bookofjoe

Intelligent Design

This past Monday on the New York Times Op-Ed page appeared a superb essay by Michael J. Behe explaining exactly what intelligent design is — and isn't.

No matter your position on the controversy, no one could argue that the piece itself is not very intelligently designed — and beautifully written.

Especially notable is the fact that it appears where it does: the Times editorial page has no truck with those who would question the fact — as opposed to the theory — of evolution.

Behe, author of the book "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," made one particularly incisive point: he wrote that scientists who attempt to fit everything into a Darwinian framework are like people who might "... search relentlessly for a non-design explanation of Mount Rushmore."

Here's his essay.

Design for Living

In the wake of the recent lawsuits over the teaching of Darwinian evolution, there has been a rush to debate the merits of the rival theory of intelligent design.

As one of the scientists who have proposed design as an explanation for biological systems, I have found widespread confusion about what intelligent design is and what it is not.

First, what it isn't: the theory of intelligent design is not a religiously based idea, even though devout people opposed to the teaching of evolution cite it in their arguments.

For example, a critic recently caricatured intelligent design as the belief that if evolution occurred at all it could never be explained by Darwinian natural selection and could only have been directed at every stage by an omniscient creator.

That's misleading.

Intelligent design proponents do question whether random mutation and natural selection completely explain the deep structure of life.

But they do not doubt that evolution occurred.

And intelligent design itself says nothing about the religious concept of a creator.

Rather, the contemporary argument for intelligent design is based on physical evidence and a straightforward application of logic.

The argument for it consists of four linked claims.

The first claim is uncontroversial: we can often recognize the effects of design in nature.

For example, unintelligent physical forces like plate tectonics and erosion seem quite sufficient to account for the origin of the Rocky Mountains.

Yet they are not enough to explain Mount Rushmore.



Of course, we know who is responsible for Mount Rushmore, but even someone who had never heard of the monument could recognize it as designed.

Which leads to the second claim of the intelligent design argument: the physical marks of design are visible in aspects of biology.

This is uncontroversial, too.

The 18th-century clergyman William Paley likened living things to a watch, arguing that the workings of both point to intelligent design.

Modern Darwinists disagree with Paley that the perceived design is real, but they do agree that life overwhelms us with the appearance of design.

For example, Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, once wrote that biologists must constantly remind themselves that what they see was not designed but evolved. (Imagine a scientist repeating through clenched teeth: "It wasn't really designed. Not really.")

The resemblance of parts of life to engineered mechanisms like a watch is enormously stronger than what Reverend Paley imagined.

In the past 50 years modern science has shown that the cell, the very foundation of life, is run by machines made of molecules.

There are little molecular trucks in the cell to ferry supplies, little outboard motors to push a cell through liquid.

In 1998 an issue of the journal Cell was devoted to molecular machines, with articles like "The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines" and "Mechanical Devices of the Spliceosome: Motors, Clocks, Springs and Things."

Referring to his student days in the 1960's, Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences, wrote that "the chemistry that makes life possible is much more elaborate and sophisticated than anything we students had ever considered."

In fact, Dr. Alberts remarked, the entire cell can be viewed as a factory with an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines.

He emphasized that the term machine was not some fuzzy analogy; it was meant literally.

The next claim in the argument for design is that we have no good explanation for the foundation of life that doesn't involve intelligence.

Here is where thoughtful people part company.

Darwinists assert that their theory can explain the appearance of design in life as the result of random mutation and natural selection acting over immense stretches of time.

Some scientists, however, think the Darwinists' confidence is unjustified.

They note that although natural selection can explain some aspects of biology, there are no research studies indicating that Darwinian processes can make molecular machines of the complexity we find in the cell.

Scientists skeptical of Darwinian claims include many who have no truck with ideas of intelligent design, like those who advocate an idea called complexity theory, which envisions life self-organizing in roughly the same way that a hurricane does, and ones who think organisms in some sense can design themselves.

The fourth claim in the design argument is also controversial: in the absence of any convincing non-design explanation, we are justified in thinking that real intelligent design was involved in life.

To evaluate this claim, it's important to keep in mind that it is the profound appearance of design in life that everyone is laboring to explain, not the appearance of natural selection or the appearance of self-organization.

The strong appearance of design allows a disarmingly simple argument: if it looks, walks and quacks like a duck, then, absent compelling evidence to the contrary,



we have warrant to conclude it's a duck.

Design should not be overlooked simply because it's so obvious.

Still, some critics claim that science by definition can't accept design, while others argue that science should keep looking for another explanation in case one is out there.

But we can't settle questions about reality with definitions, nor does it seem useful to search relentlessly for a non-design explanation of Mount Rushmore.



Besides, whatever special restrictions scientists adopt for themselves don't bind the public, which polls show, overwhelmingly, and sensibly, thinks that life was designed.

And so do many scientists who see roles for both the messiness of evolution and the elegance of design.

Are blogs the new Google?

Ask Jeeves thinks so.

The company, buried deep in the shadows of Google and Yahoo, on Tuesday announced it has purchased Bloglines from Mark Fletcher, who founded it in 2003 and has been running it out of his home.

According to Simon Avery's article in yesterday's Toronto Globe and Mail, Ask Jeeves is betting that the next wave of activity in the internet world will come from blogs.

WooWoo, surf's up here at bookofjoe.

We're stoked. But I digress.

Here's the Globe and Mail story.

Ask Jeeves Turns To Bloggers To Boost Traffic

Ask Jeeves Inc. is taking a run at its larger rivals in the Internet search market with the purchase of an upstart Silicon Valley blogging company that is helping change the way millions communicate.

Ask Jeeves, based in Emeryville, Calif., is hoping to vault back into competition with Google Inc. and Yahoo Inc. with the purchase of Trustic Inc. for an undisclosed amount.

Trustic is owner and operator of Bloglines, which indexes Web logs, or blogs, along with other live on-line content in English and six other languages.

The free service remains a major driver behind the growing popularity of blogs because it gathers new material filed by millions of bloggers and allows users to search and read it without the need for downloading any software on their own computers.

The excitement around the Internet over the last year has been all about search engines, with Google's massive IPO firing the frenzy.

But rival Ask Jeeves is betting that the next wave of activity will come from Web logs.

These personal on-line journals have already begun to shape news and public thinking.

In the United States, for example, it was criticism from the blog world that ultimately forced CBS News to retract a controversial story about President George W. Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard and led to several resignations at the venerable network.

Other major Web portals have already ventured into the blog space with acquisitions ahead of Ask Jeeves, including Google, Yahoo and Microsoft Corp.'s MSN.

But analysts say Ask Jeeves's deal is especially significant because it gives the firm one of the most popular brands and powerful search tools in the sector.

"The deal adds another dimension to Ask Jeeves and gives them a little extra cachet," said Gary Price, news editor of the on-line research and marketing site Search Engine Watch.

"It's all about keeping your name and buzz out there. Ask yourself, how many times have you seen or heard an ad for Google on TV or radio? None. Google capitalizes on viral [marketing] media and a lot of that is through the blogging community."

Even though there are an estimated three million Web logs today, early adopters are still the most enthusiastic users of blogs, and it's this key demographic that traditionally breathes legitimacy into new on-line ventures, Mr. Price said.

Google capitalized on early adopter support in its first years and has maintained a reputation for quality ever since, something Ask Jeeves failed to do in its early days.

But in the last several years, Ask Jeeves has improved its offerings significantly and with its leap into the heart of the blog world, it could tap a new and important base of support, Mr. Price said.

Mark Fletcher, who founded Bloglines in 2003, had been running the firm out of his Silicon Valley home and had yet to commercialize it with advertisements.

It remains to be seen how Ask Jeeves will monetize the popular service, but the company said Tuesday that it will combine Bloglines's leading aggregation technology with its own algorithmic search technology, but will maintain the Bloglines service and brand separately.

In addition, Mr. Fletcher will stay on as vice-president and general manager of the Bloglines service.

Ask Jeeves is trying to crawl out of the shadows of Google and Yahoo, which have market valuations of $53.9-billion and $47.2-billion, respectively, compared with a valuation of $1.4-billion for Ask Jeeves.

As of last fall, Ask Jeeves ranked as the No. 5 Internet search engine in the U.S. market, with a 5.5 per cent share, compared with 34.4 per cent for No. 1 Google and 31.8 per cent for second place Yahoo, according to researcher comScore Networks.

“This [deal] is recognition of how the landscape is changing the way people use the Internet,” said Rick Broadhead, a Toronto-based technology analyst and author. “Increasingly, people now get their news from blogs and not from traditional news services.”

What makes Bloglines so powerful is that it organizes and personalizes content feeds using a format it helped pioneer called RSS, or Really Simple Syndication.

The standard doesn't require users to download software onto their own computer and allows them to access their personalized and updated material from any Web connection.

"Thanks to blogs, there's a lot more content on the Internet than ever before, and that means it has to be indexed and categorized," Mr. Broadhead said.

It's impossible to know how widespread Web logs have become.

But the Pew Internet & American Life Project recently released a report in the United States which estimated that 5 per cent of Internet users tap RSS aggregators, and various third-party estimates have put Bloglines traffic at about 2 million users.

Shares of Ask Jeeves closed down 42 cents Tuesday to $24.01 on the Nasdaq Stock Market.

February 10, 2005 at 03:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Nike's Black Ball: 'Black is beautiful'



It really is: it's almost an iconic object, in the same mind-bending genre as



Meret Oppenheim's fur teacup.

Nike rolled it out last weekend at an Arizona tournament, where four PGA tour golfers agreed to play it on the par-3, 162-yard 16th hole of the TPC of Scottsdale.

As soon as they finished using the ball, Nike's phones lit up with customers asking where they could buy it.

Nike hadn't anticipated the overwhelming response, and they're still trying to figure out what to do.

Here's a link to the story by Jerry Potter, which appeared in Tuesday's USA Today.

February 10, 2005 at 02:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Rock and Roll Hall of Fame sues Jewish Rock and Roll Hall of Fame



Just in, the news that it's between a Rock and a Hard (Rock?) place, now that the protagonists have climbed into the legal ring.

In this corner, wearing the trunks of plaintiff, is the mighty Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, out of Cleveland, Ohio.

In the black trunks, the challenger, the upstart defendant which exists only virtually, in the form of its website, the Jewish Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

A lawsuit was filed on Monday of this week in Cleveland.

David Segal, manager of the brash contender and a staff writer for the Washington Post in his spare time, said in an Associated Press story that "The idea the public could possibly be confused between a large museum backed by any number of corporations and a Web site run by a couple of Jewish guys is nuts."

bookofjoe gives a huge shout-out to Segal for getting about $1 million worth of free publicity for his website without paying a penny — at least, not yet.

The bricks-and-mortar version is asking for the website to immediately drop "Rock and Roll Hall of Fame" from its name, along with unspecified monetary damages.

Here's the best part: the website hasn't even been launched yet.

It's scheduled to go up next month.

The domain, JewsRock.org, currently states: "Future home of JewsRock.org."

Jeffrey Goldberg, whose hobby is being a New Yorker staff writer, is another of the Jewish rock hall's founders.

He told the Associated Press, "It seems to be improbable that these people own rock 'n' roll,' it's entirely unlikely they own the phrase 'hall of fame,' and I know for sure they don't own the Jews."

A third Jewish rock hall founder, Allen Goldberg, who sometimes hangs out at XM Satellite Radio, where he's an executive, was also named as a defendant.

According to the lawsuit, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office last month denied the Jewish rock hall's application for a trademark on its name based on the likelihood of "confusion with the Rock Hall" trademarks.

Following the ruling, the rock hall demanded the Jewish rock hall stop using its trademarks, similar logos, and the words "Jewish Rock and Roll Hall of Fame," but the Jewish rock hall refused.

The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum opened in 1995 in a glass pyramid building alongside Lake Erie, and has attracted more than 5.5 million visitors.

I'm amazing at how feeble and ugly its website is.



I guess there just wasn't any money left over after paying all the legal bills that piled up from suing their lifeblood — the people who love rock and roll.

February 10, 2005 at 01:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

BehindTheMedspeak: Ear Wax



Yes, it's one of those things you don't talk about in polite company.

Which is why you're here — admit it.

You're not alone: thousands of people around the world are, just like you, furtively visiting. But I digress.

Ear wax is a bedeviling thing: it's inside you, in a way.

Not topologically speaking, true, but it seems that way: it's buried way down there next to your eardrum, and you can't see it.

But seeing isn't always believing.

It's there — trust me, I'm a ....

So what to do about the problem whose name dareth not be spoken?

Easy.

Simply pick up the two delightful tools my crack research team has tracked down for you, and your ear wax problems are over.

Didn't think you had an ear wax problem?

Think again.

Denial, as is too often said nowadays to be funny any more, is not a river in Egypt. But I digress.

Start with the Lighted Ear Wax Remover at the top of this post.

"Illuminates ear for safe and gentle wax removal."

Requires two button-cell batteries (not included).

Regularly $9.98, but now on sale here for a mere $7.98 (item # 22851).

Then, to make your experience complete, you'll want the Ear Wax Cleaner (below).



"Cordless ear wax cleaner safely and easily suctions out wax."

Compact, and it includes a stand so you can proudly display it on your bathroom sink or fireplace mantelpiece.

"Powerful, yet gentle suction removes embedded wax without injury."

That's a relief: all you need is for this thing to turn your eardrum inside out or, even worse, perform an involuntary brain biopsy.

"Hey, what's that gray stuff — I thought ear wax was brown."

All ear wax is gray in the dark, booboo. But I digress once again, don't I?

The sucker — oops, I meant the Ear Wax Cleaner — requires two AA batteries (not included).

Was $14.98, but now reduced to sell for only $9.98 here (item # 18031).

I recommend using the two devices together: one hand holds the illuminator while the other vacuums your auditory canal.

Don't forget to schedule an appointment with your chiropractor later the same day, 'cause you're gonna need it.

Can't wait to hear about how things went, so don't be shy, share your ear wax experiences — not the wax, we've got plenty of our own — with other similarly deranged — I meant inclined — joeheads around the planet.

February 10, 2005 at 12:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Apple + Universal Music + China = 'Ka-Ching'



What is the sound of billions of Renminbi pouring into Apple's coffers?

And you thought that was just the leftover background radiation from the Big Bang.

Apple and Universal Music have just announced that they're going to sell Chinese-language pop songs on iTunes stores in 15 countries, including the U.S., U.K., and Canada.

The launch coincided with the onset of the



Chinese lunar new year Tuesday.

There are huge numbers of overseas Chinese, who are expected to make this new venture a roaring success.

I consider it the proverbial camel's nose under the unbelievably capacious Chinese tent.

Oh, man: 1.3 billion Chinese in China proper, ready to visit the Chinese iTunes store once it opens.

Look for it sooner rather than later.

Apple is rolling.



Here's Malini Guha's story, which appeared in this past Sunday's Financial Times.

Universal and Apple Sell Chinese Pop Online

Apple and Universal Music are expanding their range to online music consumers by selling Chinese-language pop music for the first time in North America and Europe.

More than 1,000 tracks by top Chinese artists on the books of Universal, the world's biggest record company, including Jacky Cheung, Kelly Chen, Hacken Lee and Alan Tam, will be available from Apple's iTunes stores in 15 countries, including the US, UK and Canada.

Universal says it is the first time this range of Chinese music will be legally available online outside its region of origin.

The move represents Universal's faith in the continuing growth of the legal download market.

The launch, to coincide with the Chinese lunar new year on Tuesday, is aimed especially at the big overseas Chinese population, which has been able to access the music in physical form only through a limited number of specialist retailers.

Apple's online store, whose growth has been stimulated by the iPod digital music player, has so far dominated the legal download market.

But it faces increasing competition from a number of entrants to the fast-growing market.

Napster, one of Apple's main competitors, last week launched the first portable subscription service that could pose a significant challenge.

Napster's service will allow subscribers to download an unlimited number of songs and play them on compatible digital music players for a monthly fee.

Apple does not offer a subscription service and songs downloaded from iTunes can be played only on its iPods.

Universal said it expected eventually to deliver its Chinese repertoire to other online services.

February 10, 2005 at 11:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

LostLovers.com



Dr. Nancy Kalish, a psychologist, started this website more than a decade ago, after she reunited with a college boyfriend.

They got engaged, but he broke it off.

So she did what academics do in situations like this: she started a survey.

She found that, contrary to her own experience and expectations, nearly three-quarters of those who reunited with an early love stayed together.

Even more interesting, she discovered that these unions tend to be extremely happy.

In 1997 her book on the subject, "Lost & Found Lovers" was published.



Over the past 11 years she's researched more than 2,000 rekindled romances, which she tracks on her website.

[via Abby Ellin and the New York Times]

February 10, 2005 at 10:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Japan to begin mandatory DNA testing - in tuna



Well, you knew it would eventually come to this.

Last year I wrote about the use of carbon monoxide to make old tuna look fresh.

Now Japan says enough is enough: bring on the genetic scientists.

David Pilling reported in last weekend's Financial Times that since last year, Japan has been quietly sampling tuna to find genetic variations between fish caught in the Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific Oceans.

The purpose: to stamp out tuna fraud in the $9 billion a year industry.

The best fish can bring enormous sums of money: last year, a single bluefin tuna went for nearly $200,000.

Here's the story from The Financial Times.

Japan Tests Tuna DNA to Cut Fraud

As if global security was not tight enough already, Japan plans to give DNA tests to tuna coming to its shores.

Since last year the Japanese fisheries agency has been quietly sampling tuna to find genetic variations between fish caught in the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans.

The testing is intended to stamp out tuna fraud in which fisherman get around international quota restrictions imposed on the $9bn (£4.7bn) a year industry by lying about the source of the catch.

Catching tuna in the Atlantic, where bluefin tuna are designated an endangered species, is far more severely restricted than in the relatively lightly fished Indian Ocean.

Japan, which consumes about half the world's tuna, most of it eaten raw in the form of sushi and sashimi, has been accused by International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas of being complicit in illegal tuna trade.

Last year, Taiwanese fishing ships were discovered to have been faking the identity of large quantities of Atlantic big eye tuna, which they were passing off as fish caught in the Indian Ocean. Japan buys much of its tuna from Taiwan.

Masanori Miyahara, director of Japan's fisheries agency, said: "We have been criticised by ICCAT, which says we are partly responsible for this [fraud]."

Mr Miyahara said scientists working for the fisheries agency had not yet collected a big enough sample of tuna to find telltale distinguishing features in their genetic code.

Tuna are abundant in Japan but highly prized.

The best cuts, particularly fatty tuna, can cost $20 a mouthful.

A few years ago, a single bluefin tuna caught off the Shimokita peninsula in northern Japan fetched Y20.2m - over £100,000.

Tuna catches in Japanese waters have fallen because of overfishing.

The Japanese consume 3.3m tonnes of marine products a year.

February 10, 2005 at 09:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

« February 9, 2005 | Main | February 11, 2005 »