Texas Gov. Rick Perry: His state's kids won't be competing with your kids. (Michael Justus/AP / January 21, 2014)
By Michael Hiltzik
January 21, 2014, 4:47 p.m.
In a sane world, the ringing denunciation of intelligent design and creationist "science" delivered by a federal judge in 2005 would have eradicated these concepts from the schoolroom.
District Judge John E. Jones III of Harrisburg, Pa., ruled then that "intelligent design" is not science, "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," and therefore is unconstitutional as a subject to be taught in a public school.
As Kopplin reports, the biology workbook assigned to students in the schools operated by Responsive Education Solutions is shot through with creationist propaganda. Among its assertions: "Evolution — which is, after all, an unproved theory — has been treated as fact. It has reached the level of dogma, widely accepted, but unproven and changing school of thought that is treated as though it were fact."
Its section on "The Origin of Life" asserts: "There are only two ways that life could have begun: "1 - Spontaneous generation - random chemical processes formed the first cell. 2 - Supernatural intervention created the first cell."
As for the first living cell, the text blithers on, scientists "can only hypothesize what it might have been like." Thus it craftily attempts to undermine the scientific method. On the other hand, it says, "for many, supernatural creation (either by God or some other supernatural power) of the first cell is a more plausible explanation."
One way to react to a school system that places "supernatural intervention" on the same scientific plane as a natural process, however dopily described, is with relief that these 17,000 children won't be equipped to compete in the real world with our kids. Life in modern America is hard enough, so there's something Darwinian indeed about saddling all those kids with the burden of a 16th-century education.
Another way is to express dismay that taxpayer funds, including money paid by federal taxpayers, is going to this sort of effort.
In a reply to the Slate article posted in the Arkansas Times, Responsive Education Chief Executive Chuck Cook maintained that "the curriculum was simply providing examples of competing theories on the origin of life." He states, "Our science curriculum does examine all sides of the scientific evidence relating to the theory of evolution — both for and against — just as we are required to do by the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Biology."
Jones took the measure of this "we're only teaching both sides" attack on evolution. In the case before him, a disclaimer read to school pupils in Dover, Pa., at the outset of their study of evolution, "while encouraging students to keep an open mind and explore alternatives to evolution ... offers no scientific alternative; instead, the only alternative offered is an inherently religious one."
Same here: The choice offered the schools' students is between evolution, which is chock full of uncertainties according to the text, or the supernatural.
Textbook publishers and responsible parents have finally started pushing back against Texas textbook standards, which because of the state's economic heft threatened to spread unscientific pap throughout the biology curricula of public schools nationwide.
Just last November, the Texas Board of Education approved high school texts from 14 publishers that had refused to water down their treatment of evolution. "None of those textbooks call into question the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution and climate change science," the watchdog group Texas Freedom Network reported.
But as the charter school case shows, creationism still has a way of sneaking in the back door. It's still not safe for parents to let down their guard. And it's high time that federal education officials took a closer look at what's being done with our money.
The ASACUSA CUSP apparatus in the CERN Antiproton Decelerator is a tangle of equipment that's used to create, trap and send out particles of antihydrogen.
Creating an antimatter beam sounds like something only a mad scientist would do, but there's nothing mad about the beam of antihydrogen atoms that scientists generated for the first time at Europe's CERN research center.
The researchers behind the technical achievement, revealed Tuesday in the journal Nature Communications, say the beam could help them shed new light on deep mysteries: Why do we see so much more matter than antimatter in the universe around us? For that matter, why is there a universe at all?
Theoretically, equal amounts of matter and antimatter should have been created in the Big Bang that gave rise to the cosmos as we know it. But as any "Star Trek" fan knows, matter and antimatter annihilate each other in a flash of energy when they interact. Thus, physicists suspect there must have been some subtle difference that allowed matter to dominate the universe.
Previous particle-smashing experiments have provided a smattering of clues as to the difference, but physicists would really like to address the mystery by studying actual anti-atoms. The problem is that it's hard to keep the atoms in existence long enough to make fine-scale measurements.
Actually, antimatter applications have been around for a long time: Hospitals routinely make use of antielectrons, or positrons, to take internal snapshots of our bodies with PET scanners. And researchers are looking into using beams of antiprotons to treat cancer.
But it's only been in the last three years or so that physicists have been able to combine antiprotons and positrons into whole atoms of antihydrogen and hold them inside a specially designed magnetic trap at CERN's Antiproton Decelerator facility on the Swiss-French border. Even then, it's hard to analyze that antihydrogen because the magnetic field that corrals the anti-atoms also interferes with measurements.
In 2012, scientists from CERN's ALPHA collaboration announced that they finally managed to make the first spectroscopic measurements of anti-atoms inside their trap. Now scientists from a different collaboration at CERN, known as ASACUSA, say their apparatus has created a beam of antihydrogen atoms that can be measured more precisely outside the magnetic trap where they were created. At least 80 of the anti-atoms were detected, 2.7 meters (9 feet) downstream of the production region.
Stefan Meyer Institut
This schematic shows ASACUSA's scheme for creating and sending out atoms of antihydrogen. From left to right: The CUSP trap produces the atoms, a microwave cavity (shown in green) induces hyperfine transitions, and a sextupole magnet (shown in red and gray) focuses the beam, sending the atoms to an antihydrogen detector (shown in gold).
ASACUSA's apparatus makes use of devices with names that would warm the heart of a mad scientist: a superconducting anti-Helmholtz coil, multiple ring electrodes, a microwave cavity and a beam-focusing spin-selector. The result is that energetic anti-atoms can be guided to a region with a weak magnetic field.
"Antihydrogen atoms having no charge, it was a big challenge to transport them from their trap," ASACUSA team leader Yasunori Yamazaki, a researcher from Japan's RIKEN research center, said in a CERN news release. "Our results are very promising for high-precision studies of antihydrogen atoms, particularly the hyperfine structure, one of the two best-known spectroscopic properties of hydrogen. Its measurement in antihydrogen will allow the most sensitive test of matter-antimatter symmetry."
Yamazaki said his team will resume its experiments this summer with a setup that should produce higher-energy beams of antihydrogen atoms for study. Just wait until the mad scientists get wind of that.
In addition to Yamazaki, the authors of "A Source of Antihydrogen for In-Flight Hyperfine Spectroscopy" include N. Kuroda, S. Ulmer, D.J. Murtagh, S. Van Gorp, Y. Nagata, M. Diermaier, S. Federmann, M. Leali, C. Malbrunot, V. Mascagna, O. Massiczek, K. Michishio, T. Mizutani, A. Mohri, H. Nagahama, M. Ohtsuka, B. Radics, S. Sakurai, C. Sauerzopf, K. Suzuki, M. Tajima, H.A. Torii, L. Venturelli, B. Wünschek, J. Zmeskal, N. Zurio, H. Higaki, Y. Kanai, E. Lodi Rizzini, Y. Nagashima, Y. Matsuda and E. Widmann.
Alan Boyle is NBCNews.com's science editor. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the NBC News Science Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter and adding +Alan Boyle to your Google+ circles. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Guest essay by Don J. Easterbrook, Dept. of Geology, Western Washington University
Last week in my post ‘‘The cause of pause in global warming,” I presented data showing that the lack of global warming was not the ‘biggest mystery in climate science,’ “but, in fact, it really isn’t a mystery at all, it was predicted in 1999 on the basis of consistent, recurring patterns of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and global climate.” This precipitated an avalanche of caustic comments by Bob Tisdale, almost all of which were totally irrelevant to what I said. This post is to set the record straight so there is no misunderstanding of the situation.
I like Willis Eschenback’s caveat: “if you disagree with something that I or someone else said, please QUOTE THEIR EXACT WORDS and state your objection. That way we can all understand just what you are objecting to, and the nature of your objection.” With that in mind, here is the crux of what I said.
“Each time the PDO was warm, global climate warmed; each time the PDO was cool, global climate cooled.” “Each of the two PDO warm periods (1915-1945 and 1978-1998) and the three cool periods (1880-1915, 1945-1977, 1999-2014) lasted 25-30 years. If the flip of the PDO into its cool mode in 1999 persists, the global climate should cool for the next several decades. “
Figure 4. (Top) PDO fluctuations and projections to 2040 based on past PDO history.
Figure 4. (Bottom) Projected global cooling in coming decades based on extrapolation of past PDO recurring patterns.
I plotted the oxygen isotope measurements made by Stuiver and Grootes (1997) for the past 450 years, which,
”showed about 40, regularly-spaced, warm/cool periods with average cycles of 27 years, very similar to the PDO cycle. There was no way to determine what the PDO looked like that far back, but the GISP2 warm/cool cycles were so consistent that correlation with PDO 25-30 year cycles seemed like a good possibility. Historically known warm/cool periods showed up in the GISP2 curve, i.e., the 1945-1977 cool period, the 1915-1945 warm period, the 1880-1915 cool period, the Little Ice Age, Dalton Minimum cooling, the Maunder Minimum cooling, and many others, lending credence to the validity of the GISP2 measurements.”
Figure 5. Warm and cool periods to 1480 AD from oxygen isotope measurements from the GISP2 Greenland ice core. The average length of a warm or cool cycle is 27 years.
Conclusions
“The ‘mysterious pause’ in global warming is really not mysterious at all. It is simply the continuation of climatic cycles that have been going on for hundreds of years. It was predicted in 1999, based on repeated patterns of cyclical warm and cool PDO phases so it is neither mysterious nor surprising. The lack of global warming for the past 17 years is just as predicted. Continued cooling for the next few decades will totally vindicate this prediction. Time and nature will be the final judge of these predictions.
What drives these oceanic/climatic cycles remains equivocal. Correlations with various solar parameters appear to be quite good, but the causal mechanism remains unclear.”
Bob Tisdale immediately launched an insulting verbal attack in which he said: "Easterbrook’s post is misleading, it misinforms, it is contrived, it is far from good science”
"Easterbrook continues to present his misunderstandings of the PDO” “Easterbrook does more to mislead and misinform than to teach and inform” “It’s bogus!” “He insists on misinforming readers “Easterbrook’s bogus-looking global temperature anomaly data” “I suspect it’s a fantasy dataset”
Now I enjoy a spirited discussion of issues as much as anyone and am always willing to discuss any scientific issue, but these unprofessional, insulting remarks are not what I call science and do nothing to advance the understanding of issues. Tisdale completely missed the point of what I said and the basis for saying it. Virtually everything he said was irrelevant to the data that I presented and nothing he said disproves any of my data or my predictions (which so far seem to be right on track). Tisdale missed the boat when he ignored my statement at the outset, “it was clear that PDO drove global climate (Figs. 2,3), but what drove the PDO was not apparent,” and again at the end, “what drives these oceanic/climatic cycles remains equivocal. Correlations with various solar parameters appear to be quite good, but the causal mechanism remains unclear.”
In other words, I was correlating the chronology of the PDO with global climate and glacier fluctuations without worrying about the cause of the PDO. I don’t know what causes the PDO nor does anyone else, including Tisdale. I then used GISP2 Greenland ice core oxygen isotope data to show that 40 warm/cool cycles back to at least 1480 had 27 years cycle patterns very similar to those of the PDO and global warming cycles that we have observed in the past century. Tisdale vented his criticisms of my work on the basis of his interpretation of what causes the PDO, which is totally irrelevant to the data that I presented. The point here is I start with recognition of the existence of the PDO and it really doesn’t matter what the cause is—that’s a separate issue. Tisdale’s interpretations of the relationship of ENSO to the PDO may well be correct, but that does nothing to invalidate the data that I presented. As one of the commenters pointed out, “In addressing Don Easterbrook you assert repeatedly that the PDO is an “aftereffect” of the ENSO. This in no way contradicts anything that Don said, he left the cause of the PDO as unknown.” Tisdale failed to understand that none of his discussions about the cause of the PDO in any way invalidated the data presented.
Tisdale was very critical of figure 4, repeatedly calling it “bogus” (= false, fake, phony, counterfeit, sham) and “a fantasy dataset” (= made up, invented, fictional, imaginary, unreal) because the source of part of the curve from 1900-2000 wasn’t indicated. The logic of such a conclusion is not valid—just because you don’t know the source of data on a graph doesn’t render it ‘bogus’ or a ‘fantasy.’ Yes, it is perfectly reasonable to ask for source data and can reserve judgment until you get it, but Tisdale’s statements were way off base–not logical and unnecessarily insulting. Here is the original graph used for part of figure 4—it is neither ‘bogus’ nor a ‘fantasy.’
This curve is now 14 years old, but because this is the first part of the curve that I originally used in 2000, I left it as is for figure 4. Using any one of several more recent curves from other sources wouldn’t really make any significant difference in the extrapolation used for projection into the future because the cooling from 1945 to 1977 is well documented. The rest of the curve to 2010 was grafted on from later ground measurement data—again, which one really doesn’t make any difference because they all show essentially the same thing. The extrapolated parts of the curve show three possible projections: (1) cooling similar to 1945-1977, (2) somewhat deeper cooling, perhaps similar to 1880-1915, (3) somewhat deeper cooling, perhaps similar to that of the Dalton Minimum. The last two are diagrammatic only– really guesses, but are shown to illustrate possible options. Nothing that Tisdale says in his comments in any way invalids this figure.
The last three graphs in my post are intended merely as illustrations of the global cooling that has occurred since 1998, confirming (so far) the predictions that I made 14 years ago. If you don’t like figure 6, throw it out–Figures 7 and 8 make the same point. Tisdale’s conclusion that “cooling is not occurring from the peak around 2001 through 2010” is easily proven false by the Christopher Monckton graph below.
Global cooling from 1996 to 2013. Graph by Christopher Monckton http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/07/the-agu-policy-statement-as-redrafted-by-monckton/
Conclusions
1. I have neither the desire nor reason to quarrel with Bob Tisdale—I suspect our differences are less than one might imagine. His Enso interpretations may well be correct, but they have no relevance to the data presented in my WUWT post.
2. Nothing in any of Tisdale’s comments invalidates any of the data that I presented.
3. The global cooling predictions that I made in 2000, based on recurring patterns of PDO and global climate, have so far proven to be correct.
4. Nature and time will ultimately prove whether or not my all of my predictions are correct.
5. I hope that we can now move on to more productive issues, especially what is the principal driving force of climate changes. I welcome open discussions of scientific issues with anyone, including Bob Tisdale, but I confess to having little patience with argumentum ad hominem.
Scientists in Australia are tracking the movements of bees in an attempt to find out why they are dying. From Guardian on January 21, 2014. @guardian
Thousands of Australian honey bees have been fitted with tiny sensors in a study to help understand what is causing the precipitous collapse of colonies around the world.
About 5,000 bees will carry the 2.5mm x 2.5mm sensors, like hi-tech backpacks, for the next two months at the study site in Hobart.
The CSIRO-led research will build data on the movements and habits of several generations of bees to shed light on the causes of colony collapse disorder, which causes the rapid loss of bees and has led to more than 10m beehives being wiped out worldwide in the past six years.
Australia is so far free of this phenomenon, as well as the deadly varroa mite, which has wreaked havoc on bee populations in almost every other country.
Researchers will place bees in a fridge set to 5C, which will send the insects to sleep. The sensors will then be carefully placed, under a microscope, onto the bees’ backs before they are returned to the hive.
CSIRO will study four hives, each with about 50 tagged bees. Two of the hives will be provided a feeder with normal nectar and pollen while the other two will feed on nectar and pollen that contains a small amount of pesticide, which is thought to cause colony collapse.
Scientists will then be able to study the impact of pesticide on the bees’ ability to complete their tasks and honey production. Bees are routine-based insects and any deviation will be observable.
CSIRO said the information would provide farmers and fruit growers with greater knowledge of bees. About a third of the food regularly eaten by humans requires pollination.
The results could also lead to government action on certain types of pesticides. Since 1 December farmers in the European Union have been banned from using three types of pesticide suspected of decimating bee populations.
“The sensors are basically a tag which lets us know how long the bees go for, how many follow them and so on,” Paulo de Souza, lead scientist at CSIRO, told Guardian Australia. “We will monitor the hives for changes, such as whether the bees are slower to come back or go to other hives.
“This will be the largest study ever done of this kind, given that there will be 5,000 sensors. Two months is quite a long time to be studying them, too.”
De Souza said that while Australian bees were in “pretty good shape” and are often exported overseas for pollination purposes, they still face looming threats.
“We don’t know how long they will stay in this condition for – pesticides are one risk as well as monocultures of pollen that bees don’t do well in,” he said. “We are doing some things that might contribute to a future collapse, so it’s important we study this area.”
CSIRO will study other potential causes of colony collapse, such as hive management, after the pesticide research has finished.
It also plans to reduce the size of the sensors to fit onto flies, mosquitos and even smaller winged insects.
“We want to go smaller, maybe to 100 micrometres, although it can be hard to manipulate the sensors at that stage,” de Souza said.
“The bees are amazing – they learn very quickly how to fly with the extra weight. They are focused on their work. Fruit flies take a little longer.”
In a female mouse’s brain, a left-to-right pattern in the silencing of the X chromosome. These patterns may influence how individual brains function.Hao Wu and Jeremy Nathans/Cell Press
The term “X chromosome” has an air of mystery to it, and rightly so. It got its name in 1891 from a baffled biologist named Hermann Henking. To investigate the nature of chromosomes, Henking examined cells under a simple microscope. All the chromosomes in the cells came in pairs.
All except one.
Henking labeled this outlier chromosome the “X element.” No one knows for sure what he meant by the letter. Maybe he saw it as an extra chromosome. Or perhaps he thought it was an ex-chromosome. Maybe he used X the way mathematicians do, to refer to something unknown.
Today, scientists know the X chromosome much better. It’s part of the system that determines whether we become male or female. If an egg inherits an X chromosome from both parents, it becomes female. If it gets an X from its mother and a Y from its father, it becomes male.
But the X chromosome remains mysterious. For one thing, females shut down an X chromosome in every cell, leaving only one active. That’s a drastic step to take, given that the X chromosome has more than 1,000 genes.
Cells silence X chromosomes in different patterns, sometimes skewing entire organs toward one parent. Clockwise from top left, a mouse’s cornea, skin, cartilage and inner ear. Dr. Jeremy Nathans hopes his colored maps serve as an atlas for the effects of X-chromosome inactivation on women.Hao Wu and Jeremy Nathans/Cell Press
In some cells, the father’s goes dormant, and in others, the mother’s does. While scientists have known about this so-called X-chromosome inactivation for more than five decades, they still know little about the rules it follows, or even how it evolved.
In the journal Neuron, a team of scientists has unveiled an unprecedented view of X-chromosome inactivation in the body. They found a remarkable complexity to the pattern in which the chromosomes were switched on and off.
At the same time, each copy of the X chromosome contains versions of genes not found on its partner. So having two X chromosomes gives females more genetic diversity than males, with their single X chromosome. Because of that, females have a genetic complexity that scientists are only starting to understand.
But while the additional genes provided by their second X chromosome may in some cases provide females with a genetic advantage, X chromosomes also have a dark side. Their peculiar biology can lead to genetic disorders in males and, new research suggests, create a special risk of cancer in females. Understanding X-chromosome inactivation can also shed light on the use of stem cells in therapies.
A Japanese biologist, Susumu Ohno, first recognized X-chromosome inactivation in the late 1950s. In every female cell that he and his colleagues studied, they found that one of the two X chromosomes had shriveled into a dormant clump. Scientists would later find that almost no proteins were being produced from the clump, indicating that it had been shut down.
The British geneticist Mary F. Lyon realized that she could learn more about X-chromosome inactivation by breeding mice, because some color genes sit on the X. In 1961 she reported that female mice sported patches of hair with their mother’s color and others with their father’s.
Getting a deeper look at how females shut down their X chromosomes has remained a challenge in the decades since Dr. Lyon’s discovery. In recent years, Dr. Jeremy Nathans, a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator at Johns Hopkins University, and colleagues have developed a way to make X chromosomes from different parents light up. They inserted a set of genes into the X chromosomes of mice. The genes produced a green fluorescent protein, but only if their X chromosome was active and they were exposed to a particular chemical trigger.
Dr. Nathans and his colleagues engineered other mice to produce a red protein from active X chromosomes in response to a different chemical. The researchers bred the altered mice to produce female pups. The pups inherited a green X from one parent and a red one from the other.The scientists then added both of their color-triggering chemicals to the mouse cells. The cells lit up in a dazzling mosaic of reds and greens. One cell might shut down the mother’s X, while its neighbor shut down the father’s.
In recent years, scientists have increasingly appreciated that our cells can vary genetically — a phenomenon called mosaicism. And X-chromosome inactivation, Dr. Nathans’s pictures show, creates a genetic diversity that’s particularly dramatic. Two cells side by side may be using different versions of many different genes. “But there is also much larger-scale diversity,” Dr. Nathans said.
In some brains, for example, a mother’s X chromosome was seen dominating the left side, while the father’s dominated the right. Entire organs can be skewed toward one parent. Dr. Nathans and his colleagues found that in some mice, one eye was dominated by the father and the other by the mother. The diversity even extended to the entire mouse. In some animals, almost all the X chromosomes from one parent were shut; in others, the opposite was true.
To learn more about how females shut down their X chromosomes, researchers developed a way to make X chromosomes from different parents light up as green or red in mice. A mouse’s left and right retinas.Hao Wu and Jeremy Nathans/Cell Press
“It’s incredibly important,” said Dr. Willard, the Duke geneticist. “This is the most stunning display of what Mary Lyon said 50 years ago.”
Dr. Nathans hopes his colored maps can serve as an atlas for the effects of X-chromosome inactivation on women’s bodies. Because each X chromosome carries different variants of the same genes, father-dominated tissues may behave differently from mother-dominated ones.
How one cell ends up silencing its mother’s or father’s X chromosome is still not entirely clear. Scientists are just starting to decipher some of the key steps in the process. “The knowledge of this is exploding,” said Dr. Jeannie T. Lee, a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator at Harvard Medical School.
Scientists don’t know how a cell chooses one chromosome or another to silence. But they’ve identified a number of the molecules that do the silencing. The leader of this molecular team is known as Xist.
Ever since it was discovered in the 1990s, scientists have debated how Xist managed to shut down an entire chromosome. Some researchers suggested that one Xist molecule landed on one spot on the X chromosome and then others attached to it, spreading along its length. But recent studies by Dr. Lee and colleagues show that Xist molecules envelop the X chromosome like a swarm of bees. “It’s going to all the genes all at once,” she said.
Once Xist latches on, it lures other types of molecules. Together they enshroud the X chromosome. When a cell divides, new copies of the molecules silence the same chromosome in its descendants.
Why women’s cells should bother with such an elaborate dance has also intrigued scientists. While scientists have proposed a number of explanations ever since X-chromosome inactivation was discovered, Gabriel A.B. Marais, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Lyons in France, said that none fit the current evidence very well. “The situation is very confusing,” he confessed.
It’s possible, for example, that males have to increase the production of proteins from their X chromosome because they have only one copy of its genes. But this creates a quandary for females, because they may overdose themselves. They shut down one of the hyperactive X chromosomes to regain a balance of their own.
Females might have evolved to choose randomly between their parents’ chromosomes because it gave them more genetic versatility. Sometimes a gene on one X chromosome is defective. Cells that use the healthy copy of the X chromosome can compensate. Males, by contrast, are far more prone to genetic disorders linked to the X chromosome, such as color blindness. With only one X chromosome in their cells, they have no backup.
Dr. Nathans speculates that using chromosomes from both parents is especially useful in the nervous system. It could create more ways to process information. “Diversity in the brain is the name of the game,” he said.
But the X chromosome may also pose a risk to women. Dr. Lee and her colleagues have found that when they shut down Xist in female mice, the animals were more likely to develop cancer. She suspects that when a cell stops making Xist, its inactivated X chromosome wakes up. The extra proteins it makes can drive a cell to grow uncontrollably.
“That has bearing on stem cell therapy,” she added. When stem cells are reared in the lab, they sometimes stop making Xist as well. Dr. Lee is concerned that female stem cells may rouse sleeping X chromosomes, with devastating consequences.
Before stem cells can be safely used in medical treatments, we may finally need to solve the mystery that Henking originally labeled with an X.
Jan. 16, 2014 — A review and update of a controversial 20-year-old theory of consciousness published in Physics of Life Reviews claims that consciousness derives from deeper level, finer scale activities inside brain neurons. The recent discovery of quantum vibrations in "microtubules" inside brain neurons corroborates this theory, according to review authors Stuart Hameroff and Sir Roger Penrose. They suggest that EEG rhythms (brain waves) also derive from deeper level microtubule vibrations, and that from a practical standpoint, treating brain microtubule vibrations could benefit a host of mental, neurological, and cognitive conditions.
The theory, called "orchestrated objective reduction" ('Orch OR'), was first put forward in the mid-1990s by eminent mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose, FRS, Mathematical Institute and Wadham College, University of Oxford, and prominent anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff, MD, Anesthesiology, Psychology and Center for Consciousness Studies, The University of Arizona, Tucson. They suggested that quantum vibrational computations in microtubules were "orchestrated" ("Orch") by synaptic inputs and memory stored in microtubules, and terminated by Penrose "objective reduction" ('OR'), hence "Orch OR." Microtubules are major components of the cell structural skeleton.
Orch OR was harshly criticized from its inception, as the brain was considered too "warm, wet, and noisy" for seemingly delicate quantum processes.. However, evidence has now shown warm quantum coherence in plant photosynthesis, bird brain navigation, our sense of smell, and brain microtubules. The recent discovery of warm temperature quantum vibrations in microtubules inside brain neurons by the research group led by Anirban Bandyopadhyay, PhD, at the National Institute of Material Sciences in Tsukuba, Japan (and now at MIT), corroborates the pair's theory and suggests that EEG rhythms also derive from deeper level microtubule vibrations. In addition, work from the laboratory of Roderick G. Eckenhoff, MD, at the University of Pennsylvania, suggests that anesthesia, which selectively erases consciousness while sparing non-conscious brain activities, acts via microtubules in brain neurons.
"The origin of consciousness reflects our place in the universe, the nature of our existence. Did consciousness evolve from complex computations among brain neurons, as most scientists assert? Or has consciousness, in some sense, been here all along, as spiritual approaches maintain?" ask Hameroff and Penrose in the current review. "This opens a potential Pandora's Box, but our theory accommodates both these views, suggesting consciousness derives from quantum vibrations in microtubules, protein polymers inside brain neurons, which both govern neuronal and synaptic function, and connect brain processes to self-organizing processes in the fine scale, 'proto-conscious' quantum structure of reality."
After 20 years of skeptical criticism, "the evidence now clearly supports Orch OR," continue Hameroff and Penrose. "Our new paper updates the evidence, clarifies Orch OR quantum bits, or "qubits," as helical pathways in microtubule lattices, rebuts critics, and reviews 20 testable predictions of Orch OR published in 1998 -- of these, six are confirmed and none refuted."
An important new facet of the theory is introduced. Microtubule quantum vibrations (e.g. in megahertz) appear to interfere and produce much slower EEG "beat frequencies." Despite a century of clinical use, the underlying origins of EEG rhythms have remained a mystery. Clinical trials of brief brain stimulation aimed at microtubule resonances with megahertz mechanical vibrations using transcranial ultrasound have shown reported improvements in mood, and may prove useful against Alzheimer's disease and brain injury in the future.
Lead author Stuart Hameroff concludes, "Orch OR is the most rigorous, comprehensive and successfully-tested theory of consciousness ever put forth. From a practical standpoint, treating brain microtubule vibrations could benefit a host of mental, neurological, and cognitive conditions."
The review is accompanied by eight commentaries from outside authorities, including an Australian group of Orch OR arch-skeptics. To all, Hameroff and Penrose respond robustly.
Penrose, Hameroff and Bandyopadhyay will explore their theories during a session on "Microtubules and the Big Consciousness Debate" at the Brainstorm Sessions, a public three-day event at the Brakke Grond in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, January 16-18, 2014. They will engage skeptics in a debate on the nature of consciousness, and Bandyopadhyay and his team will couple microtubule vibrations from active neurons to play Indian musical instruments. "Consciousness depends on anharmonic vibrations of microtubules inside neurons, similar to certain kinds of Indian music, but unlike Western music which is harmonic," Hameroff explains.
Because one would suppose that in policies promoted by properly-thinking, modern progressives-- who worship all things science— and have no time for mumbo jumbo about faith and religion, that at the very least they’d have data to support that their policies will cool the earth, solve world hunger, bring people out of poverty, improve education, create income equality, or pay female White House staffers commensurate with men.
OK, the last one was outrageous. Never gonna happen under Obama.
What was I thinking?
At the very least, I was thinking that people like Ericynot, BoatBoy, DoctorRoy or Hillinger would enjoy me being bald and eating dog food.
Heck, I’d even make a video of it.
But the problem remains: Sea levels aren’t rising, storms aren’t nastier and more brutish. The only science that’s being done is the type where estimates are used where data is called for and predictions are being used instead of conclusions.
Stumped by the fact that temperatures are not accurately reflecting current climate “models”- in fact temperatures have remained stable for 17 years- scientists on the government gravy train are trying to tie any weather event to so-called climate change.
Or income inequality. Which really?Aren’t they the same things?
Hurricanes? Global warming.
Tornadoes? Global warming?
Drought? Global warming?
Blizzards, dropping temperatures, meteorites, Big Gulps? Global warming.
Last year I documented how researchers made up a map showing how vegetation could change in the arctic because of global warming.
The map, no lie, was called the “most accurate map” ever produced of its type.
A long last, scientists have revealed the single most important document ever, I wrote.It’s a crayon-colored map showing how “trees” could grow in the arctic.
If finally, mercifully, any one of the so-called “climate models” that so far have failed to “model” climate accurately, suddenly and then accurately begin to “model” climate in real time, then, well, WOW!
“Experts say the wooded areas in the region could increase by 50% over the coming decades,” writes the UK’s Daily Mail, “and accelerate global warming in the process. Researchers have unveiled the most accurate map ever (!) of how vegetation could change in the region.”
In the meantime,ThinkProgresshas published a remarkable paper calledArctic Sea Ice Death Spiral And Cold Weatherthat proves, or at least,says- same thing if you are a liberal - that globalwarmingis to blame for …coldweather in Germany.
Stumped by the fact that temperatures are not accurately reflecting current climate “models”- in fact temperatures have remained stable for 17 years- scientists on the government gravy train are trying to tie any weather event to so-called climate change.
Even homosexuality has been tied to global warming via population control.
“With the natural world on the brink of demise largely because of overpopulation,” G. Roger Denson, a self-appointed social theoretician wrote on the Huffington Post,“unrestrained homosexuality, as one of a variety of ethical and democratic measures available to us today, offers perhaps the most natural option to be enjoined.”
Unrestrained gayness? Seriously?
Going in through the out door with another man doesn’t seem “the most natural option to be enjoined” in trying to cool down the earth’s atmosphere. But in the interest of fairness if G. Roger Denson wants to produce an actual scientific paper proving me wrong, I got a can of dog food and clipping shears here waiting.
Because one would suppose that in policies promoted by properly-thinking, modern progressives-- who worship all things science— and have no time for mumbo jumbo about faith and religion, that at the very least they’d have data to support that their policies will cool the earth, solve world hunger, bring people out of poverty, improve education, create income equality, or pay female White House staffers commensurate with men.
OK, the last one was outrageous. Never gonna happen under Obama.
What was I thinking? At the very least, I was thinking that people like Ericynot, BoatBoy, DoctorRoy or Hillinger would enjoy me being bald and eating dog food. Heck, I’d even make a video of it.
But the problem remains: Sea levels aren’t rising, storms aren’t nastier and more brutish. The only science that’s being done is the type where estimates are used where data is called for and predictions are being used instead of conclusions.
Stumped by the fact that temperatures are not accurately reflecting current climate “models”- in fact temperatures have remained stable for 17 years- scientists on the government gravy train are trying to tie any weather event to so-called climate change.
Or income inequality. Which really?Aren’t they the same things?
Hurricanes? Global warming.
Tornadoes? Global warming?
Drought? Global warming?
Blizzards, dropping temperatures, meteorites, Big Gulps? Global warming.
Last year I documented how researchers made up a map showing how vegetation could change in the arctic because of global warming.
The map, no lie, was called the “most accurate map” ever produced of its type. A long last, scientists have revealed the single most important document ever, I wrote.It’s a crayon-colored map showing how “trees” could grow in the arctic.
If finally, mercifully, any one of the so-called “climate models” that so far have failed to “model” climate accurately, suddenly and then accurately begin to “model” climate in real time, then, well, WOW!
“Experts say the wooded areas in the region could increase by 50% over the coming decades,” writes the UK’s Daily Mail, “and accelerate global warming in the process. Researchers have unveiled the most accurate map ever (!) of how vegetation could change in the region.”
In the meantime,ThinkProgresshas published a remarkable paper calledArctic Sea Ice Death Spiral And Cold Weatherthat proves, or at least,says- same thing if you are a liberal - that globalwarmingis to blame for …coldweather in Germany.
Stumped by the fact that temperatures are not accurately reflecting current climate “models”- in fact temperatures have remained stable for 17 years- scientists on the government gravy train are trying to tie any weather event to so-called climate change.
Even homosexuality has been tied to global warming via population control.
“With the natural world on the brink of demise largely because of overpopulation,” G. Roger Denson, a self-appointed social theoretician wrote on the Huffington Post,“unrestrained homosexuality, as one of a variety of ethical and democratic measures available to us today, offers perhaps the most natural option to be enjoined.”
Unrestrained gayness? Seriously?
Going in through the out door with another man doesn’t seem “the most natural option to be enjoined” in trying to cool down the earth’s atmosphere. But in the interest of fairness if G. Roger Denson wants to produce an actual scientific paper proving me wrong, I got a can of dog food and clipping shears here waiting.
