Evolution isn't finished with us. Scientists using data from the HapMap Project, a large scale effort to identify variations in human genes, have discovered evidence that evolution is actually accelerating. Granted, we're not talking about the decade scale here. Compared to your grandparents you're not some kind of advanced mutant.

But anthropologist Henry Harpending of the University of Utah, a co-author of the new study, says there have been significant changes in the last 1,000 or 2,000 years. The rate of evolution is far greater in the last few millenia, Harpending and his colleagues say, than it had been in the millions of years before. One of the possible causes of the acceleration, the scientists assert, may be the population boom. With more people, there's a greater likelihood that an advantageous genetic mutation will arise, and spread. Others contest the group's conclusions. Either way, this probably isn't the last controversial or groundbreaking idea we're going to hear about from the HapMap Project.—Gregory Mone

Mechanisms of memory [mis-]identified

This is a continuing, not very effective line of research in my opinion. That memories are stored in molecules, partly due to the 3-D bending and contorting of some kind of protein or nucleic acid, is obvious to me. (See a previous post on the subject.) Only protein, DNA, and RNA is complex enough for this task, in my view.

Obviously, there is neuronal transmission involved with the formation of memory and blocking it blocks memory. This is not, as the article (and others like it) imply, getting to the actual mechanism of memory.

phys.org

"By blocking certain mechanisms that control the way that nerve cells in the brain communicate, scientists from the University of Bristol have been able to prevent visual recognition memory in rats...

"One hypothesis is that changes at the specialised junctions (synapses) between nerve cells in the brain, hold the secrets to learning and memory. The change in the strength of communication between synapses is called synaptic plasticity and, it is believed, the mechanisms of synaptic plasticity may be important for learning and memory. Bashir and his colleagues tested this hypothesis...

"Dr Sarah Griffiths, lead author on the paper, explained: “Nerve cells in the perirhinal cortex of the brain are known to be vital for visual recognition memory. Using a combination of biological techniques and behavioural testing, we examined whether the mechanisms involved in synaptic plasticity are also vital for visual recognition memory.”

"In their experiments, they were able to identify a key molecular mechanism that controls synaptic plasticity in the perirhinal cortex. They then demonstrated that blocking the same molecular mechanism that controls synaptic plasticity also prevented visual recognition memory in rats. This shows that such memory relies on specific molecular processes in the brain."

[What a brilliant thing to prove. What are the alternatives? That memory relies on "general" molecular processes in the brain? That it relies on "non-molecular" processes? Like maybe purely ionization, or something like noble gases? Practically every life process relies on "specific molecular processes!"

The exceptions, like the concentration of Na+ in the cell, are quite simple and obviously memory is not something like that. Even the concentration of Na+ in the cell, really depends on "specific molecular processes." Or perhaps their brilliance lies in the assertion that memory is "in the brain?" That narrows it down. It's not in the hand, or the appendix?

Sloppy writing, sloppy thinking, and sloppy science.

The Nature of Warlordism:Insights and Analysis

In the midst of the Olympic protests, I am thinking about that central problem of Darfur (Somalia), warlordism.


By:Abdirizak Adam Hassan (Durqun)


"Warlordism as a paradigm is not a recent phenomenon to the field of factional rivalry and power politics. Many political philosophers wrote extensively on this condition of state absence and lawlessness. Thomas Hobbes, an English political philosopher of 17th-century described such a scenario as "hell on earth", and life becomes " nasty, brutish and short". Others Thought such a condition of life as "unthinkable, natural and barbaric" (John Locke), as "the day of the cannibal, Zero Hour, revealing the real man" ( Fredrick Hegel), and as "the day of the coward and the dread of the brave, cultural suicide and undoing civilization" (Jacques Rousseau). What this means is that the old world has witnessed and grabbled with what can become of the human existence in the absence of overarching conventions of a commonwealth that would indiscriminately uphold and exercise the enforcement of the law for the common survival of the society. To most of us, warlordism appears as a relatively new innovation by Somali warlords just because we are conditioned by, and accustomed to, an orderly peaceful existence provided by the state through the enforcement of law and order. Thus, we didn't know what to think of a situation where there is no state to foster us and provide basic security guarantees for us. The reality of life in southern Somalia can be best understood in shifting our thinking away from the lulling view of warlordism as a brief, circumstantial and interim situation that could be easily overcome once law and order returns. We should rather think of warlordism as a self-contained phenomena, and a full fledged known paradigm that has a substantive existence of its own right. It is a state of existence that draws its validation by default due to the absence of enforceable legal order. It has a de-facto underpinning of a legitimate operational practicality by the sole virtue of the absence of any credible challenge. And, it is a self-perpetuating bstinate state of power politics that is here to stay, unless proven otherwise. The only thing political about warlordism is the fact it acts and plans for its survival which can be only achieved through securing the supremacy and the upper hand for the control of the country, region,city or fiefdom. The rest of its manifestations are all-out belligerence of personal nature. Despite that, I argue, worlordism is not all about drunkenness and mayhem; it has a life (reason), sense of direction (goal) and adheres unto its own norms (laws) - albeit laws that don't make sense.

"The life of a typical warlord could be characterized as being paranoid at best, if not schizophrenic. Like all criminals at lose, his life is plagued with a constant and impeding insecurity and suspicion. He secretly harbors the unsettling realization that he has inflicted gross inhumanities to many people and looted many public and private wealth; and he would logically want to get away with it. Trying to get away with it, however, requires a towering vigil and expediency from his part to identify, predict and eliminate what he regards as a potential source of danger to himself. As a result, the worst kind of fear ( the bodily one) is the hallmark of the life of a warlord and it is what makes him tick. Warlordism as a profession, thus, thrives on the dynamics of sheer survival and that is what gives life and reason for the justification of its core operational norms (laws) of shrewd plotting and cold brutality. Consequently, you can expect everything from a warlord but to willingly undo himself by dismantling his power-base for the sake of the nation, his own family or anything in-between.

"The goal of a warlord is to deny justice as we know it and replace it with a justice of his own making and taste. It is a justice that would polish him as a benevolent moral statesman and as a hero who has struggled and dearly sacrificed for the common good of the nation as a whole. It is a justice that must erase his shameful past and purge all traces of his criminality by compelling the nation to submit to his wanton desires of survival, wealth, fame and power. A warlord can never conceive of any other way out of this predicament of his own making, except through the choice between two evils: (a) the inevitable continuation of the mayhem, and (b) the eventual wise decision of the people to let him realize his goal of reaching the apex of power by becoming the head of the state. His will to power is intimately connected with his will to live. Hypothetically, even if the nascent state promises a grant of a retroactive blanket amnesty for the warlords, it would not be a sufficient guarantee for their insatiable security needs. This underlines how entrenched is the resolve of a warlord and as far as he is concerned, he is here to stay.

"The operational norms (laws) of Warlordism are simple, unwritten and tactical in nature. They are not "laws" per se, but laws nevertheless, in as much as they make sense and can be explained by the rational mind. They are akin to the raw tenets of balance of power and the logic of maximizing gains. Sometimes securing any scant of a relative gain over other warlords might be about enough for a given warlord. Often times, however, a warlord of good standing may raise the stakes and aim for an absolute gain. When such a warlord emerges, the rest of the warlords would suddenly cease all active hostilities between them and form a tactical alliance for the purpose of confronting him. Curiously though, even if the alliance succeeds in defeating their common enemy, it would not go the extra mile and form a government. What may explain this unwitting loss of opportunity is primarily the simple fact that forming a government and thereby ending warlordism would involve the emergence of one of them as the leader, and that spells as horrific a scenario as the one they just collectively defeated. Their need (use) for each other stops there and they would invariably resume their perpetual enmity of each other. A warlord for a warlord is both a sworn enemy and an occasional tactical ally (savior). This neurosis that trips between [H]ate-love dichotomy stems from the dictates of being realistic and not letting lofty ideals of any kind undermine ones sacred desire for survival and perseverance. It is what gives credence to the old classical theories of balance of power and Real-Politick which are the passionate breechings of realism."


Forms of warlordism can be found in many different realms and the idea of it can be extended to a general principle---the formation of a rogue power center within a structure originally designed for another purpose. Here is an example from politics in India:


Factionalism within Cong takes ugly turn

"Factionalism within the Congress took an ugly turn today with the acting leader of the Congress Legislature Party (CLP), Capt Ajay Singh, alleging that the Union Minister of State, Mr Rao Inderjeet Singh, worked against him and other party candidates in the Ahirwal belt in just concluded Assembly elections.

"Capt Ajay Singh, Congress MLA from Rewari, without naming Mr Rao Inderjeet Singh said the Union Minister of State, who hails from South Haryana, worked against party nominees.

"The allegation of Capt Ajay Singh, considered to be in the vanguard of anti-Rao Bireder Singh politics, assumes serious political significance. In the Ahirwal belt, comprising districts of Rewari, Gurgaon and Mahendergarh, politics of Congress leaders is polarised between pro and anti-Rao Birender Singh, former Chief Minister of Haryana. Rao Inderjeet Singh is the son of Rao Birender Singh...

"However, some leaders like Capt Ajay Singh, Rao Dharam Pal (Sohna), Rao Narender Singh (Ateli), Ms Anita Yadav (Salawas), have been winning elections in the past inspite of the opposition from the Rao Birender Singh’s clan. The anti-Rao Birender Singh faction allege that Rao Birender Singh’s family has a vested interest in not allowing others to rise and always try to brow beat the Congress leadership by claiming that it has monopoly in Ahirwal politics. The family leverages the figure of Rao Bireder Singh in the Congress high command just to scupper the political growth of the leaders who show signs of “independence and maturity” and “preferred loyalty” to the party organisation, they add."

Researchers stumped by drug addiction paradox

http://www.physorg.com/news127559887.html

Phys.org

"Throughout history, plants have created their toxins by mimicking their own [errror in article, I think, must mean animals' own] molecules that regulate metabolism, growth and reproduction. When ingested by herbivores, some of these molecules can interfere with nearly every step in the animal’s neural signaling process...

"However, the researchers point to several other studies which show that the detoxification enzymes developed by animals (and which originally evolved in bacteria about 3.5 billion years ago) expanded in animals about 400 million years ago – about the same time that plants were evolving their own toxins. In other words, animals and plants seemed to have coevolved competitive genes in response to each other, which contradicts the evolutionary interpretation.

"As the researchers investigated further, they compiled other studies showing evidence that humans inherited these detox genes from their mammalian ancestors. Interestingly, although many modern animal species can tolerate plant toxins, different species possess different detox function levels. Even among humans from different geographic locations, these functions differ. Often, human populations with greater numbers of toxin-metabolizing genes originate from parts of the world that contain an abundance of those plants. For example, human populations in and near Turkey have a very high frequency of enzymes that can metabolize opiates, and the opiate poppy is native to the Turkish region...

"Based on evidence from previous studies, Sullivan, Hagen, and Hammerstein note that plant toxins may actually have some kind of benefit for animals. For instance, because plant toxins are more harmful to some species than to others, the less affected species might actually consume levels of toxin that are tolerable to themselves but much worse for the parasites or pathogens that feed on them in order to protect themselves. For example, earlier humans that consumed nicotine (in much smaller amounts than today) could have received the benefit of fewer parasitic infections. Of course, the benefits also come with trade-offs."