WORLD SCIENCE

"Long before it's in the papers"
March 27, 2006

Note: to reduce spam, spaces have been randomly added into emails, and @ signs and dots replaced with {at sign} or similar character strings. Comments may be edited for length or grammar.

 Comments on individual stories 

Chimps won’t do a neighbor a favor (Oct. 26, 2005)

A comparison of humans with chimpazees with respect to this form of behaviour would require that a similar experiment on similar controlled conditions be conducted in humans. Otherwise the study can be biased in its assessment of true human altruistic behaviour. 

—Jose Campione (Jose_Campi one at phac-aspc dot gc dot ca)

Violent dreams could answer evolutionary questions, researchers say (Oct. 18, 2005)

The conclusion of the researchers that “...RBD may originate from an inappropriate activation of the brain’s threat-simulation system, leading to an intensive threat simulation during dreams” was not actually a conclusion. They merely restated in quasi-physical terms an interpretation of what they observed. They also made an error. They had no evidence other than from the result of the observations used to construct their theory that brain activation was ‘inappropriate’. Their reasoning here is circular.

—Jonescardiff /at/ aol dot com

Flu vaccines not very effective in the elderly, doctors find (Sept. 21, 2005)

Prevention of 30 % of hospitalizations with flu vaccine and 42% of the deaths is hardly a modest effect in epidemiologic terms! I think that that is ample reason to strongly advocate using them. Given how hard it is to predict what the flu epidemic will consist of each year this is pretty darn good 

—Katherine Margo, MD, Predoctoral Director
Department of Family Practice and Community Medicine
University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine
Philadelphia, Pa 19104

Be careful putting human brain cells in animals, panel tells scientists (Sept. 2, 2005)

The collective ethical angst about whether or not a chimp implanted with human brain cells would be so changed as to be, say, humanoid and subject to being treated as a quasi-human, seems like so much naval gazing. Neurologically, there is probably little difference between a genius and the developmentally disabled. The gap between the latter and a “superchimp” augmented by human brain cells would have to be immense. Scientists should be, considerably more than the general public, more keenly aware of misplaced anthropomorphism. Certainly these grantors and panelists can find something more productive to do than to engage in this organized fretting.

A chimp with some modicum of human brain cells is no more human than if he had been dressed in a tuxedo. 

—Frank Smith Bluff City, KS (f smith at kanokla dot net)

Did global warming power Katrina? (Sept. 15, 2005)

GREAT story! This needs to be talked about and brought to public attention MUCH MORE WIDELY.

—Errol C. Friedberg, M.D., FRC Path (Lond.)

I think that by the time we have conclusive proof that global warming and storm severity are intrinsically connected, the only options available will be coping options rather than remedial options. We build computer models because the number of variables required to give a reasonable picture of trends is to provide quantifiable evidence that the trend is statistically sound. But a good researcher should be able to use his cognitive abilities to infer most probable outcomes from the statistical data. For this reason I'm very cynical about the call for further research when the evidence already points to what we would expect to occur in a more energetic environment.

—monty flippen (monty mont gomery27 at symbol hotmail dot com)

Now that there is strong evidence of global warming powering hurricanes, its high time to think about policies to reduce green house gas emissions. American policy makers now should think about costs they had to pay for not signing international treaties targeting emission reductions. They should realise that cost involved in emission reductions will be much less compared to money spent in reconstruction of those hurricane affected areas. And let them stop blaming others for global warming and start thinking locally. These studies, am sure, will pour some light to the dark minds of these policy makers. 

Balu (balumn air at gm ail dot com)

Craving for amputation: more complex than once thought, researchers say (Sept. 11, 2005)

This is something to be brought to politicians attention. Social benefits are not to be given to people who desire and apply to have their bodies deformed. This is a waste of human resources! 

We can’t afford to sustain sick minds! “If you prefer to die... go ahead”, but don’t enslave those who want to live by imposing more taxes on them to keep you alive in a self-imposed awkward situation.

Please write to the concerned bodies to make them aware of the situation in order to create necessary firewalls for this sort of abuse in the system.

Thanks,
Claire (claire_ zarb at yahoo dot com)

Our brains are still evolving, scientists say (Sept. 8, 2005)

The writeup of a cross-ethnic study of the evolution of two genes relating to brain size, said the study was based on 1000 individuals in 59 ethnic groups. That sounds impressive, but averages fewer than 17 individuals per ethnic group. It seems to me that analysis of gene variant frequency differences between groups should require several times as many individuals. The results are intriguing however, especially if the dates for the emergence the variant gene and of such traits as art and music, religious practices and sophisticated tool-making techniques are approximate enough that 50,000 years and 37,500 years are in the “same ballpark.” Larger studies may well be justified,but may have different results.

—Claire McMurray (cl airest at Quixnet dot net)

This is very obvious, and implicit, that as generation goes on things are changing/updated in every living organism. I am just wondering, about what is there to say. Crazy scientists... We have not gone beyond Charles Darwin even by one step.

Regards,
Prakash (prakash_ps [at symbol] alsc dotcom)

How is it possible for evolution to continue in civilized societies, since surviving and reproducing are not effected by intelligence, eyesight, or any of the factors selected for in the world of the survival-of-the-fittest? In fact most studies show that in the US and Europe more intelligent (high IQ), better educated and/or successful (financially) individuals reproduce LESS, so how would evolution take place? 

Isn't it possible some genes are selected for based on prevailing conditions? For instance, in times of an ample food supply might there be a genetic mechanism to select for larger everything, brains included, which would also explain the growth in average height in recent history.

T. Drewitt (tim-drewitt at sbcglobal dot net)

Odd behavior, creativity linked (Sept. 6, 2005)

“Schizotypes?” Demeaning label. “Schizotypal personalities” who “act but are not mentally ill”—is this the opposite of “unbearably boring personalities” who act but are not totally dullards” ?

—JoanH Lee" ( 2foo dogs at piv ot.net)

A few years ago I wrote an article (attached below) suggesting that schizophrenic delusions arise because the events that happen in dreams (in the brain real events and dream events are just neural activity) are placed in the memory store, whereas normally this does not happen. Then, for the schizophrenic, the dream-event memories cannot be distinguished from real-event memories, accounting for the delusions. 

One of the reviewers of the manuscript said that I should try to say why such a mechanism could explain the persistence of schizophrenia. My answer was that memories are stored as strengthened synaptic connections, and that in dreams connections are made between events and perceptions that are not usually connected in real life. Therefore I proposed that if this process of strengthening connections between "unrelated" events were too strong you get schizophrenia, but if it occurred at a reduced level it would increase the chance of making unusual connections in the waking state and thus enhance creativity - a process that has survival value.

To establish a connection between creativity and schizophrenia, I considered collecting data to see if the offspring of Nobel prize winners were more likely to be schizophrenic. Because of other priorities I never did that, so I am very glad to see that someone has established this connection in a different way.

Dr. Peter H. Kelly
Neuroscience Research
Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research
CH-4002, Basel
SWITZERLAND

The research on schizotypal personalities betrays the deceitful intent of its researchers and the chaotic reasoning that commonly lies behind brain studies. They study ‘odd’ people, but to give credibility to their studies they give them the pseudo-scientific name ‘schizotypal’, which borrows the authoritative posing of the term ‘schizophrenia’. The moral link is suspect. Another reason for using the quasi-material term ‘schizotypal’ is that they want to attribute oddness to something physical, which can then be given the label ‘condition’. They then proceed to review odd (schizotypal) people in terms of what goes on in the odd (schizotypal) brain. They then assume that whatever they find in that brain is a schizotypal condition. They then say that the schizotypal condition causes schizotypal behaviour. This is circular reasoning.

The researchers of brain studies apply common social prejudices under the veneer of science. The only science to be found is the techniques that have been developed for changing what people do or think. The prose that they supply for tacitly reinforcing social stereotypes, and the theories forwarded in support of that are superfluous, misleading and dangerous. 

—Jonesc ardiff at aol dot com

This makes an interesting reading; and in my experience is true. I think it is a case of the other people branding the weird as queer because, they can't catch up with their thought processes. 

—Prof. B.N. Okeahialam (basoke am <at> yahoo.com)

How gifted brains work (Sept. 2, 2005)

I am sorry but I don’t believe in IQ tests: some people may be interested in a number of “things” that aren’t on the list on the test.Or they wouldn’t know some trivial answers. Does it make them less intelligent? Intelligence is the combination of the content in our Memory cells and the quality of our thoughts and ideas. 

—Francheska Rossellini (franches ka “atsign” beggstel co dotnet)

I have to point out the cultural biases that are latent in this type of work. What is intelligence? We have defined it according to our own cultural norms that we associate with people who appear to behave intelligently. In other words, intelligence is a social construction. 

Take, for instance, the following hypothetical scenario, an individual who is a Paleolithic man uses a spear to hunt game. He uses the spear more effectively than his cultural counter-parts when engaged in their cultural activity of hunting. Is this a form of intelligence? Does not his mastery of this specific skill constitute intelligence?

Returning to the intelligence quota tests used by these doctors to determine correlations between high rates of intelligence, as intelligence is defined by our cultural conventions, and neurological activities in the brains, these cases of intelligence testing are analogous to the skilled primitive man using his spear. The tests are simply instruments, artifices, accouterments that people use to demonstrate their intelligence to others. Those who are skilled at taking these tests are considered to be more intelligent, but this attribute of individuals should not be confused with ‘intelligence,’ in the sense of the word that these researchers are using. There is no overarching form of intelligence; there is only a plurality of intelligences. In other words, intelligence is not reducible to any single human behavior or activity, such as taking an IQ test.

—E. Russell Cole" (russ colemail /atsymbol/ comc ast dot net)

I am a mensa member and once me and a friend, also mensan, got an IQ test and compared how we came to the same (right, of course!) answer on a difficult question, and it was two totally distinct logics, that i presume would fire somewhat distinct (but probably close) regions of the brain.
—Carlos Moreira Leite (car los *at* mensa dot org dot br)

The spear brought peace on Earth, researcher claims (Aug. 22, 2005)

There’s a definite trend at WORLD SCIENCE and other rather “mainstream” publications (mostly in the U.S. I suppose) alongside the one in bourgeois Science in general, to simply ignore or obliterate class analysis in scientific research. Here’s the latest, from your article: “Kelly’s proposal adds one to the many theories researchers have advanced to explain why humans conduct wars, and whether warfare is hard-wired in the human brain.”

Now, I sure hope real scientists don’t think this way, but I suspect too many bourgeois ones do think like whoever wrote this (hopefully) shallow description of the research field. It’s frankly hypocritical, and status-quo-serving, class assumptions are absolutely disgusting—because it’s not hard to understand the logic behind it: that human beings, being “hardwired” for “warfare”, allow for a brazen and crudely materialist sophistry to be introduced to explain their behavior in an attempt to side-step all issues of resource conflict and the rise of class society. And so “it’s in our genes” and we can’t do anything about it, yadda. You can’t fight City Hall...

We get this skewed propaganda *all* the time, from every conceivable angle, from TV to school and we absolutely can’t afford to be also getting it from a supposedly science-fact-driven publication such as WORLD SCIENCE. We get all this calculating drivel today (used to be “Divine Right of kings”, I believe)—even including creationism and “intelligent design”—for exactly the same purpose: support of the status quo class[-war] situation we presently live under. By whatever argument can be put past the unwary.

Fact is: violence is an activity of many living organisms, almost always directed to the goal of either acquiring, or not being acquired as, a resource. Period. So of *course* we are hardwired for violence: and so are all organisms which must chase their food (and even plants engage in slow motion violence, when you think about it).

The real issues involved here revolve around the (frankly dialectical) question of how a revolutionary new tool interacted with a pre-existing social relationship to change it. In this case we being asked the question: for better or for worse?

I suggest you reflect upon all social research from this standpoint. Class society is a very real phenomenon you should be delving-into as expositors and champions of scientific method and research. No field of enquiry should be tabu.

—gro k *at sign* Resist dot ca

This article and the study is totally skewed to a patriarchal mind set and is not science with its bias so present.

Similar to man-made words that Dale Spencer writes about and Louise Goueffic’s ‘Breaking the Patriarchal Code’, I do not understand how a spear made for killing, especially for when others are sleeping is a tool for peace. I saw that it was a fear tactic and that for 40,000 years fear ruled. 

Creating a bias in the study and then reporting it with illusions that to most unsuspecting individuals would buy into is propaganda. Lynn Margulis said it succinctly in her book about how science and this scientist has trained incapacities to overcome. 

I don’t buy it. I did not buy into a modern term “Peace Army” either. 

Danica Anderson (Danica Kolo AT com cast DOT net)

Asuming that both parties are armed with the same weapons, in this case spears, I fail to see how the weapon in itself should tip the balance in favour of peace. Both defenders and atackers would have the same ability to kill from a distance, and I do not see any great change in tactical usage as long as the defenders did not defend from a fortified position, in which case the position/fortification not the spear, would be the reason for “a lull in warfare.”

Being an adept at Yari Jutsu—traditional Japanese spear combat—I most definately recognize the advantage a spear holds over most short wapons such as clubs, knives and axes, but to me the speculation about the actual usage of the spear and the results it might have had remains just that—specualtions from an academic, who most probably have never engaged in any form for close combat himself.

—Peter Hedegaard, Soc. Anthropologist (ph c /atsign/ shield dot dk)

Wonderful, why didn’t we think of this before. Peace, like that brought by the slightly more powerful peace tool of the atomic bomb. …

I am not aware of significant research supporting the hypothesis that warfare has ever been a particularly ‘efficient’ or ‘profitable’ option for anything. What was the warfare supposed to achive? If the spear brought a degree of peace, why did it end? Did humans suddely decide that killing was a good idea again? Kelly’s use of the word ‘profitable’ is questionable, reminding me of policies of mass murder and genocide, where violence has a specific and particularly functional political and economic goal.

—Martin Hogan (alonquin at aol dot com)

Chimps are conformists, scientists say (Aug. 2 2, 2005)

I found this truly inspirational and am now doing a science assignment on the study of the chimps and how they think. Most of the people in my Science class reckon I'm nerdy, but i just pull my pants up, push my glasses down my nose and give them a buck toothed smile. Thanks so much for this groovy info. I hope I get an A. 
—Dr Spoc (smorg18 at eq dot edu dot au)

Group proposes putting African wild animals in the USA (Aug. 18, 2005)

I am disturbed by the article proposing introducing wild African animals into the US. The science behind ‘creating natural ecosystems’ is at best doubtful, as ecosystems are complex organizations that take time to evolve in a balanced way. We do not understand enough about them to ensure that tempering with existing ecosystems in the US will not produce dangerous unexpected consequences. 

What is worst, the proponents of this idea suggest using private land (probably forcefully taken from the owners for “the public good”) and public money to conduct this large scale experiment. I am outraged and strongly oppose such arrogant attitudes toward private property and public resources.

—Prof. Almira Vazdarjanova (avaz darja nova {at sign} mail dot mcg dot edu)

I would think that we are part of the ecological system. If we are to let nature take its course, wouldn’t that encompass humans also? We are at the top of the food chain according to nature. I think by intentionally reintroducing an animal that the food chain already made extinct, is messing with nature. ?????

—bee per (atsymbol) echo es dot net

Your eye movements may betray your culture (Aug. 12, 2005)

It is interesting but it is not surprising. It has something to do with relatively new cultures such as American (in which the person is measured by the result. achievement and result are planted in the culture), while old cultures Chinese-as people and I think Judaism-as people they are both more holistic and the result is not always the most important but the way you reached the result. The person is measured everything he is doing. It would be interesting to do such a research with Jews that came from different backgrounds. In this case I believe that you will still find the pattern of old cultures, no mater where they live now where they came from. 
—Eddie Bet-Hazavdi, Jerusalem (ebet-haz avdi at mni dot go v dot il)

thank you for publishing such a stimulating article. 
i am japanese by race, and have heard that in cases with the japanese minds, they tend to focus or listen in on such sounds found in nature like the wind and running water using the left side of the brain as in language as if someone were talking to them. contrary to this in the west, such sounds are commonly perceived/heard with the right brain to be filtered out, as if they were some kind of a background noise instead. who’s to say how one ends up hearing things with which part of the brain, as well as how this activity-placement inside the brain is actually is being taught, let alone learned, through cultural means. as i was reading your article about the observational differences between the chinese and americans being cultural, i think the correlation can even be felt in artworks as well. greek art is all about people being the feature creature, while chinese art has ant sized humans mixed into the scenery, scaled down to proper or REAL perspective. 

but because i have also heard somewhere that these 2 countrymen do a lot of things in common, perhaps both being peoples used to living on large continents where outside or foreign influences were really more common. by comparing their languages, both chinese and english tend to place “I” at the very front of the sentences, perhaps due to their need to really assert themselves in the midst of large scale racial mixups and confusions over long span of time, unlike with some asian/pacifics and the islanders, which their need to emphasize the word “i” doesn’t seem to be so strong. in other words, the concept “I” can be substantial or non, optional even, it doesn’t seem to matter that much, as in places which may have lacked nearring enemies with warlike tendencies, or happened to be more unified racially or just with more peaceful tendencies. for those who did not have physical separaters that divide the nations/nationalities like an ocean, this can create some situations for groups to develop solidarity within themselves to form against all the would be invaders and wars, and such constant aggravations could create the need for a more realistic self-identification and preservation means as some natural evolution, unless of course, their neighbors were truly peaceful people. but back to the chineses’ need to look at the background scenery, this could also be more like trying to make sure that no surprises are lurking in the background instead, some kind of a safety reflex issue. there are an awful amount of people in that country. i can see why a self preservational instinct would also be acting strongly even in the modern day chinese, just to make it out in this world. if this is the case for such eye movements, then it would definitely not be cultural, but then, of course, such eye movements could as well be cultural, coming from that chinese painting mentality where there are always more to look for in the background, just because there is always more to things than meets the eye with the most obvious object in any single scene. but i also think it can be conditional, because after all, isn’t it almost as dangerous to live out here in the west from muggers and what not? that makes me wonder why we do not look for more details in the background as a habit, if this is a habit, with us instead of just being fascinated only in whatever that is so obviously presented in front of us? this is all a lay observation.

—Lena ( LenaX AT haw aii dot rr dot com ) 

Thank you for this article about Chinese v. American students’ looks at images.

This represents an example of something that I have been noting in my online language and culture courses, the difference between “field independent” and “field dependent” thinking.

That is, the American students in your examples are doing exactly what I have noticed American learners of language/culture online to be doing when faced with images or with text upon “ground.” The Americans tend to separate figure from ground, analyzing the bits of what they consider to be essential content. The analytical system of education in the Usa has bred this kind of activity in them, I have proposed. This is “field independent” thinking, in which the field of analysis can be and frequently is separated from its ground.

By contrast, the Chinese are doing what many others in the world do outside the Usa: They are performing “field dependent” information processing, looking around the image as well as at the image, incorporating information from surrounding areas to determine its importance in or influence upon the understanding of the image itself. 

I have proposed that students learning language and culture online are being forced, in a way, to use more field dependent processes in their learning, which is enhancing their learning processes. I have also imagined that in political dealings, negotiations, etc., with Chinese, among others, Americans who wish to “cut to the chase” or come to a conclusion quickly should realize that others may not use the same process to arrive at agreements. Thus, the American system may lead to sub-optimization, coming to conclusions quickly but sometimes not attending to the overall cost thereof. The field-dependent alternative system may lead to a longer time to conclude, but consequences of the conclusions are considered.

Again, thank you.

Katherine Watson
ITV/Distance Learning
Coastline C.C., Fountain Valley, Ca
bizarrerie at aoldotcom

Species that “learn” their way into existence (Aug. 12, 2005)

The new ideas make a lot of sense. I think we will find a great deal of evidence to support the theory, and it will add more (although unneeded) support to Darwin’s theories, as well as providing a sharper and more thorough understanding of the process by which new species arise. 

We have already discovered that Whooping Cranes, who were hatched by Sandhill Cranes, often prefered to remain with the Sandhill Cranes, although Sandhill Cranes have a habitat preference somewhat different than Whoopers. I do not know if the adopted Whoopers produced offspring, but if they did, a new group of Whoopers, who are “in the habit” of hanging out with Sandhill Cranes might eventually evolve a gene pool slightly different from their ancestors. The adaptation might be nothing more obvious than a taste preference for the different foods available in the new-found habitat. Then we come to what may be a still more interesting point of observation: would the “new gene-pool” Whooping Cranes remain to compete with the Sandhill Cranes for food and habitat; or would they, at some later point in time, split away from the Sandhill Cranes to form a new flock, separate from the other Whooping Cranes as well as from the Sandhill Cranes? 

—Damian R. Pieper (iowa fungi at yahoo dot com)
President, Prairie State Mushroom Club http://geocities.com/iowafungi/ 
Co-Editor of “Symbiosis,” the PSMC newsletter http://briefcase.yahoo.com/iowafungi/

“Creatures learn to recognize and prefer mating partners more like them”—I don’t know how true this is. Too much inbreeding results in birth defects and deterioration of the stock. 
—Toby Katz (t6 13k at AOL dot com)

One in 25 dads may unwittingly be raising someone else’s child, researchers say
 (Aug. 12, 2005)

I'm surprised it is so low. One has to look at the first child and not the second or third as by this time the woman is now married and the rest of the children are generally those of the father who is supporting the family. I once attended a lecture here in Israel where the researcher reported a figure of ca. one in 10 for the first child. For obvious reasons she would not divulge where the place was nor the country. This was research in the early 70's, back in the days of sex, drugs, rock and roll, a bad mix for known paternity :-)
—Joe Zias, www.joezias.com 
Anthropology/Paleopathology, Science and Antiquity Group @ The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Mind boggling revelation. Reminds me of a reggae tune “man smart but the woman smarter.” Let every man just pray and hope for the best. 
—Pro. B N Okeahialam (baso keam at yahoo dot com)

Paternal verification becomes an issue in the event of medical needs; divorce and custody disputes, and for a variety of other reasons; organ donations, genetic testing for disease potential, and more. But, it makes no difference to a loving parent that a child cared for and part of a life and family may not be genetically theirs. My feelings won’t change about the children I HAVE LOVED FOR UP TO 35 YEARS. A disappointment maybe, depending on the circumstances, but not an excuse to change one’s feelings.

Barry Dennis
Columbia, Maryland (BDe nnis410 *at* aol [dot] com)

Rats seem to sigh with relief, researchers find (July 26, 2005): A study in which rats were trained to expect an electric shock, then were found to sigh “with relief” when an expected shock didn’t come.

I thought your article might have included a justification of the ethics of this “experiment” which placed rats in a situation similar to that found in human cells of torture. Disappointing.

—jones cardiff * at sign * aol dot com

Of course animals sigh with relief—also from exasperation, irritation and after a threatened fight does not materialise. The cruelty of these investigations still goes on—to prove what? Something that most of us already have observed but the investigators still just can’t quite believe. Shame on you. 

Yours,
Lida Krasnianska (lida kraz/at/elkaycor poration dotcom)

Editor’s note: We sought out comments from the researchers in response to these concerns. In reply, Stefan Soltysik sent us the following message on behalf of himself and his colleagues:

In reply to those who are justly concerned with the use of pain in behavioural experiments, I would like to offer a few words of explanation. They do not apply to many studies where excessive electric shocks were used, but they do to a great many behavioural studies in which normal emotional state on the animals is required. 

The expression tail-shock sounds bad if one does not realize that five brief and mild pain incidents per day is the least of unpleasant experiences the rats may go through in normal life. Not only they do inflict more harm on each other in normal fighting, but the effects of bites or scratches could be much more painful, prolonged, dangerous, and even lethal. 

Animals trained with the use of pain are spared long lasting unpleasant experiences of hunger, thirst, low or high ambient temperature, anxiety, cutaneous itch or swellings from lice or other parasites—all of which are normal in “natural life conditions.”

Both I and my co-workers regularly tried the electric shock on ourselves. It wasn’t pleasant but preferable to rat’s bite. Our entire experiment had to be very tolerable, because the rats were learning when it is safe and when not. They would not learn to relax and feel relief if the experience was more painful. 

The same intensity of shock was used on cats in previous studies and to our surprise and satisfaction, many subjects purred and fell asleep between trials. Both our cats and rats, when handled before and after the daily session, were quiet and friendly.

One could argue that the scientists would be better off in cages subjected to mild electric shocks and getting fed, clothed, and sheltered. The environment would be so much more friendly for them also, as they would not be subjected to the fear and insecurity of funding for their projects, relationships, or health care requirements. I’m sure the mild electric shock is far less painful than, say a broken leg from a skiing accident or a bump on the head from a mugging.

—Teri Evans, Monroe City MO ((Teri Evans *at* rall stech dot com)

Rare bird serenades mates with feather-rubbing song (July 28, 2005)

Cool sonic mechanism, but nowhere near as fast as sonic muscles in fishes. We have shown that the oyster toadfish can contract its sonic swimbladder muscles at 400 Hz (Fine et al. 2001) without tetanizing. Normally the muscles work between about 150-250 Hz to produce a sound with a fundamental frequency of the muscle contraction rate. 

Michael Fine (m lfine at vcu dot edu)
The author is with the Virginia Commonwealth University Department of Biology.

Why cats have no sweet tooth (July 24, 2005)

I beg to differ. I’m a freelance writer and a cat lover. I’m a Bengali. When we eat sweets, cats like dogs sit with us and eagerly wait to eat milk sweets and they relish! So it is far from the fact that they’ve lost sweet taste!

Thank you,
Aju Mukhopadhyay (ajum24 ~at sign~ yahoo dot co.in)

Totally false in the real world. Cats love sweet things. Not all do, but many do. I have cats who crave bread, ice cream, cake, sweet potatoes, and almost every cat loves creamed corn. Anitra Frazier, in The new Natural Cat, suggests creamed corn as thebest bribe treat.

Christina Chambreau, Homeopathic Veterinarian and Educator (Healthy Animals +AT+ aol dot com)

A response from the study authors:
The scientific literature documents convincingly that cats, both domestic and wild, show no indication that they can taste a sweet stimulus. Be aware that these studies were performed by offering the animal a choice of water versus water containing a single sweet stimulus at varying concentrations. These tests involved only a single chemical stimulus, like sugar or saccharin, and not a complex beverage or food. In such a two-choice preference test, the cats never demonstrated preference or avoidance for the sugar water. The conclusion being that they are at the least indifferent to the sugar, at best unable to detect it. Giving the same test to most other mammals—man, dog, rat, raccoon, cow, sheep—the sugar water would be avidly consumed.

How, then, does one explain the very valid observation of many cat owners (one of us included) that some cats eat and seem to relish such foods as ice cream, bread, candy, etc.? To explain this we need to agree on what “taste” means. In everyday speech, taste is synonymous with flavor. But anatomically, taste is limited to the sensation brought about when a chemical stimulates a specialized receptor on our tongue and this interaction is registered then as either sweet, sour, salty, bitter or umami (amino acid taste). 

Confusion arises because it is often assumed that if a preferred food has a sweet taste to us, other animals eat that food also because of its sweetness. But most foods are chemically very complex. If the sweetness were removed, many of these foods might still be preferred and eaten based only on the positive attributes that remain in the food. You might imagine, for example, that ice cream without sweetness still has a fatty flavor and texture, likely a pleasing smell, and probably other tastes like salty and amino acid, and a protein flavor. While this mixture may not appeal to us, the cat may find them attractive. We do no know what the cat’s taste world is like. He may have taste modalities we cannot imagine. 

Thank you,
Joseph Brand 
Xia Li
Monell Chemical Senses Center
Philadelphia, PA

IMPACT! Huge blast as scientists shoot hole in comet (July 4, 2005)

I’m not a scientist, but I was really shocked when I heard the shooting of the comet & I had an instant negative reaction... If we know so little, why use an aggressive method like a “bullet”? 

If we had a suspicion [the comet] may contain organic material, why disturb the natural course? It can cause a chain reaction which will never end & eventually can turn back on us. Everything we do, is just a try & in my opinion this is the worse!

Thinking of the Universe as an organic living in which ever form it may be, it should be treated with enormous respect! We all know, balance & equilibrium keep (it looks like a miracle) our planet exceptionally in a incredible position to give us this wonderful life we all are lucky to have. If we change this equilibrium, just for pure curiosity......

I think scientists should not make this “brutal aggression” on even the smallest part of our Immense unknown Universe, which we did not create! I’m in favor of research & space exploration, within cautious limits! It took us a lot of Centuries to come to this point of Scientific knowledge, but we should be careful not to abuse this newly reached power & get too fast to big mistakes, which we can regret.

If a Star has a beginning & end, by natural course & has millions of years to go, our planet, already very old, has not much left to live! Do we want to speed up this process?

Regards!
Marina (music village8000 *at* yahoodot.com)

Researchers explore whether parrot has concept of zero (July 2, 2005)

What a ridiculous, anthropomorphic story! Animals are not people with feathers or fur. Only human beings can comprehend abstract math concepts. Zero and infinity are two sides of the same coin. Can the parrot grasp infinity? Can it grasp God, the alpha and the omega? Can it comprehend death? Birth? The purpose of existence?

A parrot is not a child. Would you animal nuts please stop comparing animals to two and three year old kids????

This parrot can never know it’s a captive animal that belongs in the wild. But no, you’d never write an article on what animals CAN’T comprehend. You like to slam humanity and elevate animals. You like to make animals look smart and make people look stupid.

—Pedersen (yellow frog [at sign] gbis dotcom) 

African greys are like that!!! Those of us who have CAGs [Congo African Grey parrots] as pets know that they make transferrence of meanings properly all the time. I spend some time in the presence of my birds, a 7 year old Congo African grey which I have had since she was two months old, and a blue-front Amazon of unknown age, who is a rescue.

Skye, my CAG used to imitate my sneeze—(I am allergic to birds, and until the Sudafed kicks in, I sometimes blow the birds off the perch with a couple of loud sneezes) and I would play along and with exaggerated solicitousness, would say “Ohhhhhh, POOR bird!” In the evenings, Skye joins us in the livingroom on her perch, which is close to the TV set because that is where she wants to be. We have noticed that when a character in a drama is crying or screaming, Skye leans over to get a much better look, studies the screen, and then said “Ohhhhhh, POOR bird!” Assessing the distress suggested by the behavior of the person on the screen. This she does consistently.

She said last week, as I was putting her in her outside cage “I need water.” I was planning on putting the water in right after settling her in the cage, went back in and got it, and as I put it in her cage, I bumped the side of the cage a little and spilled a few drops. Skye was watching, and said “Ooops!”

I don’t remember spilling water in her cage before, but she obviously saw me spill something, and she knew what I would have said.....had she not let me save my breath! 

People with pet CAGs see this kind of appropriate speech over and over, but it never stops amazing us.

—Nance Ross in California

Researchers flip flies’ sex roles by swapping one gene (June 3, 2005)

This research into the genetic basis of courtship behavior is fascinating. There are political implications which you don't address but I wonder if the researchers were motivated (at least partially) by political considerations. 

For gays, the finding that courtship behavior is genetic would seem to remove any moral onus from their behavior. 

On the other hand, for feminists such a finding would seem to undermine their belief that sex specific behavior is a social construct that can (and should) be changed so that women and men can be the same. 

Boy you have to be careful about whom you offend! 

—Toby Katz, T613K {at symbol} aol dot com

Is my red your red? (May 31, 2005)

I was particularly interested in the last paragraph where the suggestion was made that colours may be regarded as ‘warm’ or ‘cool’. In this respect it was pointed in a lecture I attended that the general idea of ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ colours is the complete opposite of actual colour temperature, i.e. red is seen as hot and blue as cold! Something I hadn’t previously appreciated. However, I’m not sure this necessarily has a bearing on the article in question!
—Phil Luke (phil <at sign> boxlodge dot demon.co dot uk)

Your article makes much of the fact that the color spectrum is continuous. However, it ignores the fact that our eyes have three basic types of color receptors (cones or rods, if forget which), thereby giving a scientific foundation for basic colors. Different people in different cultures may average different ratios of these different color receptors, thereby giving them different views of colors. Your article should have mentioned that the brain interprets signals from these three types of color receptors and does not experience the continuous spectrum directly. Therefore, the emphasis should not have been on the continuous nature of the spectrum but on the discontinuous nature of our color receptors. I would have been interested in what the researchers had to say about this. Or are they only cultural anthropologists who didn't take biology into account?

—Donald Firesmith (dgf at sei dot cmu dot edu)

Subliminal messages can affect our brains, researchers find (May 16, 2005)

I have a couple of points I would like to make.

First, It is hard to say what words will be “emotionally neutral” to certain indiviuduals and which words won’t. Taking the example that the article gave as a neutral word, cousin, could be to some individuals a word that inspires fear due to some traumatic past experience. Furthermore, different cultures may have different associations with different words that could render them neutral or not, which would have to be taken into account whenever an experiment is to be done.

Second, I think it is tricky business defining the time interval that allows for subconscious processing and not conscious processing. Perhaps some individuals only need 1/30th of a second to consciouslly process a word. But thinking futher upon this, I hear the eye intakes visual information at a rate of 30 frames per second, so anything less than a 30th of a second and the brain may not be able to detect the message at all. Perhaps what people are saying is unconscious processing, is just the beginning of “conscious processing” only the stimulus does not stay around long enough for the brain to “progress” into the further stages that we would call “consciousness.” To clarify, what the article states is subconscious processing is the very begining in the progression of mental processing of a stimulus that would lead into what the article specifies as conscious processing.

—Albert Fahrenbach, Indiana University Student, afa hrenb //AT sign// indiana.edu

Perhaps this explains why when everyone you talk to is against everything that Bush is proposing yet somehow he got elected.
—ecrystalmist [at sign] yahoo dot com

Modern humans emerged from Africa once only, scientists say (May 13, 2005)

I enjoyed the catchy finding but I also think it would be more interesting to know if there is any relationship between this migration and European civilization. To me it may assist in destroying the rascist tendencies pervading world ideas when it is accepted that all are related but political factors are more crucial than color. 
—Lanre Olutayo (lant opamtu <<at symbol>> yahoo.com)

Genes behind transsexualism possibly found (May 11, 2005)

I object to a couple of statements in your recent article on the possible genetic basis of transsexualism. Firstly, I don’t like to see transsexuals contrasted with “healthy males” as if transsexuals were not healthy. I consider myself healthier in both mind and body than most non transsexuals. Secondly, the commonplace notion that transsexuals see themselves as women trapped in men’s bodies is ridiculous, as if transsexuals were simpletons completely divorced from reality. There may be a few flamboyant individuals who talk this kind of rhetoric, but I, along with practically all the male transsexuals I’ve known, while we do long to be female, know we are male. We simply don’t like to talk about it at every turn, since we really enjoy passing as female. I do know, from private considerations, that transsexualism is inborn, and therefore accept the idea of a genetic basis as almost self-evident, agreeing with your article in that regard.

The summary reports that male-to-female transsexuals were compared to “healthy” males. I hope that the comparison is not intended to imply that transsexuals are in any way unhealthy! The text should have indicated that both study groups consisted of healthy individuals, the difference being only that one group consisted of transsexuals, the other of non-transsexuals.

New advice to researchers: get to know your lab animals (May 4, 2005)

I agree wholeheartedly. We have found this to be true regarding blood pressure measured with a tail cuff device. When a familiar caretaker takes blood pressures they are at least 5 points lower than when an unknown person does it. Also, experimenters with stoic personalities get lower readings than high strung investigators. 

—Paul Ernsberger, PhD, Department of Nutrition, Case Western Reserve School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH pre +at+ cwru dot edu

Primitive “mind-reading” devices make progress, researchers report (April 24, 2005)

I am not sure about the capacity of the machine to read about the perceptions. I think this is impossible. God know all in our hearts.

—Dr.Muhammad Mukhtar Alam, mukhtaralam2000 (at symbol) yahoo.com, April 25

Parents found to discriminate against less attractive children (April 18, 2005)

I would like to suggest that the researchers “opinion” on who is attractive or not can be misleading or at best limit generalisation of the results. Wandering away from parents may be due to parental carelessness or activeness of a child and not out of love or neglect. Finally it is time we stoped busying over outdated theories of Darwin. Children do not necessarily look like us (whether attractive or not as parents). In fact, attractive parents do have unattractive children and some non-attractive parents do also have very attractive children.

—Dr Erhabor Sunday IDEMUDIA
(Clinical Psychologist & Senior Lecturer) sundayidemudia (at sign) yahoo.com, Tue, April 19

It never ceases to amaze me at how badly researchers manage to interpret their results, this is one perfect example. Did the researchers watch the same parent 'discriminating' between two of her children, one beautiful the other ugly? No, I doubt it. What they saw was a difference in parental behaviour between those with pretty kids and those with not so pretty kids. Did it occur to the researchers to look at how relatively pretty the parents were? No, I doubt it. I only bring it up because the less educated and less affluent of people tend not to be too pretty and they may be less attentive towards their children simply because they are not clever enough to see the dangers that more educated people see. Darwinism is an accepted part of reality in this day and age; we really don’t need fabricated excuses to ‘believe’ in the theory. The study was interesting and valid but the interpretations leave a lot to be desired.
Yours sincerely,
—Dr. Karen Akinci, karen_akinci {at sign} yahoo.co.uk, Thu, April 21

Why nature likes sex (April 9, 2005)

Genetic recombination does not require sexual differentiation of gametes. Equal-sized gametes may combine, allowing recombination.

The point of sexual differentiation of gametes is that the size of the cell influences crossover frequency and the positioning of the crossovers. It has been observed in humans and in insects that the regions of highest and lowest crossover frequency differ between males and females. Thus, the probability that an offspring could resemble the parent precisely -- even among self fertilizing hermaphrodites -- approaches zero.

We can see what happens when a particular chromosome is passed only through one form of meiosis. The mammalian Y chromosome, for example, does not participate in female meiosis, only male. It has degenerated.

The original function of proto-sexual reproduction appears to have been to eliminate chromosomal damage rather than to find speculatively “better” gene combinations. This also is an old theory.

In higher organisms a great advantage of sex and sexual differentiation of germ cells is that it helps to preserve “heterozygosity per se” in close-breeding populations, and thus delay inbreeding decline. It is virtually impossible for an organism to receive genetically identical chromosomes from both parents, even when both parents are the same hermaphrodite.

To the contrary, if the male gamete were the same size as the female, and the meioses that gave rise to them allowed crossovers in the same regions of all the chromosomes, inbreeding depression would occur earlier.

—Karl King, http://www.bulbnrose.com/, http://www.bulbsociety.org/, April 12

Once again that old canard “sex: that nature favors it because it allows faster evolution”

It should be obvious by now to the meanest intelligence, that “faster evolution” is a nonsensical notion. 

If there was a case for “faster evolution” it could be easily obtained by simply reducing DNA error correction, or inducing DNA damage. Is it becoming clear how absurd the idea of “faster evolution” is? The best ooutcome for any evolved organism (and thats all of them) is to stay the same. Have progeny that are the same. Thats what evolution is, a billion year self-design process.

Simple minded peoiple (and thats most of them) soemhow get the notion that if Evolution is good then “faster evolution” must be better.

What sexual reproduction is doing is _Not_ simply faster evolution. Sex takes sets of genes from con-specifics, sets that have been already proved to work (thats what evolution means) Not just “faster” but pre-existing sets from a club (thats what a species is).

I would be amazed if Goddard actually subscribes to your “faster evolution” thesis. Mybe he is seduced by the popular magazine style science, “Evolution Good Faster Evolution much more gooder...”

[hint: read some Bill Hamilton to get the true science behind sex]

cheers
Christopher T Skinner, ctskinner//atsign//yahoo.com, http://gbruno2.blogspot.com, April 18

Doomed planets, new life (March 30, 2005)

Would not a meteorite entering a planet with any kind of life sustaining atmosphere reach temperatures incompatible with any type of life?
—Alvin Tobis, alvintobis[atsign]prodigy.net, March 31

Scholar: Michelangelo faked dazzling archaeological find  (March 30, 2005)

If Michelangelo Buonarroti carved the Laocoön he would most definitely made it known. I read that Michelangelo overheard people giving credit for his Pietà to another artist so during the night he signed his name across the band on the front of the sculpture. He would have been as proud of the Laocoön.

The assumption that since Michelangelo forged a cupid, therefore he forged the Laocoön doesn’t make sense either. A forged cupid was a minor work and could gave been done in a short time for some quick cash. The Laocoön was a masterpiece and he would never have spent that much time for nothing. The owner of the land where it was found got the money, not Michelangelo. Money or no money, he would have wanted the credit. 

—Steven E. Lillegard, www.sculptmontana.com

Experiment might help explain how we, and all things, got here (March 23, 2005)

From where do scientists suppose the original matter and anti-matter came? Will their experiment bring them any closer to answering that? Please provide follow up article after report on experiment is concluded. Thanks, Karen 
—karentaylor//at//charter.net

Soap and water is best, study says (March 22, 2005)

Goes to show that ther is every benefit in making haste slowly. The age long things are not necessarily useless. 
—Dr B N Okeahialam, basokeam<atsign>yahoo.com, March 25, 2005

Sunlight in a tube (March 11, 2005)

... It sounds like an extension of the Himawari (Japanese for “Sunflower”), which is also a lighting system which uses sunlight as its source. The URL for that site is

 http://www.himawari-net.co.jp/
e_page-index01.html

It's actually in Japanese - this points to the English version of the site.

—salthera <salthera[atsign]stic.net>

Editor’s note: The Himawari system has indeed existed for years, but the Oak Ridge researchers claim that their system will change this technology from a luxury niche product to one that is used by millions of people. This is not because it would be cheap, but because it could be set up on a large scale places such as office buildings. Whether their claims will hold up remains to be seen.

Early universe looked “like vegetable soup” (March 11, 2005)

It baffles me why ‘“men”of learning’ (the quotes on men are to defend myself against those who would label me as sexist) have to talk of the universe as ‘having a beginning’. No! I guess it doesn’t really baffle me! Most humans are so simple minded that they cannot conceive a universe that has (or if you must, had) no beginning and no end. If ‘we’ are so simple minded that the universe has (again if you must, had) to have a beginning and of course an end, then it follows that the universe (ie: everything) must exist within something else, or the universe must be contained by something else. But that denies the definition of universe. The universe or cosmos has no beginning and no end, neither in space nor time; the beginning and the end are merely human concepts adopted of necessity to interpret cosmic ideas to humanity. 
Speaking of the early or young universe, or the maturing universe etc implies that the universe has (or had as before) a beginning and an end. One must have a cosmic understanding to be able to discuss such things.
My email address is bobi596{atsymbol}rogers.com and I would welcome any comments. (March 12, 2005)

A stellar size limit (March. 10, 2005)

In my opinion this has to do with the so-called Jeans Limit. The luminosity of a young star is a rapidly increasing function of its mass. The gravity at the surface of the star is a slowly rising function of its mass. At a certain mass the light pressure on a particle at the surface will become stronger than the gravity; i.e. the particle will be blown away instead of falling down. At this point (the Jeans Limit) accretion stops, and the mass can no longer increase. The actual value of the Jeans Mass is not known, because the relation between mass and luminosity is not known for very large masses. But 150 Solar masses sounds not at all implausible.

—H. de Boer, effe06 {at symbol} zonnet dot nl, March 30, 2005

Racial differences not imaginary, studies find (Jan. 31, 2005)

I think those who advocate the idea that race is purely a social construct are trying to stress the even greater differences within racial groups, as individuals, and local blends of population. I would say color of skin is one of the least valid classification groupings of of humans. This would be like classifying plants on the shade of green in their leaves, and ignoring the shape, texture and chemical details of the plants. Race is real in a very general, sense but it blends like the colors in a spectrum or rainbow, no sharp boundries. 

—Allan Silliphant, sharper3d ~at sign~ yahoo dot com

“Spray-on homes” invented (Dec. 26, 2004)

This would be a great product... It needs to be extensively used in the US. The average cost of a house is now $130,000.00. It has got to the point that only the upper middle class and the rich can afford a new house. With more, and more jobs going offshore, we are losing what made America great, the middle class. We will always have an elite and now a forever “Poor”. But the middle class is a vanishing breed. This product can at least make it possible for the poor to own a home.

—rfowler204 +AT sign+ nc.rr dot com

Newly studied form of racism seems incurable (Dec. 21, 2004)

This study based on photographs is inherently deceptive.

Black men in photographs will always be trying to project an in image of an impassive humorless tough guy, while white people, regardless of their situation, are always concsicous of the photo needing to give some impression of friendliness. 

It seems to me that public presentation in court will have similar unconscious motivations and it’s likely to be this that is being picked up on to provide unconscious bias in sentencing, not physical appearance. 

Historical preferencing of lighter over darker skin tones among blacks is, I think, an altogether separate phenomenon due to their idiosyncratic cirucmstances.

—Alan, feldergrop <at symbol> yahoo dot com, April 18, 2005

Study: mothers’ medications might turn developing daughters into lesbians (Dec. 14, 2004)

This is an offensive story with about a study based on obviously  flawed methodology. And your study attributes cause and effect which I'm sure even the researchers were not willing to do. 

Your giving the study publicity in this way will no doubt result in more homophobes passing it on as fact to the conservative hatemongers who have received support from the Bush election.

The research by Lee Ellis and Jill Hellberg is just the kind of work that needs to be done. That homosexuality in females may be linked to the drugs the mother takes during pregnancy is a potential breakthrough in understanding the causes of homosexuality.  This kind of research might begin to give us some insights into how homosexuality occurs, as opposed to all the speculation that goes on regarding the controversial topic of homosexuality.  Excellent research like this can help advance understanding of an important and controversial topic.

—Russell Eisenman, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, University of Texas-Pan American, Dec. 14, 2004

Scientists to shoot hole in a comet (Dec. 14, 2004)

what if this “experiment” is just a cover up because they calculated that the comet is actually going to impact earth in some later year and they are going to blow a hole in It to try to change the trajectory! and they don’t want to alarm people so they made up this experiment...ok so it’s a conspiracy theory, but it’s interesting to think about...

—Hadley Olson, Bean100000 ~AT~ msn dot com

Wasps punish “cheaters,” researchers find (Nov. 18, 2004)

I found this article very interesting, but it’s a bit shaky as to whether or not the wasps are being punished because they’ve got altered marking’s on they’re faces, or if it’s because they’ve been altered. I’m left wondering if the wasps that have been altered are not being seen as wasps that have simply been altered by a foreign substance. Or as wasps that are presenting a false image of themselves. I would also like to know how a wasp would do this alteration without help from a scientist. or how would a wasp be able to change her appearance by it ‘self, and has any such behavior been observed. Or is this a process that has been observed in wasps that we’re altered by scientist’s only, and not in nature. Isn’t it possible that the altered wasps are being simply ostersized because they’re obviously altered in an unnatural way, and it’s just not being recognized as another normal wasp, but as a wasp that could be carrying a danger to the rest of the hive because of the unnatural looking alterations. It would be interesting to find out a lot more of the conditions that have produced these results. Wouldn’t it be possible that the altered wasps are just being punished as a way to try and prevent them from returning to the hive and possible introducing a dangerous condition that could be a severe danger to the whole group, and the marked wasp, being possibly unaware of the changes made to it is simply confused as to why it’s being treated in the way it’s being treated. As this would not have any feeling’s that the wasp could recognize in itself. Or is it possible that the wasps are no longer being recognized as a member of the hive they’ve always belonged to. and are just angry at not being recognized. 
I’m saying a lot about this, from a very short amount of information presented to me in this article, I would like to see more about this subject
of insect intelligence.
Thanks for a good article
—LarryChauvin {at symbol} shaw.ca, March 4, 2005 

The evolution of spite (Oct. 14, 2004)

I found this article extremely thought provoking. I have personally been plagues with a spiteful nature, and have considered it to be a weakness, your explanation makes considerable sense. I was further intrigued with the reference to possible spiteful actions in the animal world heretofore misunderstood.... I have a cat that is terrible at fighting, he loses every battle at great cost to himself, but he always attacks any cat that looks at him with any aggression. In the long run, he has ended up running my other males outside even though they can beat him in a fight, it's easier for them, I guess, to stay outside than have to whip him everytime they want to take a nap on the couch. Finally! An explanation.

—Teri Evans, MO (USA)

Your story on spite is excellent. It shows how both spite and altruism may serve purposes of the self, and thus may make sense, after all, from an evolutionary standpoint, since the individual gains in the long run by giving up something in the short run.

Sincerely,

—Russell Eisenman, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, University of Texas-Pan American, Edinburg, TX 

It’s nice to see that researchers are thinking along the lines of Ayn Rand’s Objectivism. While not perfectly formed, the philosophy provides excellent explanations for much human behavior otherwise untouched by science, and provides both a social and a psychological framework for its existence and rules of operation. It is only sensible that scientists are finally exploring the principles of Objectivism from a socio-scientific viewpoint. My own life experience indicated that these principles will most likely bear fruit, even when considered in an evolutionary sense. 

—Adam M. Wade, technical author, espresso_doppio [at sign] yahoo dot com, June 3, 2005

Is the universe revealing its shape? (Oct. 6, 2004)

The universe is supposedly everything that exists. If the universe had a shape, it would be a part of something else. Therefore, by definition, the universe can not have a shape. You talk of the big bang theory, but in what 'container' did this big bang accur. No! There was no big bang and the universe is limitless and shapeless.

—bobi, bobi596 /atsign/ rogers.com, April 23, 2005

Did fossils inspire ancient flood myths? (Sept. 6, 2004)

Its a shame we won’t see stories like this in our public schools. (especially with all the “under God” fervor in the pledge). keep up the good work. 

—Frank

So rather than considering these mountaintop fossils and ancient flood stories to be potential evidence of a worldwide flood, these scientists believe geologic processes pushed these fossils toward the sky intact, inspiring primitive explorers around the world to come up with similar flood legends to explain their discoveries. To believe this strained theory requires a larger leap of faith than the Biblical account, which explains the same evidence far more simply and credibly.

—David Krause (dhkrause<at symbol>neteze.com)

Altogether too many people have the mistaken idea that a catastrophic flood in the Black Sea was the inspiration for the Noah’s Flood story in the Bible. The TV programs on that topic are outdated and overly sensational and can be safely ignored. Sadly, you and maybe millions of other people have been misled on this subject. 

Alas, there was no “Noachian” Black Sea Flood, and the science in William Ryan’s and Walter Pitman’s book “Noah’s Flood: the event that changed history” has in several cases been superceded by better information that indicates that there was no such event, and was in most cases preceded by evidence that indicated that there was no such event. Ryan and Pitman set out to overturn the orthodox view of the history of the Black Sea, but they have apparently abandoned their hypothesis, if more recent articles co-authored by Ryan are any indication. The orthodox view has prevailed, subject to some recent minor modifications.

There is evidence that there was an outflow southward from the Black Sea through the Bosphorus into the Mediterranean from more than 10000 years ago (well before Ryan and Pitman’s initial 5600 BCE flood date), continuously until the present day, though there may have been a relatively short interruption. And evidence from the south shore of the Black sea shows that the level of the Black Sea was only 18 m below the present level at the time of the supposed flood. The more recent claim by Ryan puts the flood date at 8400 BP, or about 9000 years ago, but then the “floodwaters” through the Bosphorus channel would have been only about 5 metres deep. 9000 years ago is when everybody else always thought that Mediterranean saltwater first entered the Black Sea. At about that time, the last phase of Glacial Lake Agassiz, in central Canada, finally found an outlet to the sea through or under the remnants of the Laurentide Ice Sheet, and so out into the North Atlantic, raising sea level an appreciable amount, and perhaps triggering a sudden inflow of saltwater into the Black Sea basin. But probably not sudden or great enough to inspire a Noachian Flood myth. Better candidates are widespread inundation of low lying parts of the Persian Gulf associated with the final draining of Glacial Lake Agassiz, and similar flooding of the Tigris-Euphrates delta, and (most likely) simultaneous flooding of the Tigris and Euphrates, which would have looked like a flooding of the entire world from the viewpoint of a person near present-day Baghdad. These candidates could each or all have inspired the flood myth in the epic of Gilgamesh, which predates the first known appearance of the Noachian Flood myth.

Check this out, for a layman-friendly synopsis of the refutation:

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/bseaflod.htm

On the draining of Glacial Lake Agassiz:

http://cgrg.geog.uvic.ca/abstracts/
PerkinsOnceDuring.html

And here’s a fairly recent news item on refutation of Ryan’s and Pitman’s hypothesis:

WORLD SCIENCE

WORLD SCIENCE