Friday, September 24, 2010
كاستر سيمينيا”… أو نكتة الجندر”
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Now hollywood stars will run to adopt /buy Haiti children
The latest child
Monday, January 12, 2009
On the genuinity of hostorical book
- Read this article: Judging a book by its genomes
- Wait for like 1 or 2 years
- Ana I bet that within two years they will notice the number of books that they are using as witnesses will turn out to be wrongfully dated, what do you think?
Yes of course I know that they had already dated the scripts that they will use on C isotopes and they never rely on the dates and facts provided by authors... But think about it, wouldn't it be cool :D.
Me Loves Scientific American
Friday, September 28, 2007
Dentist in Islamic headscarf row
I don’t know why I keep checking the BBC news, at times it just doesn’t seem to make sense at all. Now I expected some other bloggers to mention this but no one did and I just had to say a few things. This woman decides to go to this clinic cause it’s closer to home, right? That’s natural, we all do that anyway. Then she is informed that she must be a Muslim to receive treatment in this clinic AND that she needs to put a scarf too… What does she do? Instead of calling the police and informing them of this unethical and illegal act, she just goes there never the less and just wears some decent cloth. I don’t know if I were her I would inform authorities about it don’t you think? You see this reminds me of the time when I used to go to church every week, some priests, including ours, insisted that women should wear decent cloths and refused to give the girls undecently dressed the Eucharist… Remember that the only thing that denies you the grace of receiving the Eucharist is sin. So in other words not being dressed according to the codes decided by the priest is passable for sin, however, no priest is given the right to deny anyone the Eucharist, cause the priest might be god’s representative on earth but he is not god. The same goes for this doctor, he is not allowed to deny anyone medical treatment… right?
But let’s not insist on that point. So the woman goes there, without the veil, enters the clinic, then meets the dentist who gives her a lecture about Islam and the relationship between the man and the woman (typical religiously concealed sexism, I bet he even told her about how men can’t control themselves in the presence of promiscuous women!). Then, surprisingly, the woman accepts! Like Holly Fuck!! WHY?! I Why the hell does she take this shit from anyone?!
Wait wait, that’s not all, the dentist then demands her to go to the waiting room, wearing the scarf, and wait for a while before entering for the surgery! Like maybe he is giving her time to purify herself? But this time the woman finally revolts and refuses to go on and just leaves, without the scarf!
When the woman pressed charges the dentist certainly denied everything.
Being a woman that actually lives in an environment and encourages and glorifies such pudic acts, I have to say this, something doesn’t feel right in this story. In any normal situation the woman could have refused to go all together. The fact that she did go and she did accept to wear the scarf… But not in the waiting room! With all due respect I find this to be repulsively hypocritical! It’s her legitimate right to get the treatment she needs and no ultra religious sexist with power issues has the right to impose arbitrary rules on her, if she accepted then she must have some other motives behind her act! Now of course I support the fact that she would press charges against the idiot as late as it was, the guy should have his license canceled or something. He should be castrated then he won’t have any filthy desires towards women regardless of their dressing, now why doesn’t he do that?
But there is one last thing that intrigues me… When the woman went to the police, before making this whole subject public, why didn’t any female officer call the guy and try to arrange an appointment, just to check if the guy does refuse to treat some women?
Thursday, August 09, 2007
So did they, or did they NOT interbreed?
A lot has been said though little is known. But our human curiosity obliges us to try and reach conclusions. When I posted almost a month ago that notorious piece: "Skulls Add to "Out of Africa" Theory of Human Origins", inspired by an article in the Scientific American bearing the same title (actually I stole the title from them, BITE ME!), I concluded, basing on the decrease of variability of skull morphology (as the author of the article did before me ), that interbreeding just didn't happen. Now I did mention in my piece that, in theory, interbreeding could have happened without leading to any offspring, without leading to any viable offspring, or without leading to any fertile offspring. To be perfectly clear, I am 100% sure that Homo sapiens individuals and Homo neanderthalensis ones had sex, that's certain, but the fact that coming out of Africa Homo sapiens populations kept losing diversity means that the Homo neanderthalensis genome did not enrich ours, or at least it did not enrich ours in the sections monitoring and dictating the structure of skull bones, with that being said I stand corrected. I had failed in my previous analysis to anticipate the fact that the study focused primarily on skull remains. It is possible that Neanderthal genetic material would have integrated ours but didn't do so in the section concerning skull structure (or, as it has become obvious for you, those that did inherit of DNA chunks from Neanderthals coding for the skull were not viable/not fertile).
However, a few days after I posted that article another one was published in the Nat Geo online edition this time titled: "Odd Skull Boosts Human, Neandertal Interbreeding Theory", written by Brian Handwerk. The author of the study, reported by Mr Brian, talks about a certain skull with a groove in the bottom of the back of the skull, look at this picture (taken from the same Nat Geo page):

Do you see the horizontal groove at the bottom of the head? This is not a normal groove, this is not a structure that serves a function. Let me explain this a little, Bones are a living tissue, its metabolism is pretty slow but it's alive! It contains cells and the hard substance is constantly melted down and built up again. The role of bones is to protect soft tissues and to support the muscle thus enabling the body to actually move. We usually attribute movement to the dynamic of muscles and not the static bones. But in fact bones and muscles are both essential to produce movement. Complimentary in role they are also complementary in structure. The larger the muscles are, the thicker the bones will be, because stronger, more powerful muscles require stronger more resistant bones, that's how Anthropologists and Paleoanthropologists rebuild the whole body of a Neanderthal from some bone remains (no they don't just guess and let their artistic talent prevail!). Look at this picture for example it's a picture of an Australopithecus:
Source: Dkimages
And compare it to this one:
Source: Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
Compare most of all the zygomatic bone (cheek bone). See how MASSIVE it was in the Australopithecus skull? This could be somehow facilitated or coded by the DNA but basically, it is a feature gained over the lifetime of the individual, as his diet (mainly roots and rough vegetal material) demands a powerful bite his muscles and concomitantly his bones (both the jaw and the zygomatic ones) grow, our diet (mainly cooked and soft food) doesn't require that much pressure, there fore the bones are smaller and the aspect is softer.
Now back to our groove, that groove is NOT like that, it is innate, Neanderthals have it, it does serve them a certain role, but it is not correlated to muscular activity. But this skull is not a Neanderthal's skull, it is in fact a Homo sapiens skull! But it has a Homo neanderthalensis' groove... And this is not the only metis ever found. There is a significant number of metis remains found throughout Europe in that period (20 000 - 40 000 years ago).
As I said before, these variations might not be innate but their presence can have an effect on the life of the individual bearing it, thus allowing the work of natural selection. The change of climate and the more effective life-style of modern man helped him, with his anatomical variations to dominate and out-compete Neanderthals.
For example, and to help illustrate that concept, consider the joint structure. Neanderthals had more massive bones in general, there fore their joints were less flexible. On the shoulder level, this means that Neanderthals (or Neanderthal/sapiens hybrids that had thick bones) were less agile and efficient in throwing spears for example, there fore less efficient in hunting from a distance (targeting much larger preys and allowing a better income). So maybe Neanderthals' bone structures were just not fit enough, and it is in the end the law of the survival of the fittest. Source: James Owen's Nat Geo article: Neandertals, Modern Humans Interbred, Bone Study Suggests
A little criticism to this theory:
- It could be an accidental aberration, or variation:
According to Eric Delson, this feature could have simply occurred naturally and not necessarily inherited from some Neanderthal parent. In fact, he believes it could be found in modern populations, who knows? This would need to be proven. This is also the same argument used by skeptics when the Homo florensiensis remains were found for the first time in that Indonesian Island of Flores. Skeptics back then said it could be a case of Microcephaly. However that argument didn't stand back then and it's unlikely to justify all the Neanderthal-like variations. You see, and as I always say, fossil remains are very very very rare to occur, very few individuals are fossilized. So an already very rare variant of skulls is unlikely to be fossilized (this is a simple statistical concept). Now of course, you could say: "well a 1/10000000000000 chance is still a possibility, who knows? Maybe this individual had that super rare morphological feature and that the super rare chance of getting fossilized, who knows?"
That is true, but that doesn't explain the recurrence of a number of these Neanderthal-like aberrations, compare the number of remains with to the number of remains without them, how often did these aberrations occur? It is obviously higher... Why?
- Earlier DNA studies revealed a rather early split between Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens occurred as early as 400 000 years ago:
The study (done by James Noonan) even focused on Nuclear DNA (DNA contained inside the nucleus of the cell) and previous studies (source: Hillary Mayell's Nat Geo article: Neandertals Not Our Ancestors, DNA Study Suggests) focused on mitochondrial DNA and found similar resutls. Neanderthals don't seem to have contributed our DNA! It just doesn't seem to have happened.
So individually speaking, Neanderthals and modern humans seemed to be interbreeding but, on the long run they didn't contribute to the construction of our DNA... I vote for viable non-fertile individuals, what do you think?
P.S.: no don't get impressed with the large number of links, I just opened the links that were available in the initial page.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
The difference between the Occident and the Orient:
We’ve heard it all too many times, under all too many angles and from all too many perspectives. And since I am just an average main-stream, biased, westernized, uncivilized Middle-Eastern I must add my contribution.
The occident has often adopted one out of two attitudes toward the Middle East:
- The colonial attitude:
Easy to spot, circle and define. It consists on dominating and despising the Middle East, yes those adopt this attitude do admit the existence of intellectual and civilized Middle Eastern people, but they regard them as an exception, they often advise them to leave. This attitude results from a sense of western superiority over the Middle East. The USA is the most flagrant example of this attitude, but not all Americans adopt this attitude and not all non-American are exempt from it.
- The Maternal attitude:
Now this attitude is far more complex it’s usually a long term result of the first, once the occupation is removed the people of both the occupant and the occupied country tend to establish bonds, due to the cultural improvements/mutilations done to the original country of the occupied country. For example, in Lebanon, many regard France as the “mother” of many orphaned Lebanese. It was first the Maronite Christians who adopted such an attitude due to the hostility of their Muslim environment and the absence of any natural ally. In general, Europeans tend to have this attitude toward the Middle East, they regard Arabs and Middle Eastern nations as retarded nations that require support not military intervention.
However, people in the Middle East don’t see it that way. In order for our culture to resist globalization and Westernization, they adopt defensive mechanisms, usually they hold on to the old “they have everything but we have morals” attitude, yes we usually regard you Western people as immoral, stupid and going to hell. Many Middle Eastern people see the Middle East as roughly equal to the West but with some social and financial difficulties.
Now all my life I was raised under these influences, being born in this Middle East I was taught to take pride in our “morals”, something that the west lacks. As a Lebanese I was taught at the same time to be very attached to our unique position, to our unique role as pioneers in the Middle East. As a Christian Lebanese I was taught to be very fund of our connection to the West, for many Maronites we are not even Arabs. So you could say I stand with neither sides. But what has always amazed me about this Orient/Occident is the distinction but not the difference. Ok I am not sure how clear what I have just said may sound so let me explain.
Take the notorious Abou Ghreib scandal. When this scandal first broke out many Americans felt outraged, insulted infuriated! The press hammered President Bush for this scandal, they attacked him ferociously. It was unacceptable.
ON the other hand, many Arabs also felt outraged, insulted infuriated! The press hammered President Bush for this scandal, they attacked him ferociously. It was unacceptable.
But the two camps didn’t do so for the same purpose, the Americans did so as an act of moral protestation, an act of responsibility (the political forces and balances are certainly not to be neglected). The Arabs’ motive was to attack the Americans, sort of a defensive act to avenge the Arab impotence facing the American occupation of Arab lands.
In my own environment, it was neither reactions, when average Lebanese heard this news s/he was amused by the vulnerability of both the Arabs and the Americans demonstrated by the film. Americans were hit where it hurt most: Their idealization of their mission in Iraq, not only things didn’t go according to their own plan but their own units were sodomizing the Iraqis they were here to salvage. We were amused most of all by what seemed like the shallowness of both the Americans and the Arabs… What were they expecting? It’s war! Lebanon went through a very difficult civil war that had left us very accommodated to such atrocities. We actually laughed at Americans for being so surprised, like DUHHH! Everyone knows that these things happen during “interrogations”.
I just read the following article: White House denies prior knowledge of Abu Ghraib abuse. No of course the interesting part is not that the White House denied prior knowledge, but rather the details:
T he ex-general, who retired in January, spoke of other, undisclosed material on the Abu Ghraib abuse, including descriptions of the sexual humiliation of a father with his son, who were both detainees.
He also told the magazine he saw "a video of a male American soldier in uniform sodomising a female detainee," adding the video was never made public or mentioned in any court or in public.
Maj Gen Taguba says all high-level officials had avoided scrutiny while the jail keepers at Abu Ghraib were tried in courts-martial.
"From what I knew, troops just don't take it upon themselves to initiate what they did without any form of knowledge of the higher-ups," Maj Gen Taguba told the New Yorker, adding his orders were to investigate the military police only and not their superiors.
"These (military police) troops were not that creative," he said. "Somebody was giving them guidance, but I was legally prevented from further investigation into higher authority.”
And I find myself asking: Does it even need to be mentioned? Of course they knew!
But then again, what does this attitude indicate? If not the fact that Americans just want what’s better than this. We as Arabs know what’s going on, we know that this is what is going to happen for as long as their will be power in the hands of some and a need to oppress the others there’s going to be torture and humiliation. Or is it just that we have given up on ourselves and, unlike Occidentals, we don’t work to improve our environment, we are too busy destroying each other…
Easy to spot, circle and define. It consists on dominating and despising the Middle East, yes those adopt this attitude do admit the existence of intellectual and civilized Middle Eastern people, but they regard them as an exception, they often advise them to leave. This attitude results from a sense of western superiority over the Middle East. The USA is the most flagrant example of this attitude, but not all Americans adopt this attitude and not all non-American are exempt from it.
Now this attitude is far more complex it’s usually a long term result of the first, once the occupation is removed the people of both the occupant and the occupied country tend to establish bonds, due to the cultural improvements/mutilations done to the original country of the occupied country. For example, in Lebanon, many regard France as the “mother” of many orphaned Lebanese. It was first the Maronite Christians who adopted such an attitude due to the hostility of their Muslim environment and the absence of any natural ally. In general, Europeans tend to have this attitude toward the Middle East, they regard Arabs and Middle Eastern nations as retarded nations that require support not military intervention.
He also told the magazine he saw "a video of a male American soldier in uniform sodomising a female detainee," adding the video was never made public or mentioned in any court or in public.
Maj Gen Taguba says all high-level officials had avoided scrutiny while the jail keepers at Abu Ghraib were tried in courts-martial.
"From what I knew, troops just don't take it upon themselves to initiate what they did without any form of knowledge of the higher-ups," Maj Gen Taguba told the New Yorker, adding his orders were to investigate the military police only and not their superiors.
"These (military police) troops were not that creative," he said. "Somebody was giving them guidance, but I was legally prevented from further investigation into higher authority.”