Friday, May 22, 2009

Nature vs Homo sapiens

We Homo sapiens seem to believe we are omniscient or at least have that capability (see my posting from 2/02/2009 entitled Science and Egotism). Here, I present 2 newly published papers which support a different perspective. One that sees Homo sapiens as fallible and incapable of comprehending even our natural environment here on earth, not to mention the wonders and vastness of our universe.

Just saw this one referenced at the publisher's website, Mary Liebert Inc

Journal of Medicinal Food

Hepatoprotective Effects of an Anthocyanin Fraction from Purple-Fleshed Sweet Potato Against Acetaminophen-Induced Liver Damage in Mice[1]

And here from, along the same vein as the above;

Journal of Free Radical Biology & Medicine

Assessment of wound-site redox environment and the significance of Rac2 in cutaneous healing[2]

[2] Ojha, Navdeep, Sashwati Roy, Guanglong He, Sabyasachi Biswas, and Murugesan Velayutham.''Assessment of wound-site redox environment and the significance of Rac2 in cutaneous healing.''Free Radical Biology and Medicine44 (2008): 682-691.

Monday, May 18, 2009

A Humbling Perspective?

Just another quick posting. I do think we need to have "our" perspective in life pointed out to us from time to time. Wired Science posted some great pictures to help keep things in perspective. This French astrophotographer captured the only know images of the space shuttle and the Hubble telescope as they crossed the sun (took all of .8 seconds). Don't forget, the space shuttle is only a few hundred miles from earth while the sun is a few million (around 93 million, if I recall correctly). Things closer to you look MUCH BIGGER than those farther away. He points out - "Length of Atlantis : 35m" this is just under 115 feet, speed of Atlantis was "7 km/s (25000 km/h)" that's around 4.3 mi/s or 15,534 mi/h, and "length of Hubble : 13m" which is just over 42.5 feet;


Picture credits: French astrophotographer Thierry Legault; Web site:; Taken: May 12 & 13, 2009; Accessed: May 18, 2009 8:55 AM CDT

Sunday, May 3, 2009


Very interesting post published 17th April 2009 on The Scientist Magazine's blog touches on the application of issues I've raised in my previous posts here. Some of those who have left comments on that article have suggest that the biocentrism concept is "egocentric".

However if one analyzes what their comments are saying, their egotism quickly emerges. That same 'brand of egotism' I wrote about in my Science and Egotism post back in February. In a nutshell, they say, if WE can not make sense of something, it can not be true. Some even take this to a further extreme; 'If science can not test it, it can not be so.' This argument is often seen in the wording; "You can not prove it, so you can not say that!" This argument only means that what is being said, is outside the realm of science. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines the scientific method this way;

"principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses" (accessed 05/03/2009)

Inherent within this definition is the limitation that what is to be tested must be falsifiable. This clearly identifies limits as to what is, and is not, within the realm of science.

I encourage you to read the post and judge for yourself. I, for one, am willing to admit that human intelligence and understanding, as well, has it's limits (inherent within our anatomy) that prevents us from a complete "understanding of everything."

How biology is central to constructing a more complete and unified theory of the Universe.

Translate My Page Here