good, hypothesis-driven justification for my next thesis chapter because it will require euthanizing 4 animals. I'm not saying this isn't or can't be justified, only that I've seen no argument setting forth such justification. "What hypothesis are you testing?" should be the simplest question to answer, since that should be the basis for the entire experiment and its design. Mokele

If they aren't being harmed, why does what we do with videos or them matter? It doesn't impact the animal's health or well-being. As a note from a herpetological POV, the snake in question is an Amazon Tree Boa. This is pertinent for two reasons: 1) ATBs are nasty little bastards. Enticing an ATB to bite is about as hard as getting a bowling ball to obey gravity. I've got 4 in lab, and getting them to do anything *except* bite you is the hard part. 2) ATBs have an *extremely* strong feeding response to two things: heat and movement. They will instinctually attack anything warm and moving as food, be it a bird, my hand, or some moron's penis. From what I saw, the snake wasn't being harassed or upset any more than they get when I clean their cages - they're just mean little snakes. Pretty much all arboreal snakes are, especially arboreal boas and pythons. Mokele

Nope, any DNA in amber is long degraded beyond usefulness.

I vaguely recall a species like this, except it was a mite.

Using some basic kinematics, I found that with an acceleration of 5G, it would take 228 seconds to reach escape velocity, but would need a track 1279 kilometers long. However, if you're just launching a tank of some substance like compressed oxygen or water or fuel, there's no real reason to restrict G forces. Still, even at 20G, the track would need to be 320 km long. Possible, but I cringe to think of how precisely engineered and perfect the switch mechanism would have to be. In terms of straight feasability and economics, using it to just give rockets an initial boost would probably be best. The length would be defined by the point beyond which further railgun acceleration would be more costly and difficult than rocket engines. Mokele

Oh yes. Humans don't produce much compared to their normal heat production, but the champions of big meals, snakes, can actually expend so much energy on digestion and generate so much heat that they raise their body temperature by several degrees (and remember, they're cold-blooded, so they don't usually generate any body heat at all). Mokele

Using only a railgun is unfeasible, but railgun-assist, yes. If you used just a railgun, you'd have to accelerate the satellite to escape velocity in a comparatively short distance (at least compared to the usual distance), resulting in massive G forces, which in turn may damage delicate instrumentation (or require engineering compromises that reduce the abilities of instrumentation). However, even accelerating a craft to 600 mph before it switches to on-board fuel would represent a tremendous savings in terms of fuel weight and cost of launch. Mokele