Tuesday, March 19, 2013

Christopher Marlowe

February 6

On this date in 1564, Christopher ("Kit") Marlowe was born. The poet and dramatist, who authored "Tamburlaine" (c. 1587) and "Tragedy of Dr. Faustus" (c. 1588), is considered the greatest English dramatist before Shakespeare. Educated at Cambridge, Marlowe worked as an actor and dramatist. One of Marlowe's enduring poems is the "The Passionate Shepherd to his Love" ("Come live with me and be my love. . .")
Marlowe, with Sir Walter Raleigh and others, established the first Rationalist group in English history, according to freethought historian Joseph McCabe. Marlowe was derided as an "atheist" by several contemporary political enemies. His character Faustus concludes "hell's a fable," and his villain-hero Tamburlaine burns the Koran and challenges Mohammed to "work a miracle." The Privy Council had decided to prosecute Marlowe for heresy, accusing him of writing a document denying the divinity of Christ, a few weeks before his death in a barroom brawl. There has been endless speculation over Marlowe's short life and violent death at age 29. D. 1593.
“[H]e counts religion but a childish toy,
And holds there is no sin but ignorance.”

—Christopher Marlowe, "Jew of Malta" (c. 1589) www.ffrf.org

10 Easy Steps To Start A High School Atheist Club!

 http://www.skepticmoney.com/10-steps-to-start-a-high-school-atheist-club-club/

Debunking Christianity: My Prometheus Books Interview

 My new book "The Outsider Test for Faith" is out!--John W. Loftus
Debunking Christianity: My Prometheus Books Interview
Cliff swallows are evolving shorter wingspans to avoid becoming roadkill, according to new research.

Though cliff swallows are named for their habit of building nests on cliffs, they also nest on man-made structures such as bridges. Roadkill is an unfortunate consequence of animals living in close proximity to traffic, but very few studies have looked at how roadkill numbers change over time.

While conducting a survey on American cliff swallow colonies, Charles and Mary Bomberger Brown (University of Nebraska, USA) collected dead swallows to preserve as additional specimens. Over the 30 years, they felt like they were finding fewer and fewer dead swallows.

When they looked at their statistics, they found roadkill numbers really were falling. Even more interesting was that birds killed by cars had longer wingspans than those killed by nets (who were representative of the general population). Spurred on by this initial result, they measured live swallows' wings and found they had become shorter over the course of the study.

"Longer-winged swallows sitting on a road probably can't take off as quickly, or gain altitude as quickly, as shorter-winged birds, and thus the former are more likely to collide with an oncoming vehicle," explained Brown. Shorter wings also allow the bird more maneuverability in the air and make quicker turns possible.

Though they have tried to rule out other causes, the Browns acknowledge that behavioural changes could be responsible for the reduced roadkill rates. Nonetheless, the study does show roadkill numbers can decline even when the population and traffic do not.

Photo credit: Glenn Bartley/All Canada Photos/Corbis.

http://www.nature.com/news/swallows-may-be-evolving-to-dodge-traffic-1.12614

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/03/evolution-via-roadkill.html?ref=hp

http://phys.org/news/2013-03-road.html

http://www.livescience.com/27971-birds-evolve-avoid-being-roadkill.html
Cliff swallows are evolving shorter wingspans to avoid becoming roadkill, according to new research.

Though cliff swallows are named for their habit of building nests on cliffs, they also nest on man-made structures such as bridges. Roadkill is an unfortunate consequence of animals living in close proximity to traffic, but very few studies have looked at how roadkill numbers change over time. 

While conducting a survey on American cliff swallow colonies, Charles and Mary Bomberger Brown (University of Nebraska, USA) collected dead swallows to preserve as additional specimens. Over the 30 years, they felt like they were finding fewer and fewer dead swallows. 

When they looked at their statistics, they found roadkill numbers really were falling. Even more interesting was that birds killed by cars had longer wingspans than those killed by nets (who were representative of the general population). Spurred on by this initial result, they measured live swallows' wings and found they had become shorter over the course of the study. 

"Longer-winged swallows sitting on a road probably can't take off as quickly, or gain altitude as quickly, as shorter-winged birds, and thus the former are more likely to collide with an oncoming vehicle," explained Brown. Shorter wings also allow the bird more maneuverability in the air and make quicker turns possible.

Though they have tried to rule out other causes, the Browns acknowledge that behavioural changes could be responsible for the reduced roadkill rates. Nonetheless, the study does show roadkill numbers can decline even when the population and traffic do not. 

Photo credit: Glenn Bartley/All Canada Photos/Corbis.

http://www.nature.com/news/swallows-may-be-evolving-to-dodge-traffic-1.12614

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/03/evolution-via-roadkill.html?ref=hp

http://phys.org/news/2013-03-road.html

http://www.livescience.com/27971-birds-evolve-avoid-being-roadkill.html
A study published in early March found that capuchin monkeys are biased against selfish humans. They will actively avoid accepting favours from individuals they have noticed refusing aid to others in the past.

More information: http://bit.ly/WtNSsx
A study published in early March found that capuchin monkeys are biased against selfish humans. They will actively avoid accepting favours from individuals they have noticed refusing aid to others in the past.

More information: http://bit.ly/WtNSsx

Monday, March 18, 2013

Genius Inventor Cracks Secret Of Trees To Harness Solar Power. Oh, And He’s 13.

Genius Inventor Cracks Secret Of Trees To Harness Solar Power. Oh, And He’s 13.
Is de-extinction a good idea?

The possibility of bringing back extinct life has long held a certain fascination for people. How many of us saw Jurassic Park and wondered if, one day, it would really be possible to bring species back from the dead? While we'll never resurrect the dinosaurs, technology is reaching the point where we can soon bring back some of the species that went extinct within the past few tens of thousands of years. But should we?

Though dinosaurs are absent (we have none of their DNA to work with), the list of candidates for de-extinction does include some iconic species. Among more unknown species like the Cuban red macaw, passenger pigeon and Xerces blue butterfly are famous beasts like the woolly mammoth, sabre-tooth cat and the Tasmanian tiger (or thylacine).

Proponents state there are great benefits to de-extinction. They argue it will restore diminished ecosystems and help recreate fertile environments such as the "Mammoth steppes" of Siberia. The techniques developed for de-extinction will also aid the conservation of endangered species. As well as this, they argue we have a moral duty to bring species back if we can - especially if we helped drive them extinct.

However, others have severe concerns. De-extinction could take emphasis off conservation, depriving endangered species of much-needed attention. The moral argument might make sense, but as Brian Switek argues we could be repeating our mistakes in bringing a species back without thinking about its future. Another issue is where these animals are going to live, as well as how we will protect them. There may be little sense trying to bring back mammoths when we're failing to protect the elephant species we already have.

Photo credit: Jonathan S. Blair/National Geographic.

This is only a brief summing up on some of the arguments. The sources and further readings are essential to understand the arguments of both sides:

Extinct Species that could be brought back: http://bit.ly/1076Tjh

The Case For Revival: http://bit.ly/Wx0xtJ

The Promises and Pitfalls of Resurrection Ecology: http://bit.ly/WR58YK

Bringing Them Back to Life - Is It A Good Idea? http://bit.ly/1076c9V

Why De-Extinction is a Stupid Idea: http://bit.ly/YlSPyF

Will we ever bring back the woolly mammoth? http://bit.ly/Wx1p1m

Bring Back the Shasta Ground Sloth: http://bit.ly/YjB3PL
Is de-extinction a good idea?

The possibility of bringing back extinct life has long held a certain fascination for people. How many of us saw Jurassic Park and wondered if, one day, it would really be possible to bring species back from the dead? While we'll never resurrect the dinosaurs, technology is reaching the point where we can soon bring back some of the species that went extinct within the past few tens of thousands of years. But should we? 

Though dinosaurs are absent (we have none of their DNA to work with), the list of candidates for de-extinction does include some iconic species. Among more unknown species like the Cuban red macaw, passenger pigeon and Xerces blue butterfly are famous beasts like the woolly mammoth, sabre-tooth cat and the Tasmanian tiger (or thylacine). 

Proponents state there are great benefits to de-extinction. They argue it will restore diminished ecosystems and help recreate fertile environments such as the "Mammoth steppes" of Siberia. The techniques developed for de-extinction will also aid the conservation of endangered species. As well as this, they argue we have a moral duty to bring species back if we can - especially if we helped drive them extinct.

However, others have severe concerns. De-extinction could take emphasis off conservation, depriving endangered species of much-needed attention. The moral argument might make sense, but as Brian Switek argues we could be repeating our mistakes in bringing a species back without thinking about its future. Another issue is where these animals are going to live, as well as how we will protect them. There may be little sense trying to bring back mammoths when we're failing to protect the elephant species we already have. 

Photo credit: Jonathan S. Blair/National Geographic.

This is only a brief summing up on some of the arguments. The sources and further readings are essential to understand the arguments of both sides:

Extinct Species that could be brought back: http://bit.ly/1076Tjh

The Case For Revival: http://bit.ly/Wx0xtJ

The Promises and Pitfalls of Resurrection Ecology: http://bit.ly/WR58YK

Bringing Them Back to Life - Is It A Good Idea? http://bit.ly/1076c9V

Why De-Extinction is a Stupid Idea: http://bit.ly/YlSPyF

Will we ever bring back the woolly mammoth? http://bit.ly/Wx1p1m

Bring Back the Shasta Ground Sloth: http://bit.ly/YjB3PL