SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Solon who wrote (37766)6/22/2013 10:48:34 AM
From: 2MAR$  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 69300
 
Phytoplankton Blooms , from canadian Prof Larry Moran's site, i like this guy & his blog "Sandwalk", and yes discussions & even dissenting opinions are all welcome! (unlike brummy's EvolutionNumbskulls.org :o)
sandwalk.blogspot.com




This is a spectacular view of a phytoplanton bloom in the South Atlantic. It was taken by the Envisat satellite on Dec. 2, 2011 [ A Southern Summer Bloom].

These phytoplankton blooms usually consist of a single species of microorganism. The fact that they can be seen from space gives you an idea of just how abundant they are. The blooms in the oceans can be due to diatoms or algae but by far the most common large blooms are due to cyanobacteria.

Prochlorococcus sp. and Synechococcus sp. have the largest population sizes of any species on the planet. About 30% of all oxygen production on the planet is due to marine phytoplankton and these two species account for a significant proportion.

A third genus of cyanobacteria, Trichodesmium, is mostly found off the coast of Australia. In addition to producing oxygen by photosynthesis, it is responsible for a considerable proportion of nitrogen fixation in the oceans.



To: Solon who wrote (37766)6/22/2013 11:03:06 AM
From: 2MAR$  Respond to of 69300
 
"The Best Science Book Ever Written" ( you'll appreciate the wry humor of Prof Moran here , Dept of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto)
sandwalk.blogspot.com



To: Solon who wrote (37766)6/22/2013 11:50:17 AM
From: 2MAR$  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 69300
 
IDiots Actually Make a Falsifiable Prediction with "Darwin's Doubt" ( the humor, intelligence & incisive wit of Toronto's Prof Moran is infectious!)
sandwalk.blogspot.com

The Intelligent Design Creationists, otherwise known as IDiots, are getting desperate. They have been relentlessly promoting Stephen Meyer's upcoming book Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design but so far they have pretty much failed to trick evolutionary biologists into trashing the book before it's published.1 That must be a major disappointment to them.

The baiting continues with an article by David Klinghoffer on the Evolution News & Views (sic) site: What Darwin's Enforcers Will Say About Darwin's Doubt: A Prediction. Here's what he predicts ....

Among possible lines of attack against Stephen Meyer's forthcoming book, Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design, I foresee some critics trying to argue that it's not fair game for Dr. Meyer to invite the general reading public to consider what's going on in peer-reviewed technical literature pertaining to evolution.

After all, biologists should have the opportunity to air their views in a semi-private professional setting without "creationists" barging in and telling the unwashed masses that many scientists have already given up on the Darwinian paradigm and are seeking post-Darwinian alternatives. Even though it's true, still it's wrong to publicize the fact, thereby leading the common folk astray and confirming their prejudice in favor of seeing life and the universe as reflecting some purpose.

This time I will rise to the bait if only for the purpose of preserving this prediction so we can revisit it in the future.

I'd also like to note, for the record, that the IDiots have published a number of books in the past and I don't recall anyone making the argument that Klinghoffer predicts. Can anyone out there point me to an article where scientists criticized the IDiots for publicizing controversy within the evolutionary biology literature? It would be quite hypocritical for most bloggers to do so since criticizing the scientific literature is what we do.

Is it just my imagination or have evolutionary biologists also published books where they "expose" the controversies within evolution. If scientists do it routinely then why in the world would they criticize an IDiot for doing it? That doesn't make any sense, does it? (Oops, I inadvertently made the false assumption that IDiots are supposed to be rational.)

Finally, Udo Schüklenk alerted me to this creationist article because he is mentioned. Klinghoffer refers to a discussion about the ethics of infanticide and he thinks that his creationist2 buddy Wesley Smith is being attacked for exposing a debate within the bioethics community. You should read the papers he links to along with Udo Schüklenk's paper [ In defence of academic freedom: bioethics journals under siege] if you want to catch up on that discussion. As usual, the IDiots get it all wrong. Are you surprised?
1. That's mostly because we don't care. We are not anticipating anything we haven't heard many times before although, I suppose, we could be surprised.

2. Smith is a lawyer and a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute. I don't know what kind of creationist he is.


Posted by Laurence A. Moran at10:10 AM




To: Solon who wrote (37766)6/22/2013 1:34:00 PM
From: average joe  Respond to of 69300
 
Mysterious Voynich manuscript has 'genuine message'By Melissa Hogenboom Science reporter, BBC News

21 June 2013



The 15th Century Voynich manuscript has been described as the world's most mysterious book, which could be a complex code, an unknown language or simply a hoax

The message inside "the world's most mysterious medieval manuscript" has eluded cryptographers, mathematicians and linguists for over a century.

And for many, the so-called Voynich book is assumed to be a hoax.

But a new study, published in the journal Plos One, suggests the manuscript may, after all, hold a genuine message.

Scientists say they found linguistic patterns they believe to be meaningful words within the text.

Whether or not it really does have any meaningful information, though, is much debated by amateurs and professionals alike.

It was even investigated by a team of prominent code breakers during WWII who successfully cracked complex encrypted enemy messages, but they failed to find meaning in the text.

The book has been dated to the early 1400s, but it largely disappeared from public record until 1912 when an antique book dealer called Wilfrid Voynich bought it amongst a number of second-hand publications in Italy.



The book is 240 pages long, is written in an unknown alphabet and features mysterious pictures of unknown plants, astronomical images and naked women bathing


A recent conference marked 100 years since its discovery and was held in Italy, the place it was bought by the man it is now named after - Wilfrid Voynich, an antique book dealer from Poland


Inside the book there was a letter thought to be dated to 1666. It claimed the book once belonged to the Emperor Rudolf II, a member of the house of Habsburg, known to be an patron of artists and scientists


Some believed that a known con artist called Edward Kelley wrote the manuscript in the mid 1500s as a hoax purely for monetary gain, but recent radiocarbon dating rules him out


Many theories have appeared about the book, one of which is that it is an ancient herbal remedy book, though why some pages feature images of bathing naked ladies remains unclear


Analysts have split the book into five thematic sections based on the illustrations: biological, astrological, pharmaceutical, herbal and one section on recipes

Marcelo Montemurro, a theoretical physicist from the University of Manchester, UK, has spent many years analysing its linguistic patterns and says he hopes to unravel the manuscript's mystery, which he believes his new research is one step closer to doing.

"The text is unique, there are no similar works and all attempts to decode any possible message in the text have failed. It's not easy to dismiss the manuscript as simple nonsensical gibberish, as it shows a significant [linguistic] structure," he told BBC News.

Continue reading the main story 100 years of analysis


"There are about 25 examinations of the Voynich manuscript and most of the results show the text has similarities with natural language. This new examination is one more of this kind," says Klaus Schmeh, a cryptographer.

"While we know a lot about the statistical properties of the text, we don't know enough about how to interpret them, which is one of the problems with the new research. We need to find out how different languages, encryption methods, and text types influence the statistics.

"There have been numerous encrypted texts since the Middle Ages and 99.9% have been cracked. If you have a whole book, as here, it should be 'quite easy' as there is so much material for analysts to work with. That it has never been decrypted is a strong argument for the hoax theory."

Dr Montemurro and a colleague used a computerised statistical method to analyse the text, an approach that has been known to work on other languages.

They focused on patterns of how the words were arranged in order to extract meaningful content-bearing words.

"There is substantial evidence that content-bearing words tend to occur in a clustered pattern, where they are required as part of the specific information being written," he explains.

"Over long spans of texts, words leave a statistical signature about their use. When the topic shifts, other words are needed.

"The semantic networks we obtained clearly show that related words tend to share structure similarities. This also happens to a certain degree in real languages."

Dr Montemurro believes it unlikely that these features were simply "incorporated" into the text to make a hoax more realistic, as most of the required academic knowledge of these structures did not exist at the time the Voynich manuscript was created.

Though he has found a pattern, what the words mean remains a mystery. The very fact that a century of brilliant minds have analysed the work with little progress means some believe a hoax is the only likely explanation.

Unidentified language Gordon Rugg, a mathematician from Keele University, UK, is one such academic. He has even produced his own complex code deliberately similar to "Voynichese" to show how a text can appear to have meaningful patterns, even though it is "gibberish hoax text".

He says the new findings do not rule out the hoax theory, which the researchers argue.

"The findings aren't anything new. It's been accepted for decades that the statistical properties of Voynichese are similar, but not identical, to those of real languages.

"I don't think there's much chance that the Voynich manuscript is simply an unidentified language, because there are too many features in its text that are very different from anything found in any real language."



Dr Rugg made a code purposely similar to the Voynich text to show how easy it was to produce

Gordon Rugg does not believe it contains an unknown code, which is another theory of what the text may be: "Some of the features of the manuscript's text, such as the way that it consists of separate words, are inconsistent with most methods of encoding text. Modern codes almost invariably avoid having separate words, as those would be an easy way to crack most coding systems."

As to its enduring appeal, an unsolved cipher could be "hiding almost anything", says Craig Bauer, author of Secret History: The Story of Cryptology.

"It could solve a major crime, reveal buried treasure worth millions or in the case of the Voynich manuscript, rewrite the history of science," he adds.

Dr Bauer's opinion of whether it is meaningful is often swayed, he admits. While he recently believed it to be a hoax, the new analysis has now shifted his opinion.

But despite this, he still believes it is a made up language, as opposed to a real naturally evolving one, or "it would have been broken years ago".

"However, I still feel that it's very much an open question and I may change my mind a few times before a proof is obtained one way or the other."

But Dr Montemurro is firm in his belief, and argues that the hoax hypothesis cannot possibly explain the semantic patterns he has discovered.

He is aware that his analysis leaves many questions still unanswered, such as whether it is an encoded version of a known language or whether a totally invented language.

"After this study, any new support for the hoax hypothesis should address the emergence of this sophisticated structure explicitly. So far, this has not been done.

"There must be a story behind it, which we may never know," Dr Montemurro adds.

bbc.co.uk