Wednesday, July 31, 2013

In Yellowstone National Park, wolves are helping grizzly bears get fat.

You read that right. Researchers from Oregon State University and Washington State University found that the percentage of fruit in grizzly bear droppings nearly doubled for the month of August since the return of the wolves. What do wolves have to do with fruit?

There are several fruits in Yellowstone that the grizzly bears love: serviceberry, chokecherry, buffaloberry, twinberry, and huckleberry among others. When the wolves were eradicated in Yellowstone, the elk had a field day with the trees and shrubs of Yellowstone. Over-browsing elk herds reduced the number of fruits the bears could eat.

The reintroduction of wolves in Yellowstone has kept the elk herds on the move, reducing herbivory, and giving the bears greater access to the fruits. The fruits are important to the bears in August as a means of fattening up for the winter. Researchers noted that increasing variety in the bears' diets is important in the face of global climate change; where some food sources may fail, others will be able to take their place. Also, it would be preferable from a human perspective if that other food source is berries, not livestock.

Picture courtesy of:

http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/grizzly-bear/

Sources:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130729133120.htm

Tuesday, July 30, 2013

New Shapeshifting Biogel Could Help Heal Aging Spines | Popular Science

New Shapeshifting Biogel Could Help Heal Aging Spines | Popular Science
Biomaterial Injection
If you are one of the estimated 28 million in the United States or 8 million in the UK who have had a migraine, you might find this study very interesting.

Researchers in the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania studied 170 people, each of which fell into one of three groups: no headaches, migraines with aura, or migraines without aura (aura are perceptual disturbances). Magnetic resonance angiography and noninvasive magnetic resonance imaging were used to look at blood flow in the brain.

What did they find? There is a ring of arteries at base of the brain called the Circle of Willis. People with migraines, especially migraines with aura, were more likely to be missing parts of this ring. The missing parts leads to changes in blood flow in the brain, which can trigger a migraine. Researchers pointed out that this is something a person is born with.

This abnormality may be one of the contributing factors in migraines in any one individual.

Below is a diagram of the Circle of Willis (A), an image of a normal Circle of Willis (B), and an image of a Circle of Willis missing the anterior communicating artery and the bilateral posterior communicating arteries (C).

Picture courtesy of:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130726191731.htm

Sources:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130726191731.htm

http://www.headaches.org/education/Tools_for_Sufferers/Headache_-_Frequently_Asked_Questions

Sunday, July 28, 2013

Role of Huge Geometric Circular Structures in the Reproduction of a Marine Pufferfish : Scientific Reports : Nature Publishing Group

Role of Huge Geometric Circular Structures in the Reproduction of a Marine Pufferfish : Scientific Reports : Nature Publishing Group
Cockatoos may understand physical problems better than we thought.

Researchers from Oxford University, the University of Vienna, and the Max Planck Institute gave ten untrained Goffin's cockatoos (Cacatua goffini) a clear box with a nut inside. The box could only be opened after unlocking five locks in the correct order. One bird was able to unlock the box without aid in less than two hours. Other birds were able to do it after watching how, or when given smaller series of locks to learn first.

What is most surprising is that the birds were able to figure out the series of locks to get to the goal, without being rewarded after each lock was opened. Researchers pointed out that this does not mean the birds understand the problem the same way humans do, but it is an interesting view into how their brains function and what they are capable of.

Dr. Auguste von Bayern, from Oxford University, said "We believe that they are aided by species characteristics such as intense curiosity, tactile exploration techniques and persistence." Sound familiar?

Picture courtesy of:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130704095123.htm

Sources:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130704095123.htm

Friday, July 26, 2013

NASA Scientist to Scour Kepler Data in Search of Alien Technologies

NASA Scientist to Scour Kepler Data in Search of Alien Technologies

Light can change flavor, scent volatiles in plants and fruits, study finds

Light can change flavor, scent volatiles in plants and fruits, study finds
A new species of Hero Shrew, discovered in Africa, might help explain how the original Hero Shrew got its incredibly strong spine.

The original Hero shrew (Scutisorex somereni) posed a bit of a puzzle to biologists. It possesses a bizarre and incredibly strong spine, but no one could adequately explain how it had evolved. While most mammals (including us) have 5 vertebrae in the the lumbar region of our spines, the Hero shrew has at least 10 and each vertebrate interlocks with its neighbours to give the whole backbone impressive strength. It can even support the weight of a grown man, as the Mangbetu people of the Democratic Republic of Congo were fond of demonstrating to guests.

The new species S. thori, named Thor's hero shrew, may represent an intermediate between typical shrews and the Hero shrew. While it has reinforced and interlocking vertebrae, Thor's hero shrew only has 8 lumbar vertebrae and each vertebrae does not interlock as much.

The team who discovered the new hero shrew have also suggested a new explanation as to why these two Hero shrew species need such strong spines. The insects the shrews feed on live between the bases of leaves and the bark of palm trees. While local people tear the hard dead leaves off to get to the grubs, the shrew has no such option. The research team suggest it positions itself between the leaves and the bark and uses its strong spine to create a gap between bark and leaf. In doing so it gains access to a food source other animals can't get to.

S. thori is named Thor's hero shrew for two reasons: first, as a reference to the Norse deity associated with strength, and second to honour Thorvald "Thor" Holmes (Humboldt State University Vertebrate Museum)for his dedication to mammal research and study.

To read the paper: http://bit.ly/13LGGZZ

Photos: Top: Thor's hero shrew (S. thori), credit to William Stanley. Bottom: A comparison of shrew spines: African giant shrew (top), S. somereni (middle) and S. thori (bottom). The bracket denotes 10mm. Credit to William Stanley et al.

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-07/24/hero-shrew

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130724103238.htm

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/running-ponies/2013/07/23/new-species-thors-hero-shrew-will-back-itself-in-any-feat-of-strength/

Sunday, July 21, 2013

Snow in an infant solar system: A frosty landmark for planet and comet formation

Snow in an infant solar system: A frosty landmark for planet and comet formation
The late Stephen Jay Gould once argued that if you turned back time on evolution and let it start over, a completely different outcome would be produced every time. His reasoning was that even relatively minor events like droughts or hurricanes could have a magnified effect over time. The predictability of evolution has been the subject of many debates for many years. Recent research done on the matter suggests that even if you gave evolution another shot, you’d get pretty much the same thing.

Researcher Luke Mahler used Anole lizards as his test subjects. The lizards are found on four neighbouring islands; Cuba, Hispaniola, Jamaica and Puerto Rico. These islands were originally colonized by the Anoles roughly 40 million years ago. All the islands have similar climate and ecology. Now, they have diversified.

The scientists looked at 100 out of 119 lizard species on all four islands. Measurements of their bodies were taken from both wild and museum specimens. If evolution were truly unpredictable, a lot of variation would be seen in the lizards on different islands. However, the researchers observed an unusual degree of convergence. Lizards that occupied similar environmental niches on different islands looked very similar. In the words of Luke Mahler, "The adaptive radiations match on all four islands -- with few exceptions, each species on an island has a match on the other islands." As ever, there were some exceptions. The island of Hispaniola has a leaf-litter specialist, Anolis barbouri (pictured). None of the other islands have a counterpart.

The researchers managed to chart their data in the form of adaptive landscapes for each island. An adaptive landscape is a 3D graph that displays features and traits. Peaks on an adaptive landscape indicate combinations of traits that are selected for in that environment, while valleys represent combinations of traits that are selected against.

All four islands had very similar adaptive landscapes. The researchers were able to go so far as to look back at the lizards’ evolutionary past and estimate when a niche was colonized by the lizards.

Read all about it: http://bit.ly/13q0TnH

Also read: http://bit.ly/17oLQeb

Image URL: http://bit.ly/15yzzCF

Manners BEFORE knowledge!

In Japanese schools, the students don't get ANY exams until they reach grade four (the age of 10)! Why?

Because the goal for the first 3 years of schools is NOT to judge the child's knowledge or learning,but to establish good manners and to develop their character!

Yes, that's what our scholars taught us: Manners BEFORE knowledge!

Should this method be implemented all over the world?

What Is Hyperthymesia?

What Is Hyperthymesia?

Saturday, July 20, 2013

Disproving the Christian God

News24
Written by Hanjo Overes

Hanjo
 
 
 
Latest Badges:


 
View all Hanjo's badges.

Disproving the Christian God

2013-07-19 09:08
Too often, in religious debates, we hear Theists and Atheists mention that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of god. I can only assume that this statement is usually made by someone who is being ignorant, generous or deliberately vague. 
When someone says “You cannot disprove the existence of god”, they leave ‘god’ generally undefined, god is usually reduced to an intangible invisible being higher than ourselves. They should perhaps rather have said that ‘you cannot prove that there is no god’. Both these sentences say the same thing, both suggest that we cannot possibly prove that a generally undefined higher power does NOT exist. Both these sentences include the possibility of a deistic or otherwise non-active (synonymous to the universe type) god, the claim that both these sentences make is spot on.
The issue however arises when a conventional theist says you cannot disprove god but fails to make the distinction between a deistic/inactive (synonymous to the universe type) god and his own personal god (either through ignorance or deliberate dishonesty)  
The Theistic, or more specifically Christian, claim is not that a generally undefined higher power could exist, its claim is much more specific than that, he/she specifically claims that a theistic god exists, now for those unfamiliar with the terminology, the theistic god is considered “a personal God as creator and active ruler of the universe.”  but the Christian claim is even a more specific than that general definition, they claim the existence of a god that is all loving, cares about our dietary and sexual habits, watches us 24/7, forgives our sins, implanted each of us with an immortal soul and created two special realms where our souls will travel and continue to exist after death.
Many of these claims venture well into the territory of science and can be shown to be true, probable, improbable or false. So in the next couple of paragraphs, I will attempt to show you that ‘god’, as defined by Christianity, can be disproved.
First, god is claimed to be the creator of the universe and everything in it.
-          Now we have quite extensive knowledge on how much of what we see around us, came to be, we know that the big bang explains the early development of the universe, we know that from the big bang onward, natural processes formed stars and galaxies, we know that the heavier elements that are found in the universe were synthesized either within stars or during supernovae.– as you might know, as soon as something can be explained naturally, there exists no reason or justification for positing supernatural influence, adding this influence would add nothing to the existing explanation, the hand of a god was clearly not present when stars, galaxies or planets were formed.
-          Man is often depicted as the centre of creation and/or even perhaps the reason for creation in theology, it is sometimes said that man is created in the image of god or that the beauty of the universe was created for man’s mere pleasure. This claim is extremely arrogant and perhaps based on man’s superiority complex and our inability to fully grasp the vastness of the universe, however even if you don’t subscribe to quite such a self-centered view, there exists no reason to suggest a supernatural being had a hand in the creation of man, we know that we, as homo sapiens, are a product of evolution.
-          One might be persistent and argue that god guided these processes or (as many ignorantly do) argue that god ‘initiated’ the big bang and started ‘creation’, the issue that theists seem to overlook here is that if god is reduced to ‘an initiator’ or merely guiding the natural processes, you are suggesting that god simply allowed the laws of nature to dictate ‘creation’ and that god was essentially  *’deistic’ for the first 13odd billion years that the universe existed(until the first claims of revelation and miracles popped up a few thousand years ago). You would essentially be arguing for the existence of a (temporary) Deistic god (again) and in doing so, conceding that a Theistic god didn’t exist.  
-          It is also crucial to realize that these natural laws and processes have no predestined goals, they have no mind/consciousness and they are definitely indifferent to our existence (specially on a personal level) – even if you were to suggest that a deity put them in place, you would still be admitting that this deity created humanity ‘coincidentally’ and without intention or forethought. Something which cannot be reconciled with a personal theistic god. 
-          Although I have given sufficient reasons to support the idea that the Christian god cannot be the creator, I would just like to add that I always felt it was rather silly to think an omnipotent god took 9odd billion years to create the earth and another 4odd billion years to create man.
-          * laws of nature.
Then god is claimed to be a personal god and an active governor/ruler.
-          The ineffectiveness of prayer is perhaps a good place to start. Studies show that prayer simply does not work. It has absolutely no effect beyond being a placebo, meaning that if you pray that god protects you, instead of being protected, you will simply feel safer due to believing that prayer works.
-          There exists no evidence for any ‘miracles’, everything in your day to day life can be naturally explained, no matter how many times you thank your chosen deity for the food on your plate, for blessing you with offspring, for letting you wake up every morning, for your friends and family, for allowing the medicine to cure you or for helping you find a parking space near the shop’s entrance, the simple reality is that all of these things took place within the natural laws of nature.
-           If the laws of nature aren’t ‘personal’, (which they aren’t) god would have to suspend, bend or break these laws to either actively govern or personally affect your life. Seeing that all impacts on the natural world can be detected and/or measured (tested), god (if he were to do anything) would become detectable, as a result, we can safely conclude that the personal theistic god simply does not exist. 
 
Although the further claims are automatically disproved (seeing that they rely on the existence of a personal theistic god) I would like to just touch on some of them and show why they are individually also very improbable, even if a theistic god were to exist.
It is claimed that God is love, loving and that he personally cares for humanity.
-          I’ll share the following Sam Harris quote on suffering with you, which will hopefully illustrate that if a god exists, it couldn’t care less about man. – “Nine million children die every year before they reach the age of five, picture an Asian tsunami of the sort we saw in 2004 that killed a quarter of a million people. One of those, every ten days, killing children only under five. That’s 24000 children a day, a thousand an hour, 17 or so a minute. That means before I can get to the end of this sentence, some few children, very likely, will have died in terror and agony. Think of the parents of these children. Think of the fact that most of these men and women believe in god, and are praying at this moment for their children to be spared. And their prayers will not be answered… Any god who would allow children by the millions to suffer and die in this way and their parents to grieve in this way, either can do nothing to help them or doesn’t care to. He is therefore either impotent or evil (Indifferent).”
It is then finally claimed that we have an immortal soul which survives death and goes on to spend an eternity in one of two specially created realms.
-          There is nothing that suggests a soul exists, there is also nothing that suggests the afterlife is a rational concept and there is nothing that suggests any part of the human anatomy survives death.
-          It is important to note that if we want to consider heaven and hell as serious concepts, Consciousness would have to be able to survive death in order to enable you to ‘experience’ the afterlife. Now as far as our current knowledge of consciousness goes, the brain gives birth to the conscious mind and without the brain, no consciousness would exist. This disproves the notion of a second life, seeing that the brain is a physical part of our anatomy and we all know what happens to the brain after death.
I have thus concluded that the Christian god, or any conventional theistic god, does not and cannot exist.

Disproving the Christian God | News24

Disproving the Christian God | News24

Journal of Theoretics - Nonprofit peer-reviewed Journal of scientifically credible theories from all disciplines. Original article.

Journal of Theoretics - Nonprofit peer-reviewed Journal of scientifically credible theories from all disciplines. Original article.

Scientists Prove That All Religious Books Are Man-Made Nonsense  

Scientists Prove That All Religious Books Are Man-Made Nonsense  

Tuesday, July 16, 2013

Worms regrow their decapitated heads, along with the memories inside | The Verge

Worms regrow their decapitated heads, along with the memories inside | The Verge

George Carlin revoiutionized comedy in the 1970s

From The Desk of
" The Secret of Manifestation"

George Carlin revoiutionized comedy in the 1970s by making social commentary on the middle class system that everyone thought was the right way to live.  His humor lives on as much as his wisdom...AS
The paradox of our time in history is that we have taller buildings but shorter tempers, wider Freeways  but narrower viewpoints. We spend more, but have less, we buy more, but enjoy less. We have bigger houses and smaller families, more conveniences, but less time. We have more degrees but less sense, more knowledge, but less judgment, more experts, yet more problems, more medicine, but less wellness.
 
 We drink too much, smoke too much, spend too recklessly, laugh too little, drive too fast, get too angry, stay up too late, get up too tired, read too little, watch TV too much, and pray too seldom.
  
 
 We have multiplied our possessions, but reduced our values. We talk too much, love too seldom, and hate too often.
 
 We've learned how to make a living, but not a life. We've added years to life not life to years. We've been all the way to the moon and back, but have trouble crossing the street to meet a new neighbor. We conquered outer space but not inner space. We've done larger things, but not better things.
 
 We've cleaned up the air, but polluted the soul. We've conquered the atom, but not our prejudice. We write more, but learn less. We plan more, but accomplish less. We've learned to rush, but not to wait. We build more computers to hold more information, to produce more copies than ever, but we communicate less and less.
 
 These are the times of fast foods and slow digestion, big men and small character, steep profits and shallow relationships. These are the days of two incomes but more divorce, fancier houses, but broken homes. These are days of quick trips, disposable diapers, throwaway morality, one night stands, overweight bodies, and pills that do everything from cheer, to quiet, to kill. It is a time when there is much in the showroom window and nothing in the stockroom. A time when technology can bring this letter to you, and a time when you can choose either to share this insight, or to just hit delete...
 
 Remember; spend some time with your loved ones, because they are not going to be around forever.
 
 Remember, say a kind word to someone who looks up to you in awe, because that little person soon will grow up and leave your side.
 
 Remember, to give a warm hug to the one next to you, because that is the only treasure you can give with your heart and it doesn't cost a cent.
 
 Remember, to say, 'I love you' to your partner and your loved ones, but most of all mean it. A kiss and an embrace will mend hurt when it comes from deep inside of you.
 
 Remember to hold hands and cherish the moment for someday that person will not be there again.
 
 Give time to love, give time to speak! And give time to share the precious thoughts in your mind.
 
 AND ALWAYS REMEMBER:
 
 Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away.
 
 If you don't send this to at least 8 people....Who cares?
 
                         George Carlin

 

Friday, July 5, 2013

Analytical Chemistry Techniques

Biochemists have used a combination of biochemistry & mass spec to “trap” new candidate substrates of the protease ClpXP to reveal how protein degradation is critical to cell cycle progression and bacterial development.
The bacterium Caulobacter crescentus (top image) was used for this work. It generates radically different cell types upon division. The ClpXP protease (bottom image) recognizes and destroys many protein substrates that allow Caulobacter to differentiate into these different cell types.

Read more on this work: http://bit.ly/10Cmd8u
Journal article: Identification of ClpP substrates in Caulobacter crescentus reveals a role for regulated proteolysis in bacterial development. Molecular Microbiology, 2013 DOI: 10.1111/mmi.12241
Image credit: Peter Chien, UMass Amherst

Stinging insects

Stinging insects are equipped with a wide variety of ways to make us hurt, but which hurts the most? How painful is a yellowjacket's sting compared to a tarantula hawk's? A bee to a harvester ant?

Fortunately for us, we don't have to get the answers to these questions firsthand - an intrepid entomologist named Justin Schmidt has compiled a Pain Index to give us an idea. The Index rates the painfulness of the stings of Hymenopteran insects (an order that includes ants, wasps and bees) on a scale of 0 to 4. A rating of 0 describes a sting that cannot pierce the skin while a rating of 4 is awarded to the most painful. The quality of each sting is also described, usually with an analogy.

Though he has never intended to get stung, Schmidt has been stung by over 150 species in his career over six continents (Antarctica has no stinging insects). These painful experiences inspired him to categorize the stings and so the Pain Index was born. Though it is obviously subjective, being built on one man's experiences, we're perfectly happy to defer to his expertise!

Here's some descriptions from the list:

Sweat bee: 1.0. Light, ephemeral, almost fruity. A tiny spark has singed a single hair on your arm.

Bullhorn acacia ant: 1.8. A rare, piercing, elevated sort of pain. Someone has fired a staple into your cheek.

Yellowjacket: 2.0. Hot and smoky, almost irreverent. Imagine W. C. Fields extinguishing a cigar on your tongue.

Red Harvester ant: 3.0. Bold and unrelenting. Somebody is using a drill to excavate your ingrown toenail.

Tarantula Hawk (left): 4.0. Blinding, fierce, shockingly electric. A running hair drier has been dropped into your bubble bath.

Bullet ant: 4.0+. Pure, intense, brilliant pain. Like fire-walking over flaming charcoal with a 3-inch rusty nail grinding into your heel.

Photo credit: Brian Van de Wetering.

For some more descriptions and explanations of how stings work:
http://io9.com/5912008/the-ten-most-painful-insect-stings-as-measured-by-science

http://io9.com/5836024/after-150-different-insect-stings-an-entomologist-becomes-a-connoisseur-of-pain

http://discovermagazine.com/2003/jun/featstung#.UdPaI_mZO8A

The sabre-toothed Thylacosmilus atrox

Evolution added a photo from July 5, 2013 to their timeline.
The sabre-toothed Thylacosmilus atrox might have had teeth the size of knives, but new research reveals its bite was "embarrassing".

To investigate Thylacosmilus's bite, researchers created biomechanical models of its skull and compared it to models of Smilodon and a leopard. The results showed that the jaw muscles of Thylacosmilus simply couldn't deliver a powerful bite - the team described its bite as "less powerful than a domestic cat" and its jaw muscles as "embarrassing". Previous research had demonstrated that Smilodon had a weak bite, but the bite of Thylacosmilus was even weaker.

However, the Thylacosmilus skull outperformed the others when it came to resisting forces from neck-driven bites. Thylacosmilus would have held down its prey with its thick forelimbs while its neck muscles drove the huge canines into the helpless animal (most likely into its prey's neck). Robust forearms were especially important to a sabre-tooth's attack - if the bite was not placed carefully or its prey twisted, the fragile canines could break.

These attack methods are almost identical to what previous studies concluded about how Smilodon attacked. Both predators have robust forearms, powerful neck muscles and large-but-fragile canines. However, Thylacosmilus was more specialised for the lifestyle - it had stronger neck muscles, weaker bite force and its teeth have roots almost in its braincase.

It's easy to assume Smilodon and Thylacosmilus were closely related, but the two are actually a stunning example of convergent evolution. While Smilodon was a true cat, Thylacosmilus was a marsupial and had a pouch. Scientists believe they were separated by around 125 million years of evolution, when the placental and marsupial lines diverged. Thylacosmilus also lived earlier, going extinct 3.5 million years ago, while Smilodon roamed North America until 10,000 years ago.

To read the paper: http://bit.ly/16BMHb8

Image credit: DiBgd.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/07/130702-sabertooth-cat-bite-prehistoric-science-animals/

http://www.livescience.com/37877-saber-toothed-predator-weak-bite.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23126270