Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts

24 November 2007

Young-Earth PhDs

Here's an article describing an interesting group of scientists (hat-tip to T&S sidebar). It's about the scientists who make up the First Conference on Creation Geology. Two interesting quotes:

The first---unwittingly---makes the Bible into a scientific theory.

“We don’t subscribe to this idea of the ‘God of gaps,’ meaning if you can’t explain something, then blame God,” [John] Whitmore told me before describing a method that hardly seemed more scientific. “Instead, we think: ‘Here’s what the Bible says. Now let’s go to the rocks and see if we find the evidence for it.’ ”
Now, you may not agree that that makes the Bible a theory, and if you do not then I think you should look into how scientists use the word "theory."

The second quote is a very good rule to live by.
“I have faith that the Bible is a true and accurate record of the earth,” [Marcus Ross] said. “I also entertain the possibility that I’m wrong. It would be cartoonish to say I don’t have doubts from time to time. Everybody has moments of doubt. But I can have those moments without my brain exploding.”
Well said.

Read More...

19 November 2007

Intelligent Design and the Natural Man

Nova recently aired a program about the Intelligent Design trial in Dover, PA. One of the interviewees questioned Darwinism, stating that it robbed man of his dignity.

I wondered whether the scriptures support this idea. My conclusion is that they do not. Yes, we were created in God's image, but our physical creation does not separate us from the animals. Rather, we have the same passions, drives, desires that they do (more or less). Importantly, it is this "natural man" that we must overcome.

We are not born "dignified" because of the manner of our creation any more than we are born "chosen" because we are "children of Abraham." Human dignity comes not by looking like but by acting like Jesus.

(More detail is posted at Feast Upon The Word Blog.)

Read More...

24 August 2006

NIH Funding

I was recently asked about the NIH and how it uses tax dollars. My response is posted, by generous* invitation, on Blogger of Jared. Please check out my post and the rest of that fine site.

*Note that my post is one of the longest in that blog's history.

Read More...

03 August 2006

The Monogamy Gene

Studies over about a decade have shown that oxytocin and vasopressin, peptides secreted in the brain, are involved in the formation and regulation of various social behaviors. For example, oxytocin is released in females during nipple stimulation when a child is suckling, which in many species is important in strengthening the mother-infant bond. Interestingly, vasopressin and oxytocin are also released into the blood during orgasm in humans.

The graphic below illustrates the current understanding of neural circuitry regulating pair bond formation (1). (This represents a vole brain, hence the unfamiliar shape.)



In the authors’ words:

…at least three separate, yet interconnected neural circuits converge to yield the development of the pair bond. Circuits involved in the processing of social cues and formation of social memory [blue regions] are tightly coupled with the brain’s reward and reinforcement circuitry [green regions]. These two circuits are modulated by…circuits conveying somatosensory information from the genitalia during sexual interactions [brown regions]. The interaction of these pathways during sex culminate in the development of a powerful association between [sex] and the [the partner] to form the conditioned “partner” preference, or pair bond.
It is unknown whether similar circuitry exists in humans, and there are expected differences. In voles, for example, olfactory clues are important, whereas in humans the role of smell is probably replaced by higher cerebral (thought) activity.

What does that mean in English?
In overly simplified terms: Two voles, named Mike and Megan, mate; the next time Mike smells Megan, Mike’s brain remembers the reward of being with Megan, and vice versa; Jenny does not evoke the same good memories in Mike, so Jenny is ignored. Ahhh, the smell of monogamy!

What does this have to do with genes?
Dr Larry J Young, an associate professor at Emory University, recently reviewed his work in this area at The Endocrine Society Meeting in Boston, Massachussetts. Dr Young uses prairie voles as a model of pair bonding. Prairie voles are particularly useful because they form lifelong mating pairs and the male and female contribute equally to caring for the young—unlike other voles in the same genus (like the montane vole) or other rodents.
Dr Young has found that one difference between monogamous prairie voles and promiscuous montane voles is in the distribution of vasopressin and oxytocin receptors in the brain. His hypothesis is that if the receptors are not expressed in certain areas, then smell and sex will no longer coordinate to form social memory. Hence, when a montane vole mates, it does not form a lasting bond with its partner and is therefore unrestrained when encountering a different potential mate. (This hypothesis is strongly supported by a wealth of pharmacological and genetic data, which I won’t go into—unless asked.)

What makes the difference?
The reason for the differences in receptor expression appear to be due to a repetitive sequence in the vasopressin receptor gene. Males with longer repeats (called microsatellites) show “more paternal care and are more likely to form a pair bond than males with shorter microsatellites” (2). Humans also show a high degree of diversity in microsatellite length in the vasopressin receptor gene. The implication for human behavior is obvious: this could explain some of the diversity in human behavior, particularly the quality of paternal care and fidelity of husbands.
______________________________________________

1. Young LJ, et al., J Comparative Neur 493:51-57
2. Young LJ. Oxytocin, Vasopressin & Social Bonding. 88th Annual Meeting of the Endocrine Society, Boston, MA, June 2006.

Read More...

19 July 2006

Stem Cell Veto

Pres Bush recently vetoed a bill from the Senate that would have allowed federal funding for stem cell research. He marked the occasion with a publicity photo, featuring himself surrounded by several couples with their children that they had "adopted" as unwanted embryos.

There are some facts that do not support Pres Bush's veto:

1) He has delayed medical discoveries that would have positively affected the lifespan and quality of many (or all) of the children in the photo. I am reminded of a poster by the Foundation for Biomedical Research:


2) Current IVF techniques were developed by experimenting with human embryos--meaning that the parents in the photo are to some degree protesting the science that made the photo possible.

3) Pres Bush delayed research that will improve IVF and other reproductive technologies. This has several implications:

a) Couples that cannot afford reproductive medicine will still be unable to do so;
b) Couples will continue to transfer several embryos in the hope that one or two will actually implant (most hope for twins, because IVF is so expensive). The problem is that in some cases, high multiples are achieved. Remember that in terms of infant mortality and morbidity, twins typically do fine, triplets are often problematic, and beyond triplets the outlook is usually poor. The couple is then faced with the option of "selective reduction," which means aborting some of the fetuses so the mother only carries one or two.
c) Couples that cannot be helped by today's medicine will still be unable to conceive.

(I also find it ironic that the same man that can argue that the benefits of war outweigh the costs (ie. civilian deaths and casualties), can also argue that the benefits of embryonic stem cell research do not justify the perceived costs.)

Read More...