The Truth Shall Make Ye Fret

Wednesday, 24 June 2009

  • Kuolema Tekee Taiteilijan

    I'm in the middle of another longish post, but my attention deficit internet habits make it hard for me to sit down and write more than a line or two at a time. In the meantime, here's some ear candy:



    Nightwish is a Finnish band in the genre known as symphonic metal, which is closely related to a whole cluster of subgenres, all of which I can only vaguely tell apart, of course. The last.fm tags for "melodic metal" and "female fronted metal" pretty much cover all of them in any case.

    From what I gather, Nightwish and related bands are really popular in Europe, but over here I rarely meet anyone who's even heard of them.

Wednesday, 17 June 2009

  • Sex

    Let's talk about sex! No, not that kind of sex. I'll get to that eventually, but here the topic is the differentiation of the human species into male and female. A biology lesson.

    We've all heard about chromosomes before, but here's a quick review. A normal H. sapiens has 46 chromosomes in each cell. Of these 46, 44 come in 22 pairs of autosomes -- each chromosome has a partner that carries information about the exact same traits -- so that if, for instance, one of your chromosomes has a faulty gene for hemoglobin but the other is normal, then you will be a carrier for sickle cell anemia.

    The sex chromosomes are a special case, though. They do not match, but code for completely different things. Women's two copies of the X chromosome come in handy in coping with the mutations that cause things like color blindness or hemophilia, but men get by just fine with only one. Men, on the other hand, have an entire chromosome of genes that women lack entirely. Interestingly, that means that if you just look directly at the DNA itself and don't take into account how it's expressed, a person has more in common genetically with a chimpanzee of the same sex than a human of the other (or so I've heard, but that may be an urban legend).

    So here's a question: where exactly are the genes located that code for masculine physical and psychological characteristics, and where are those that tell your body how to develop in a feminine way?

    It's easy to leave high school (perhaps even college, for that matter) with the idea that the way the Y chromosome makes a person develop into a man is pretty straightforward; it contains the genes for every masculine trait. But actually, it's not that simple. The Y chromosome is absolutely miniscule compared to the others and contains mostly just some information necessary for complete development of the testes. That, and one very important gene called SRY. SRY triggers the development of undifferentiated gonads into testes in a seven week old, human fetus. The testes then produce various chemicals, which control the rest of the process of sex differentiation (including maturation at puberty). In the absence of a functional SRY gene, the gonads will turn into ovaries, which produce the hormones that control development into a female.

    The actual development of the sex organs is complicated. For that, I point you to a wonderful interactive website which describes it far better than I could, with diagrams and everything.

    That's what the Y does, but what about the X? Well, the interesting thing about X is that it's actually expressed equally in males and females, despite females having twice as many copies. The way that's done is by deactivating one copy in each cell. The deactivated copy is known as a Barr body, and which one it is will vary at random between areas of your body. This phenomenon is what causes some female cats to have calico or tortoiseshell coat patterns -- they inherit one allele for black and one for orange, and whichever one is expressed in a given area will give it that coat color. Males are the same color all over (or white and that color, but the white comes from a completely separate gene) because they only get one or the other on their single X chromosome.

    So, that's how sex works . . . in humans and most mammals, that is. The rest of the animal kingdom has got other creative ways to decide which sex an embryo should become. Birds use sex chromosomes known as W and Z, where males are the ones with two of the same and females inherit the sex-determining W chromosome. Fish and reptiles are even more interesting, with some reptiles differentiating by temperature, and some fish having the ability to change sex based on their social status: clownfish live in groups with one dominant female, one breeding male, and several lower-status males who remain prepubescent while in that position. If the female dies, the dominant male changes into a female and takes her place. Makes you look at Finding Nemo slightly differently, doesn't it? And then insects have everything from hermaphroditism to haplodiploidy. Drosophila (fruit flies) use X and Y but differentiate solely based on the number of X chromosomes they have.

Saturday, 16 May 2009

Tuesday, 05 May 2009

  • Quotes and Question of the Day -- Honesty

        Many people, especially Americans, tend to associate indirectness with dishonesty and directness with honesty, a quality we see as self-evidently desirable. In explaining why the press pursued the issue of Debategate--Reagan's campaign officials' obtaining of Carter debate documents--the executive producer of CBS Evening News is quoted as saying, "Had the President handled the press conference more directly, we might not have gone back to the story."
        "Not handling directly" here implies not telling the whole story--that is, not telling the truth.
        In most day-to-day situations, this view of indirectness as dishonest is not fair, and not realistic. As we talk to each other about important or unimportant matters, we are always monitoring our relationships to each other, and information about relationships is found in metamessages, which by definition are not spelled out in words but signaled by the way words are spoken. So indirectness, in the sense of metamessages, is  basic to communication. Everything must be said in some way; the way it is said sends metamessages--indirectly.
        There are two big payoffs to being understood without saying explicitly what we mean: payoffs in rapport and in self-defense. And there's an aesthetic pleasure in communicating cryptically.


    To the extent that we can even talk about honesty in communicative habits, any system that successfully gets meaning across is honest.

    Quotes from Deborah Tannen, That's Not What I Meant! How Conversational Style Makes or Breaks Relationships.

    Tangentially related question for my readers: How would you define honesty?

    Currently
    That's Not What I Meant!
    By Deborah Tannen
    see related

Thursday, 02 April 2009

Sunday, 29 March 2009

  • Quote of the Day -- song lyrics

    We are His portion and He is our prize,
    Drawn to redemption by the grace in His eyes,
    If grace is an ocean, we’re all sinking.
    So Heaven meets earth like a sloppy wet kiss,
    And my heart turns violently inside of my chest,
    I don’t have time to maintain these regrets,
    When I think about, the way…

    Lyrics from "How He Loves" by John Mark McMillan, which I heard (or noticed, at least) for the first time this morning. As my sister put it, that line kinda ruins the mood.


    On a totally unrelated note, here's a cool YouTube video about identity:


Monday, 16 February 2009

Wednesday, 28 January 2009

  • Back To School and Other Stuff

    I transferred to a new school this semester. Classes started last week. On Tuesday I only had time to attend classes and get a temporary parking permit, which took just long enough for me to completely miss Barack Obama's inauguration ceremony. Wednesday, on the other hand, I had hours to kill between classes. I had some chores to do, like go get my car from the church parking lot I'd wound up in and try to find a spot on campus. But what was the very first thing I did?

    I went to the library, of course!

    And I checked out The Ante-Nicene Fathers, volume one. The Roberts-Donaldson translation, which hails from the 1860s -- rather old-fashioned language, but it has the advantage of being a complete set. Of the assorted other translations of various works available, a couple provided the Greek text alongside, which is kind of neat but no use to me at present (it'll be some time before my Greek is that good).

    Speaking of the language, here's a post where a guy takes Rob Bell to task for a rather embarrassing Greek mistake. Apparently in one of the nooma videos Bell says:

    And then, the Bible says [in Mark 3:5] that Jesus looked around at them in anger. Jesus gets angry. Now this story was first told in the Greek language, and there’s a subtle nuance to this word “anger” in the Greek language. It’s in what’s called the aorist tense, which is a technical way of saying that Jesus’ anger is a temporary feeling. It comes on him, and then it leaves him.

    Um, actually the aorist would be the looking around, not the anger (which, being a noun not a verb, has no tense), and all it tells us is that Jesus looked around and then did other things. Nothing about whether he continued to feel angry after he was done glaring at the crowd.

    The critique also comes with a fun YouTube music video, "All Things Are Better In Koine."

    Bell is hardly the first public figure to make a blooper, though. I once saw Greg Boyd accidentally confuse arche (αρχη, meaning 'beginning' mainly, but a contentious term in some contexts) for archon (αρχων, ruler). It's an easy and understandable mistake to make, but I'm not sure I would say that Satan is the arche of this world . . .

    Anyway, I'm really glad to be getting back into the Fathers. They'll be showing up on this blog from time to time. As will anything particularly interesting that I learn in class -- I'm taking intro to linguistics, archaeology, physical anthropology, and retaking the second semester of American history. Being an anthropology major ROCKS!

Tuesday, 27 January 2009

  • Equality

    Adults and children are equal, right? I mean, they all are of equal worth and value as human beings, all made in God's image. Equally necessary to God's kingdom, right?

    It's not that I think Christian complementarians are some kind of crazy misogynists who think women aren't mature, intelligent, capable adults. It's just that, when they say, "of course we don't believe men are better than women," their explanations of exactly how the sexes are equal tend to sound suspiciously like the same sorts of things that one could say about children, which makes me wonder if they've really answered the objection at all.

Tuesday, 20 January 2009