On this Day in 1945

Today is the day that the Mars rover Curiosity landed. A remarkable American technological achievement. There have been many other technological achievements in the past century and it's wise to remember them

[reposted from August 6, 2009 (slightly modified)]

At 8:15 AM on August 6, 1945 an atomic bomb was detonated over Hiroshima, Japan. Approximately 78,000 civilians were killed on that day. Six months later the death toll had risen to about 140,000 people.

There are many arguments in favor of dropping the bomb, just as there are many arguments against it. What's clear is that in the context of 2012 we are not in a good position to judge the actions of countries that had been at war for many years.

The most important lesson of Hiroshima is that war is hell and many innocent people die. It's all very well to enter into a war with the best of intentions—as the Japanese did on December 7, 1941—but it's foolish to pretend that when you start a war there won't be any suffering. When you do that, you can really say that the victims of Hiroshima will have died in vain.

The killing and maiming of civilians is an inevitable outcome of war, no matter how hard you might try to restrict your targets to military objectives. Before going to war you need to take the consequences into account and decide whether the cost is worth it.

One of the many mistakes in Iraq was the naive assumption that it would be a clean war with few casualties and no long-term consequences for the Iraqi people. Yet today, the numbers of innocent lives lost in Iraq is comparable to the numbers lost in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And what is the benefit for Iraq that outweighs the cost in human lives? Is it "freedom" and "democracy"?

Hiroshima was not a glorious victory. It was ugly, heartbreaking, and avoidable. War is not an end in itself, it is the failure of peace. War is not an instrument of your foreign policy—it is an admission that you don't have a foreign policy.

---

[The top photograph shows the mushroom cloud over Hiroshima on the morning of August 6, 1945 (Photo from Encyclopedia Britanica: Hiroshima: mushroom cloud over Hiroshima, 1945. [Photograph]. Retrieved August 7, 2007, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online.

The bottom image is taken from a Japanese postcard (Horoshima and Nagassaki 1945). It shows victims of the attack on Hiroshima.]

Ancient Textual Imaging Group: New Multispectral Images online

The Ancient Textual Imaging Group at Brigham Young University is pleased to draw Papy-L readers’ attention to a collection of multispectral images of damaged papyrological texts. The papyri and ostraka are owned by Columbia University, The University of California’s Center for the Tebtunis Papyri, and the University of Michigan. A generous grant from the National Endowment of the Humanities (PW-50427-09) made the work possible.

The multispectral images of texts — over 400 discreet texts, counting rectos and versos — are fully accessible on the internet through the landing page at Brigham Young Univesity’s Harold B. Lee Library: http://lib.byu.edu/sites/scholarsarchive/college-of-humanities/byu-multi-spectral-imaging-project/

 Any questions about the collection may be directed to Roger Macfarlane at atig@byu.edu.

New Series: Papyri form the Green Collection

Corporate News - Publishing News
Date:  2012, August 01

Brill announces a new forthcoming book series -- The Green Scholars Initiative: Papyrus Series, Edited by Dirk Obbink and Jerry Pattengale – that includes rare, unpublished papyri texts from the private Green Collection. Jeffrey Fish is serving as the volume one editor.
Leiden (NL) / Boston (MA) -- 1 August 2012

Brill has signed an agreement to publish The Green Scholars Initiative: Papyrus Series, edited by Dirk Obbink and Jerry Pattengale – a new book series that will include rare, unpublished papyri texts from the private Green Collection. Brill is quite pleased with the collaboration and looks forward to working with the Green Scholars Initiative (GSI). The collection itself is an untapped repository of extremely significant papyri, and the GSI provides access to the leading specialists in the field working on the project.

Dirk Obbink (University of Oxford) directs the Oxyrhynchus Papyri Collection and publications, and  Jerry Pattengale (Indiana Wesleyan University and Baylor University) directs GSI, is a prolific author, international speaker, and oversees the publication of all Green Collection and GSI research projects.

The new series fits well among Brill’s strong portfolio of Classical Studies and Biblical and Religious Studies publications, as well as its extensive list of digitized primary source manuscript collections. Comprising of one to two new volumes per year, the new series will publish approximately 20 papyri with a thorough description, commentary with images, and web-based support for further resources. The first forthcoming volume in the series, planned to be released in early 2013, is dedicated to an early 3rd BCE papyrus containing an extensive, undocumented work by Aristotle on reason, and is currently being analyzed by a research group at Oxford University.

The Green Collection contains over 50,000 items, and now holds nearly 15,000 papyri acquired from private collections in Europe, and continues to grow. The collection is approximately 70% Greek, 15% Coptic and 15% late Egyptian. The collection is currently unpublished and contains items of extraordinary importance, including some of the earliest Greek literary texts known, dating to the early 3c BCE. A major building near Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. was purchased in July 2012 to house an international museum for these items.

For more information about this forthcoming new book series, contact Senior Acquisitions Editor Suzanne Mekking (mekking@brill.nl).

Dr. Greg Wells Writes about Athletes and Telomeres

Dr. Greg Wells is a professor in the Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education at the University of Toronto. He's the author of Superbodies and he's one of the people commenting on biochemistry on Olympic broadcasts in Canada (see Muscles and the Lactic Acid Myth). It's somewhat unusual to promote yourself as "Dr. Wells" with a Ph.D. in physiology but that's his right.

Here's what he says on his blog,

Greg Wells, Ph.D. is a scientist and physiologist who specializes in health and performance in extreme conditions. Most recently, Dr. Wells was the host of the Gemini-Award winning “Superbodies” segments for Canada’s national Olympic broadcast and the on-camera sport science and sport medicine analyst for the CTV Broadcast Consortium, ABC News and ABC’s 20/20 during the 2010 Vancouver Olympics. Dr. Wells’ on-camera analysis will be a part of CTV’s 2012 Olympic broadcast in London.

Here's one of the "Superbodies" clips that are being shown on Canadian television. Most of them are quite interesting and informative even if Greg Wells does talk about lactic acid from time to time.

I was checking out his blog and found this interesting article: Olympic Science Blog: The science of exercise and ageing.

It is well established that training helps to improve pretty much every organ system in the body including the muscles, blood, brain, nervous system, skin, heart among others. Check out the book "Spark" to read about how exercise can help the brain! But new research shows that exercise can protect our genes as well!

In a recent study, researchers examined the DNA of young and old athletes and healthy control non-smokers for a total of four study groups. As expected, the researchers were able to demonstrate that the athletes had a slower resting heart rate, lower blood pressure and body mass index, and a more favorable cholesterol profile. But the surprising finding was that the rate of accumulated damage to the DNA was much less in the older athletes (average age: 51) than the older healthy non-athletes. In fact, the DNA of the older athletes was “younger” than the younger non-athlete participants. Researchers measured the ends of the chromosomes that contain our DNA. The ends of the chromosomes are called telomeres, and can be thought of as being similar to the caps on the end of your shoelaces (they’re called aglets in case you’re wondering) that prevent the laces from fraying. The scientists who discovered telomeres and how they work won the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine in 2009. Telomeres control the number of times that a chromosome can divide when replicating itself as happens through our lifetime. Cells naturally grow, divide to replicate themselves and then die off. Gradually through this replication process, telomeres shorten and when they become “critically short” the cell dies. On the whole body level this may lead to ageing and a shortened lifespan. Scientists have shown that exercise activates an enzyme called telomerase that protects telomeres and chromosomes and that this has an anti-ageing effect, especially on the cardiovascular system.

World class athletes are training smarter, eating better, and recovering more effectively than ever before. The combination of these factors is helping athletes to have longer and more successful careers. So while you're watching our athletes compete in London and marveling at their performances, think about getting out and doing some exercise yourself! You'll be helping your body - right down to your DNA!

There's a lot wrong with this claim. First, it's not clear that there's a cause-and-effect relationship between telomore length and aging in spite of what some people claim. In fact, the correlation between age and telomere length is barely significant in most studies.

Second, it seems very unlikely that Lamarck was correct and it seems very unlikely that exercise has an effect on expression of the gene for telomerase.

Third, do you suppose it could be possible that when you get older and your health deteriorates for various reasons (disease, aging, accident) you tend not to continue to be an athlete? Thus, the only old athletes you measure are those that are still in good health?

Fourth, what's the evidence that telomere length has more of an effect on the cardiovascular system than on other parts of your body?

---

Casey Luskin Wants Us to Categorize Evolution Critics

Casey Luskin has posted an email message that he recently sent to someone who inquired about Intelligent Design Creationism. It describes his view of the debate between Intelligent Design Creationists and scientists [Personal Attacks Against ID Proponents Say More About the Attackers than the Abused].

With that, please let me give you a little introduction to how this debate works. Evolutionists regularly accuse their critics of being "dishonest" and "deceiving." It's a primary tactic they use to respond to criticism and intimidate critics into silence. You're not allowed to dissent from their view and be (a) informed, and (b) honest. Many of them can't fathom the possibility that a person on the other side of the debate could be both.

Here's a fact you might ponder: Virtually every single major person who has criticized the Darwinian viewpoint has faced personal attacks on his or her character. It happens to everyone, myself included. So one of two things are true: Either (1) virtually every single critic of Darwinism (of which there are many) is "dishonest" and "deceiving," or (2) evolutionists habitually respond to scientific challenges with personal attacks.

There's more than two choices here. Let's list the possibilities. Most creationist critics of evolution are ....

1. Uninformed and honest
2. Uniformed and dishonest
3. Informed and honest
4. Informed and dishonest

There are creationist critics of evolution who fit into all categories but category #3 is the least populated. I think Michael Denton and Michael Behe qualify. They seem to have a pretty good knowledge of evolutionary biology and they seem to be sincere in their criticism

Category #4 is tricky. There are some creationist critics of evolution who should be informed but they still say some very silly things. This leads me to suspect that they are being dishonest. Jonathan Wells is a good example.

Categories #1 and #2 contain the vast majority of creationist critics of evolution. They really don't know what they're talking about but it doesn't prevent them from talking. I think most of them are honest IDiots—Casey Luskin is an example and so is Phillip Johnson. Some of them are uniformed and dishonest, that's where I would place Bill Dembski and David Berlinski.

Casey Luskin is wrong when he claims that we accuse all creationist critics of evolution of being dishonest and deceitful. Mostly we just accuse them of being uninformed but acting as if they were.¹ That's probably due to stupidity and not malevolence.

I've left out a huge number of creationists, including the theistic evolutionists who fall mostly into category #3: informed, honest, but wrong.

Where do the rest of them fit in?

---

1. Being uninformed is perfectly okay. Most of us are uniformed about a lot of things. You aren't stupid or an idiot just because you don't know something. You become an IDiot when you don't recognize how little you know about a subject but still feel qualified to tell the experts that they are wrong.

Understanding Phylogenetic Trees

A few months ago I posted an exam question from my course on evolution [Exam Question #1]. It was designed to test student's understanding of phylogenetic trees—a serious problem in evolutionary biology. That post generated quite a few comments.

Take a look at this figure from a 2008 issue of Nature. Do you see the problems?

If not, read David Morrison's guest post on Scientipoia: Ambiguity on Phylogenies. He patiently explains all the common misconceptions about phylogenetic trees and references all the important articles in the scientific and pedagogical literature. Once you read his article you will never look at trees the same way again.

You will also be astonished at how bad the scientific literature has become when it comes to explaining phylogenies based on these trees. You would think that evolutionary biologists would have long ago stopped thinking about directions in evolution but it's surprising how often the great chain of being creeps into modern scientific papers.

---

[Hat Tip: Mike the Mad Biologist]

Muscles and the Lactic Acid Myth

If you've been watching the Olympics, you've heard the story many times from coaches, athletes, and even team doctors. They all tell you that the performance of endurance athletes is limited by the buildup of lactic acid in their muscles and this is what causes the pain and limits their ability to win a gold medal.

It's the acid that does it and that acid is caused by synthesis of lactic acid taking place during anaerobic exercise, or so the story goes. That happens under extreme conditions when the energy needed by working muscles exceeds the ability to produce it by normal aerobic oxidation. It all sounds so logical ... and so biochemical.

It's all a myth. Lactic acid has nothing to do with acidosis (the buildup of acid in the muscles). In fact, it's not even clear that acidosis is the problem, but let's deal with that another time.

Assuming that acid buildup in muscles is what causes the pain of the long distance runner, where does that acid comes from? In order to answer that question we need a brief lesson on acids.

Read more »