![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Curiosities
Aug. 31st, 2003 06:53 pmAd Mundo Exteriore,
Just watched the Special Features on the Two Towers DVD at![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
lush_rimbaud's house. Fell asleep on the subway coming home and missed my stop. I really should stop doing that.
I had something I wanted to note down...now, where did I put that? Oh here we go:
"The tendency to catch rats rather than mice is known to be inherited." Is that really true? I wonder if it's a genetic-based behavior, like the timeless gene in Drosophila or simply learned from the parent (and thus, incorrectly assumed to be inherited)? Someone should devise an experiment comparing kittens raised with their birth mothers and those raised with foster mothers, documenting how their taste in rodents develops. If the behavior is genetic, it must be a very weird gene. A taste receptor, perhaps? Or maybe something to do with the perception of mice versus rats? I honestly find it difficult to understand how it can be genetic...the timeless gene obviously has something to do with photoreceptors, but...oh, I should just go and finish that Jonathan Weiner book, shouldn't I?
There's a long section on hermaphroditism, of all things, and self-fertilisation, that seems slightly circuitous to me. Darwin says that since cross-breeding (i.e. genetic recombination, though he didn't know it) is desirable, no organism can reproduce by self-fertilisation alone. They must cross at least occasionally through the generations. Then he says that since all organisms cross at one time or another, there must be an advantage to cross-breeding. The missing key in my understanding of his logic must probably be the advantage of variations, as a circumstance governing natural selection, but I don't actually see him say that. Maybe it's because I wasn't following it too clearly, but in any case, the presentation felt a bit awkward. Otherwise, however, Darwin is remarkably clear. No convoluted Victorian prose.
Oh, and another interesting quote: "After a thousand generations, species (A) is supposed to have produced two fairly well-marked varieties, namely a1 and m1. These two varieties will generally continue to be exposed to the same conditions which made their parents variable, and the tendency to variability is in itself hereditary, consequently they will tend to vary, and generally to vary in nearly the same manner as their parents varied." From the discussion on divergence of characters, referring to the famous diagram in Origin. Again, I'm wondering if it's actually true, on an individual level, that you can simply inherit the tendency to vary. Is the tendency a possible genetic trait? Would it be governed by, say, genes coding for DNA repair proteins? Or should we simply take this as an example of what Gould says is Darwin's slightly forced attempt to explain divergence while keeping selection entirely at the organismal level? It sucks that I don't have enough background in advanced genetics to really think about Darwin's claims from a genetic point of view.
Ah, and as you may have noticed, I've started the huge Stephen Jay Gould tome, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, feeling happily confused and bewildered by "all the big words" on the way. More and more am I finding myself bewailing the fact that Gould died last year, before I had the chance to attend one of his lectures or classes. (He's the Agassiz professor of something or another at Harvard. Or rather, I should say, he was.) He's obviously brilliant--he reads scientific works in their original languages, which implies he reads French and German fluently. But he's also possibly the coolest biologist because he uses words like Fingerspitzengefühl, which I've just learned means "feeling at the tip of one's finger". Must remember that for sheer luverliness.
Oh yes, according to Gould, there is a House of Representatives Committee on Committees. I swear, I'm learning all sorts of bizarre facts that have nothing to do with evolutionary theory. For example, the peculiar architecture of the Duomo, a Milanese cathedral that embodies an odd mix of medieval styles, is used as a metaphor for the development, and yes dare I say it, the evolution of theoretical structures. Ahahaha...what a bad pun.
It's also possibly the first time I've been mired in a 90-page introduction. (Still not finished with it either, if you're wondering.) I thought a 50-page introduction was as long as you can get, but apparently people are capable of 90-page prefatory chapters. Prefatory! Of course, the book is 1300+ pages long. (And my chances of actually finishing it soon are...one in a trillion.) Proportions-wise, the length of the introduction makes sense, but ugh, I feel overwhelmed. I've looked up six words already: "exegesis", "sequelae", "adumbrate", "in se", "anagenetically" (which isn't in the dictionary, but I think I have a vague idea of its meaning), and "spandrels" (which apparently is a type of architectural arch, but that makes no sense in the context where I found it). "Sequelae" is an especially cool word, but why the heck he can't simply say "exposition" or "explication" or "critical interpretation" instead of "exegesis" is beyond me.
So yes, if you know what "spandrels" means in evolutionary biology and if you have a precise definition for "anagenetically", I'd very much appreciate it. I probably should try dictionary.com, but I don't quite like online dictionaries. Anyone have a home copy of the OED?
...Tari
Post-script: Finally saw Pirates of the Caribbean yesterday evening, with my parents. It was such a fun movie, though quite shallow and frilly. Johnny Depp looks gorgeous in eye makeup, yes he does.
Just watched the Special Features on the Two Towers DVD at
lush_rimbaud's house. Fell asleep on the subway coming home and missed my stop. I really should stop doing that.I had something I wanted to note down...now, where did I put that? Oh here we go:
"The tendency to catch rats rather than mice is known to be inherited." Is that really true? I wonder if it's a genetic-based behavior, like the timeless gene in Drosophila or simply learned from the parent (and thus, incorrectly assumed to be inherited)? Someone should devise an experiment comparing kittens raised with their birth mothers and those raised with foster mothers, documenting how their taste in rodents develops. If the behavior is genetic, it must be a very weird gene. A taste receptor, perhaps? Or maybe something to do with the perception of mice versus rats? I honestly find it difficult to understand how it can be genetic...the timeless gene obviously has something to do with photoreceptors, but...oh, I should just go and finish that Jonathan Weiner book, shouldn't I?
There's a long section on hermaphroditism, of all things, and self-fertilisation, that seems slightly circuitous to me. Darwin says that since cross-breeding (i.e. genetic recombination, though he didn't know it) is desirable, no organism can reproduce by self-fertilisation alone. They must cross at least occasionally through the generations. Then he says that since all organisms cross at one time or another, there must be an advantage to cross-breeding. The missing key in my understanding of his logic must probably be the advantage of variations, as a circumstance governing natural selection, but I don't actually see him say that. Maybe it's because I wasn't following it too clearly, but in any case, the presentation felt a bit awkward. Otherwise, however, Darwin is remarkably clear. No convoluted Victorian prose.
Oh, and another interesting quote: "After a thousand generations, species (A) is supposed to have produced two fairly well-marked varieties, namely a1 and m1. These two varieties will generally continue to be exposed to the same conditions which made their parents variable, and the tendency to variability is in itself hereditary, consequently they will tend to vary, and generally to vary in nearly the same manner as their parents varied." From the discussion on divergence of characters, referring to the famous diagram in Origin. Again, I'm wondering if it's actually true, on an individual level, that you can simply inherit the tendency to vary. Is the tendency a possible genetic trait? Would it be governed by, say, genes coding for DNA repair proteins? Or should we simply take this as an example of what Gould says is Darwin's slightly forced attempt to explain divergence while keeping selection entirely at the organismal level? It sucks that I don't have enough background in advanced genetics to really think about Darwin's claims from a genetic point of view.
Ah, and as you may have noticed, I've started the huge Stephen Jay Gould tome, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, feeling happily confused and bewildered by "all the big words" on the way. More and more am I finding myself bewailing the fact that Gould died last year, before I had the chance to attend one of his lectures or classes. (He's the Agassiz professor of something or another at Harvard. Or rather, I should say, he was.) He's obviously brilliant--he reads scientific works in their original languages, which implies he reads French and German fluently. But he's also possibly the coolest biologist because he uses words like Fingerspitzengefühl, which I've just learned means "feeling at the tip of one's finger". Must remember that for sheer luverliness.
Oh yes, according to Gould, there is a House of Representatives Committee on Committees. I swear, I'm learning all sorts of bizarre facts that have nothing to do with evolutionary theory. For example, the peculiar architecture of the Duomo, a Milanese cathedral that embodies an odd mix of medieval styles, is used as a metaphor for the development, and yes dare I say it, the evolution of theoretical structures. Ahahaha...what a bad pun.
It's also possibly the first time I've been mired in a 90-page introduction. (Still not finished with it either, if you're wondering.) I thought a 50-page introduction was as long as you can get, but apparently people are capable of 90-page prefatory chapters. Prefatory! Of course, the book is 1300+ pages long. (And my chances of actually finishing it soon are...one in a trillion.) Proportions-wise, the length of the introduction makes sense, but ugh, I feel overwhelmed. I've looked up six words already: "exegesis", "sequelae", "adumbrate", "in se", "anagenetically" (which isn't in the dictionary, but I think I have a vague idea of its meaning), and "spandrels" (which apparently is a type of architectural arch, but that makes no sense in the context where I found it). "Sequelae" is an especially cool word, but why the heck he can't simply say "exposition" or "explication" or "critical interpretation" instead of "exegesis" is beyond me.
So yes, if you know what "spandrels" means in evolutionary biology and if you have a precise definition for "anagenetically", I'd very much appreciate it. I probably should try dictionary.com, but I don't quite like online dictionaries. Anyone have a home copy of the OED?
...Tari
Post-script: Finally saw Pirates of the Caribbean yesterday evening, with my parents. It was such a fun movie, though quite shallow and frilly. Johnny Depp looks gorgeous in eye makeup, yes he does.
