Science Times

This week's Science Times is a gold mine. I sat at the bookstore yesterday and read it cover-to-cover. They had this huge theme, "Desire", which caught my interest, sure, but the article that was supposed to be a main feature was kind of a let-down in my opinion because a lot of the discussed "discoveries" were common sense, trivial, "duh" discoveries that everyone and her mom already knows. I know that that is part of science too- proving the obvious facts through the scientific method, but I hate it when researchers make a big deal when they discover that "oh my god, people tend to like their own personal space," or "sexual arousal is linked with emotional/inner states, not just physical for a high percentage of women." One result they found particularly interesting was that straight men are only attracted to women, whereas straight women, though they say they prefer men, are nonetheless attracted to other women. Well, yeah, that's because a typical woman's body, compared to a man's, is just damn sexier, more beautiful with its curves, not just an angular box like a man's; a typical woman's body is simply more aesthetically pleasing. We'll see how long it takes for that to become a hypothesis.

The other main feature, on the other hand, was definitely not a let-down. Some interesting points I found were:

-all fetuses are female by default! At least until a certain gene on the Y chromosome, if present, diverts the reproductive tissue from the ovarian-forming pathway (Picture a stick figure chromosome man dressed in a clown costume jumping up and down with his arms raised, shouting "hey, over here! Lookit me, lookit me! Follow me, and grow some balls!) into the pathway that makes the fetus man up.

-baby boys whose dicks are accidentally cut off due to a circumcision job gone south (maybe not south enough), who are raised as girls, are still attracted to girls

-based on a study of twins, they found genetics definitely plays a key role in determining sexual orientation, especially in males- not an amazing revelation in itself, but then one has to wonder how homosexuality, if it is genetic, survived in the genes since homosexual males tend to have 1/5 the number of kids as their straight counterparts.

The article discussed the possibility that either

1) it's a byproduct gene (just like how our penchant for believing in a higher being could simply be an evolutionary byproduct of another trait) that just came along for the ride, attached to some other actually beneficial gene. Picture now, Schwarzenegger going for a motorcycle ride with his son sitting next to him in a side-car. (They crashed, but they survived!) I just learned of this incident from my current annotating task.) , or

2) it's explained by the fraternal birth order effect, which says that males with older brothers have a higher chance of being gay. Something about more testosterone being in the womb for the next birth. Each older brother increases the odds by a whopping 33%! Suddenly, while reading about this theory, I couldn't help but marvel at my straight friend Joe from high school, who had 6 or 7 older brothers (and very old parents, I might add); Joe's a walking talking miracle. A bit of a mama's boy, yes. Oh and just so I don't get shot, by "miracle", I mean a statistical miracle.

-a lot of brain-related genes are on the X chromosome. Why? A possible explanation discussed in the article is:

1) Guys only have one X chromosome, so mutations on it have more of an effect, leading to fast selection.

2) Girls prefer smarter guys. (I guess this has been true since the beginning of man, is the assumption.)

Coupling facts 1 & 2 together, any advantageous brain-related mutation on the X chromosome is going to be snatched up quickly, resulting in a lot of brain-related genes on the X chromosome. I grappled with this for a while. For some reason- maybe because I haven't had bio since high school- I had a hard time understanding the connection, but I think it makes sense now. I was like, "Why do they keep saying 'fast selection'? What does that mean?"

Also, an article about the flight pattern of fruit flies, which sounds mundane at first, but they're like fractals! No matter how close or far you watch their flight pattern, it looks the same (fly straight, make a right angle turn, fly straight, make a right angle turn, rinse and repeat). And why would anyone care? Because next time you're searching for a needle in a haystack with some friends in the stix, you'll remember this article and suggest to your friends that maybe the best, most optimal way to search isn't by combing the fields in straight lines, but in a crazy zig-zag pattern! Take a leaf out of nature's book- a lot of times, it turns out to be a pretty good guide, you know?

Here is an interesting quote from an article I found while searching for the fruit flies one:

"NO longer content with dissecting tissues, analyzing proteins and breeding fruit flies, an increasingly diverse group of scientists has decided that the best way to study life is to make some of their own.

They are creating a field called artificial life, [this is where I stopped reading to check the date of the article- September 29, 1987] mixing the impulses of biology with the tools of computation. By looking beyond the usual materials of life - beyond the familiar biochemistry of earthly animals and plants - they hope to capture its spirit: the animated, the energetic, the replicating, the evolved."

Wow, imagine how crazy that must have sounded way back in the eighties.

And last, an article about the discovery of the oldest depiction of a fish. Guess what kind of fish it is- an Atlantic salmon. That's how accurate and detailed the 25,000-year-old depiction was; they could actually make-out the particular type of fish! Speaking of salmon, it's cool how such a simple thing as wearing the same jewelry as the rest of your tribe could have played a part in ensuring the evolution of you and me- modern modern man.