Ammonite
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Monday, March 29, 2010
A Cry For Green and Gold!
I just saw the "new" Packers uniforms that the team will wear for one or two games next season. In general I kind of like the retro look they have (say if the design was going to be used for a new expansion team), but I have to say I don't like them at all for the Pack.
The green and gold is a symbol of the team that the fans love. Looking for the bright yellow helmet of a Packer at the Pro-Bowl is almost second nature and I can spot a Packer fan a mile away in any crowd because my eyes are naturally drawn to anything green and yellow. The colors of the Pack may be likened to a cross for Christians. You see someone wearing them, and you know you have a friend, an ally.
And while new blue and beige jerseys might be consistent with the history of the team, it is not something the current fans can identify with. Except for all 3 of Packer backers that were around in the 1920's and 30's....no one is going to feel the connection. And it will be weird for the players too. I am sure they did it for money (so everyone will go out and buy a throwback jersey) but I don't think it was a good call. My Packers have always worn green and gold, ever since I was a kid. And that's how I like it. How can you bleed green and gold when your team is wearing blue?
The green and gold is a symbol of the team that the fans love. Looking for the bright yellow helmet of a Packer at the Pro-Bowl is almost second nature and I can spot a Packer fan a mile away in any crowd because my eyes are naturally drawn to anything green and yellow. The colors of the Pack may be likened to a cross for Christians. You see someone wearing them, and you know you have a friend, an ally.
And while new blue and beige jerseys might be consistent with the history of the team, it is not something the current fans can identify with. Except for all 3 of Packer backers that were around in the 1920's and 30's....no one is going to feel the connection. And it will be weird for the players too. I am sure they did it for money (so everyone will go out and buy a throwback jersey) but I don't think it was a good call. My Packers have always worn green and gold, ever since I was a kid. And that's how I like it. How can you bleed green and gold when your team is wearing blue?
Science of Mythology: The Alicante
A friend of mine told me about at kind of snake in Mexico that drinks milk from a cows udder. As soon as he mentioned it my curiosity was quipped. I had never heard of a snake drinking milk before, and I certainly had never heard of one that relied on cows to survive. I was immediately intrigued by the possibility that this was a very recent evolutionary adaption, and was a little surprised I have never heard of it.
As it turns out, the reason I have never heard of it is because it isn't real. The Alicante snake is a legend, that has worked it's way into the real world of the Mexican farmer in much the way Bigfoot has to the inhabitants of the Pacific Northwest. It seems that most eye witnesses are old people (who also tend to be more superstitious), and there is virtually no documentation of any snake suckling any mammal for its milk. (In fact I read that snakes do not possess the ability to suck anything, their mouths and the muscle surrounding it are incapable of forming a suction).
The Alicante in Mexican mythology was a snake that would steal milk from human mothers by charming them to sleep (and putting their rattle in the baby's mouth to keep it quiet) steal her breast milk, and thus starve her infant. Other legends about the Alicante claim that when a mother was pregnant the snake could literally crawl into her body (that gives me the shivers) if she was not careful and so she had to wear certain garments to protect herself. The Catholic church recognized the snake and its threat (or maybe more fairly, they didn't believe it, but they at least addressed the locals superstitions by prescribing specific prayers an expecting mother should say morning and night, and blessing her special underclothes.)
To be fair I must say that my friend who told me about this snake has with his own eyes witnessed a snake that had it's body wrapped around a cows legs, and was indeed attached by it's mouth to an udder. And I have no reason to doubt his account. But I would interpret it differently.
The Alicante (not it's real name, but the one people refer to) is a snake that feeds on small mammals like mice, and moles etc. These animals usually live in barns, under hay, where the cows are (dairy cows specifically, since meat cattle are out in the fields). I can imagine that the snakes often startle the cows while hunting their scurrying prey and it seems perfectly natural that once in a while a snake may get stepped on, or may wrap itself around a cows legs to avoid injury. And if you imagine yourself as a snake, latching onto a swinging udder (or whatever the bag that holds the milk on a cow is called) seems like a reasonable thing to do under the circumstances. And thus, a legend is born! (Well, maybe. I am just postulating here.)
This is why I love science! It's an intellectual exercise that uses so many aspects of the brain. The fact that the Alicante doesn't really exist was a little disappointing. But taking the myth and theorizing about a logical reason why people believe the story to be true was exciting. And in the end it all makes sense (at least to me:) The mystery is solved, and all before lunchtime!
When it comes to myths people generally don't make up things completely out of the blue. I have found that almost every legend has some small kernel of truth to it. And figuring out what that is, is the "science" of mythology.
As it turns out, the reason I have never heard of it is because it isn't real. The Alicante snake is a legend, that has worked it's way into the real world of the Mexican farmer in much the way Bigfoot has to the inhabitants of the Pacific Northwest. It seems that most eye witnesses are old people (who also tend to be more superstitious), and there is virtually no documentation of any snake suckling any mammal for its milk. (In fact I read that snakes do not possess the ability to suck anything, their mouths and the muscle surrounding it are incapable of forming a suction).
The Alicante in Mexican mythology was a snake that would steal milk from human mothers by charming them to sleep (and putting their rattle in the baby's mouth to keep it quiet) steal her breast milk, and thus starve her infant. Other legends about the Alicante claim that when a mother was pregnant the snake could literally crawl into her body (that gives me the shivers) if she was not careful and so she had to wear certain garments to protect herself. The Catholic church recognized the snake and its threat (or maybe more fairly, they didn't believe it, but they at least addressed the locals superstitions by prescribing specific prayers an expecting mother should say morning and night, and blessing her special underclothes.)
To be fair I must say that my friend who told me about this snake has with his own eyes witnessed a snake that had it's body wrapped around a cows legs, and was indeed attached by it's mouth to an udder. And I have no reason to doubt his account. But I would interpret it differently.
The Alicante (not it's real name, but the one people refer to) is a snake that feeds on small mammals like mice, and moles etc. These animals usually live in barns, under hay, where the cows are (dairy cows specifically, since meat cattle are out in the fields). I can imagine that the snakes often startle the cows while hunting their scurrying prey and it seems perfectly natural that once in a while a snake may get stepped on, or may wrap itself around a cows legs to avoid injury. And if you imagine yourself as a snake, latching onto a swinging udder (or whatever the bag that holds the milk on a cow is called) seems like a reasonable thing to do under the circumstances. And thus, a legend is born! (Well, maybe. I am just postulating here.)
This is why I love science! It's an intellectual exercise that uses so many aspects of the brain. The fact that the Alicante doesn't really exist was a little disappointing. But taking the myth and theorizing about a logical reason why people believe the story to be true was exciting. And in the end it all makes sense (at least to me:) The mystery is solved, and all before lunchtime!
When it comes to myths people generally don't make up things completely out of the blue. I have found that almost every legend has some small kernel of truth to it. And figuring out what that is, is the "science" of mythology.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Gould is Gold
I just got two new books in the mail today! Both were written by Stephen Jay Gould. They are titled Ever Since Darwin, and Bully for Brontosaurus. I won't start them yet because I am concurrently reading another Gould book, Hens Teeth and Horses Toes and The Outline of History by H.G. Wells.
I like the way Gould writes. It's not too technical, but technical enough to make his arguments, or perspectives valid. And each essay is only a few pages long, so I can read one at a time, and I don't loose my train of thought if I take a break between sections. One of the great things he does (and does exceedingly well) is give perspective on a lot of scientific research that to the normal person like you and I would think is pointless. He is able to illustrate why studying land snails in the Bahamas, or why Jean Baptiste Lamarck erroneous theories of human development are important to me and you. Not only does he explain scientific phenomena and research, but he also tells you about the men and women (mostly men back int he old days) who did the science, and what the world was like while they were formulating their ideas. It's really fascinating. A lot of what I think about lately has been inspired by reading some or another essay that I have read by Gould. I highly recommend any of his books to readers interested in dipping their toes in the cool waters of natural history.
I like the way Gould writes. It's not too technical, but technical enough to make his arguments, or perspectives valid. And each essay is only a few pages long, so I can read one at a time, and I don't loose my train of thought if I take a break between sections. One of the great things he does (and does exceedingly well) is give perspective on a lot of scientific research that to the normal person like you and I would think is pointless. He is able to illustrate why studying land snails in the Bahamas, or why Jean Baptiste Lamarck erroneous theories of human development are important to me and you. Not only does he explain scientific phenomena and research, but he also tells you about the men and women (mostly men back int he old days) who did the science, and what the world was like while they were formulating their ideas. It's really fascinating. A lot of what I think about lately has been inspired by reading some or another essay that I have read by Gould. I highly recommend any of his books to readers interested in dipping their toes in the cool waters of natural history.
Homeless Man at Home
I was on a walk this morning, and I passed a homeless guy who had set up what can only be described as a living room on the sidewalk. He used a bench that was already there and he had a utility cart (the metal kind you see in auto garages) facing it with a portable DVD player and an array of filthy stuffed animals that he no doubt picked up off the side of the highway arranged neatly around it. He was (of all things) folding laundry that hardly looked clean, and arranging it in a a backpack that had clearly seen better days. I felt like I was staring in his living room window, even though it was clearly a public place and there were cars whizzing by. It was strange how "at home" he acted. It was so bizarre!
Anyway, I have never seen anything like that before, and just thought it was worth mentioning.
Anyway, I have never seen anything like that before, and just thought it was worth mentioning.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Disclosure
It occurred to me, while writing my last blog that it may be worth while to address the method, and reasoning I will be using to present my thoughts on scientific matters. I by no means consider myself an expert on anything besides being a human female. And most of my information (on pure scientific data) will have come from my reading of some or another text whether it be a book, or an article, or whatever. I realize that in writing about science references are very important in that they provide verification and a means for any one individual to form their own opinion. But I also realize what writing a scientific paper (with appropriate references) is like. And I can tell you from experience it isn't fun. So as I stated earlier, I will, when I can provide resources for further reading, but I will not do so in every instance. Nor will I quote and reference everything I read and discuss. I would have joined a science forum if that were the case. Having said that though I will try my best to differentiate between my own ideas, and the ideas of others. It is not my intention to steal ideas or "appear" to be more thoughtful or insightful than I am.
One of the great things about writing a blog is that readers have the opportunity to comment, and I hope you will feel free to do so. Upon request I will search out my sources or provide additional information if needed. Otherwise I will function on the assumption that everyone is ok with the fact that when I say "I read..." that I actually did, that I am not lying, and that I am not trying to push some hidden agenda on anyone. And likewise my opinions are just that. My posts will represent my personal view and my thoughts on whatever it is I write about, but nothing more. Science is science, an my point of view is my point of view.
Secondarily, I need to point out that a lot of what I will probably write about scientifically is often too complicated to explain completely in a blog. I will cover and address what I think is necessary to make my post make sense, but I won't go into every aspect of every topic I discuss. The truth is for ever subject you can think of there are probably hundreds of texts written about it, and I don't have the time or energy (nor the knowledge) to explain them all. Again though, as a reader, if you feel the need to clarify something, or point out something I have overlooked feel free to do so. I will respond accordingly.
In the end I am just a girl who reads a lot, is amazed by a lot, and thinks a lot about random stuff that no one I know is really interested in. I have no motive in my writing or in my "blogging" (as it were) other than a simple desire to share what I think about life. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I don't need to be agreed with. I am just me, and I just like to think and read and write.
I hope that I have been clear enough in stating my position on these matters. As a scientist I feel that this disclosure is necessary, but from now on I shall proceed in the manner that assumes these issues have been addressed.
One of the great things about writing a blog is that readers have the opportunity to comment, and I hope you will feel free to do so. Upon request I will search out my sources or provide additional information if needed. Otherwise I will function on the assumption that everyone is ok with the fact that when I say "I read..." that I actually did, that I am not lying, and that I am not trying to push some hidden agenda on anyone. And likewise my opinions are just that. My posts will represent my personal view and my thoughts on whatever it is I write about, but nothing more. Science is science, an my point of view is my point of view.
Secondarily, I need to point out that a lot of what I will probably write about scientifically is often too complicated to explain completely in a blog. I will cover and address what I think is necessary to make my post make sense, but I won't go into every aspect of every topic I discuss. The truth is for ever subject you can think of there are probably hundreds of texts written about it, and I don't have the time or energy (nor the knowledge) to explain them all. Again though, as a reader, if you feel the need to clarify something, or point out something I have overlooked feel free to do so. I will respond accordingly.
In the end I am just a girl who reads a lot, is amazed by a lot, and thinks a lot about random stuff that no one I know is really interested in. I have no motive in my writing or in my "blogging" (as it were) other than a simple desire to share what I think about life. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I don't need to be agreed with. I am just me, and I just like to think and read and write.
I hope that I have been clear enough in stating my position on these matters. As a scientist I feel that this disclosure is necessary, but from now on I shall proceed in the manner that assumes these issues have been addressed.
Preformation...it's what hapens before you "form"...
I stumbled upon an outdated theory on the nature of embryonic development (of humans and all living things alike) while reading the other day that quipped my interest.
(I will cite the books my information is derived from when I can, but to be honest, I read a lot, so sometimes it's hard for me to remember what information came from what book.)
But anyway, at the time of it's conception (ha! no pun intended) this theory really wasn't as ridiculous sounding as it seems today. At the time pretty much everyone believed in God (in Europe anyway) and scientists didn't have microscopes powerful enough to unveil the inner workings of eggs and sperm or the development of new life as it occured, and so there were all kinds of ideas about how animal forms develop.
The theory was coined "preformationism" and I will attempt, briefly to describe it to you . It holds that from the initial formation of the animal (at the time assumed to have been created by God) EVERY subsequent animal and generation already exists within that original animal.
The first parent has, within it's body, a perfectly formed miniature of itself waiting to be born, and that offspring likewise has within it's little body an even more tiny perfectly formed body of a third generation poised to be born after it's parent has grown to maturity. In theory, this pre-formation continues and one finds ever smaller complete animals waiting one within another for their turn to be born sometime in the future. Many authors liken them to Russian nesting dolls, and that's as good an analogy as any.
This idea was formulated before Mendel and his experiments with peas that demonstrated you need genes from both a male and a female to produce offspring. (In the above theory, all young would be descended only from their mothers.)
So why bother writing about such an obscure and outdated theory? Because it is interesting to me. It's a crazy idea, but a fascinating one as well. It was written from the Christian presumption that God created each original animal and plant, but I find the idea much more intriguing through an evolutionary perspective. Can you imagine if it were true? Every living thing that has and that will ever live would have been present in the womb of the first biological organism that suddenly found itself alive 3.5 billion years ago. There would be no missing links, but a perfectly preserved chain of life and form extending from you and I back to the dawn of life. We would have existed then in the tide pools of early life as infinitesimally small versions of ourselves. Wow....cool.
I feel like I should point out that what I have just described would never work. The theory of preformation is so full of holes you could rinse spaghetti with it but that wasn't my point in writing about the it. I am not trying to present it as a valid or scientific concept, but rather as the inspiration for a daydream, and my brief philosophical journey into the "what-if?" I suppose I should also note that there are many insect species that don't in fact need the genes from males in order to procreate....but that is a topic for another day.
(I will cite the books my information is derived from when I can, but to be honest, I read a lot, so sometimes it's hard for me to remember what information came from what book.)
But anyway, at the time of it's conception (ha! no pun intended) this theory really wasn't as ridiculous sounding as it seems today. At the time pretty much everyone believed in God (in Europe anyway) and scientists didn't have microscopes powerful enough to unveil the inner workings of eggs and sperm or the development of new life as it occured, and so there were all kinds of ideas about how animal forms develop.
The theory was coined "preformationism" and I will attempt, briefly to describe it to you . It holds that from the initial formation of the animal (at the time assumed to have been created by God) EVERY subsequent animal and generation already exists within that original animal.
The first parent has, within it's body, a perfectly formed miniature of itself waiting to be born, and that offspring likewise has within it's little body an even more tiny perfectly formed body of a third generation poised to be born after it's parent has grown to maturity. In theory, this pre-formation continues and one finds ever smaller complete animals waiting one within another for their turn to be born sometime in the future. Many authors liken them to Russian nesting dolls, and that's as good an analogy as any.
This idea was formulated before Mendel and his experiments with peas that demonstrated you need genes from both a male and a female to produce offspring. (In the above theory, all young would be descended only from their mothers.)
So why bother writing about such an obscure and outdated theory? Because it is interesting to me. It's a crazy idea, but a fascinating one as well. It was written from the Christian presumption that God created each original animal and plant, but I find the idea much more intriguing through an evolutionary perspective. Can you imagine if it were true? Every living thing that has and that will ever live would have been present in the womb of the first biological organism that suddenly found itself alive 3.5 billion years ago. There would be no missing links, but a perfectly preserved chain of life and form extending from you and I back to the dawn of life. We would have existed then in the tide pools of early life as infinitesimally small versions of ourselves. Wow....cool.
I feel like I should point out that what I have just described would never work. The theory of preformation is so full of holes you could rinse spaghetti with it but that wasn't my point in writing about the it. I am not trying to present it as a valid or scientific concept, but rather as the inspiration for a daydream, and my brief philosophical journey into the "what-if?" I suppose I should also note that there are many insect species that don't in fact need the genes from males in order to procreate....but that is a topic for another day.
Footballmania
I love football! I am more of an NFL follower than college football, but that's mostly because I can only dedicate a certain number for hours a week to football (during the season) and I wouldn't get a thing done on the weekends if I tried to watch them all. Anyway, it's the off season now, and that's always a sad time of year for me. A lot of my friends just roll their eyes and sigh at my enthusiasm for the game, and call me "obsessed", but I don't think I am. I just really enjoy it. I like watching the games, I like learning the strategy, and I even like reading about it.
I also like talking about it, which is why I included it in the title of my...blog page, or whatever this thing is.
"My" team is the Green Bay Packers. Yep, I am a "Packer Backer" as they say. It is my dad's team, and now it's mine too. And as I am sure will become painfully obvious in the future, I have a lot to say about football and the Pack...but I thought it might be a good idea, up front, to sort of post this as a bit of explanation for having the word football in the title of my blog.
I also like talking about it, which is why I included it in the title of my...blog page, or whatever this thing is.
"My" team is the Green Bay Packers. Yep, I am a "Packer Backer" as they say. It is my dad's team, and now it's mine too. And as I am sure will become painfully obvious in the future, I have a lot to say about football and the Pack...but I thought it might be a good idea, up front, to sort of post this as a bit of explanation for having the word football in the title of my blog.
What's in a Name?
You may wonder why I list my name as Mapmaker. Well, I am a geologist by training, but as of late what I find myself doing the most is making maps. Yep, as weird as it sounds that (for the most part) is what I do for a living. I am literally a mapmaker.
My creations are not drafted on parchment with a quill and ink like in olden times though. My methods are slightly less romantic. I use AutoCAD and a computer....There are times when I would much rather be drawing by hand, but alas! It is not the way of our times. Ok. Well, I just thought I should mention why I chose my name.
My creations are not drafted on parchment with a quill and ink like in olden times though. My methods are slightly less romantic. I use AutoCAD and a computer....There are times when I would much rather be drawing by hand, but alas! It is not the way of our times. Ok. Well, I just thought I should mention why I chose my name.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)