<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" media="screen" href="/~d/styles/rss2full.xsl"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~d/styles/itemcontent.css"?><rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:openSearch="http://a9.com/-/spec/opensearch/1.1/" xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" version="2.0"><channel><atom:id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773</atom:id><lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:09:47 +0000</lastBuildDate><title>Sandwalk</title><description>Strolling with a skeptical biochemist</description><link>http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/</link><managingEditor>noreply@blogger.com (Larry Moran)</managingEditor><generator>Blogger</generator><openSearch:totalResults>3221</openSearch:totalResults><openSearch:startIndex>1</openSearch:startIndex><openSearch:itemsPerPage>25</openSearch:itemsPerPage><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="self" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/Sandwalk" type="application/rss+xml" /><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com" /><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-4250008681663298319</guid><pubDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:44:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-21T13:45:10.652-05:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">Canada</category><title>One More Reason to Visit Canada</title><atom:summary> 
I stole this from Bayblab It shows why Canadians like global warming.

Canadian Tourism Federation Welcome Video from Canadian Tourism Federation on Vimeo.

</atom:summary><link>http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/11/on-more-reason-to-visit-canada.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Larry Moran)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">8</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-2337472969132818794</guid><pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:49:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-17T17:55:14.620-05:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">Biochemistry</category><title>Monday's Molecule #144: Winner?</title><atom:summary> The creature is the spirochete, Treponema pallidum. This bacteria causes syphilis. The Nobel Laureate is Julius Wagner-Jauregg who discovered a way to treat the lethal form of dementia that develops in the late stages of the disease.There were only three people who got the right answer. All of them were ineligible. There is no winner this week!  This is another one of those times when there's no</atom:summary><link>http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/11/mondays-molecule-144-winner.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Larry Moran)</author><media:thumbnail xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" url="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_DZH2cmCoois/SwHJ2gPjlGI/AAAAAAAAKWs/TkiaqnXQBpM/s72-c/Name_This_Molecule_%23144.jpg" height="72" width="72" /><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">2</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-1020026170551004135</guid><pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:03:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-17T13:36:55.573-05:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">Rationalism v Superstition</category><title>Should Intelligent Design Creationism Be Taught in Schools?</title><atom:summary> PZ Myers and someone named Jerry Bergman debated the question; "Should Intelligent Design be Taught in The Schools?." Bergman said "yes" and PZ said "no."You can read summaries of the debate on Greg Laden's Blog [Bergman vs. Myers Debate: Should Intelligent Design be Taught in The Schools?] and on Kittywhumpus [I thought it went really well, until he brought up Hitler]. PZ has posted a summary </atom:summary><link>http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/11/should-intelligent-design-creationism.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Larry Moran)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">46</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-2898954095937178176</guid><pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:21:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-17T12:46:40.305-05:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">Evolutionary Biology</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">Genome</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">Rationalism v Superstition</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">Genes</category><title>Genetic Load, Neutral Theory, and Junk DNA</title><atom:summary> The average human newborn has about 130 new mutations that were not found in either parent [Mutation Rates]. These mutations accumulate as a natural result of errors in DNA replication between the time that the zygote is first formed and the time that the sperm and egg cells are produced for the next generation. A species cannot afford to accumulate deleterious mutations in the genomes of its </atom:summary><link>http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/11/genetic-load-neutral-theory-and-junk.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Larry Moran)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">6</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-2427592700894374301</guid><pubDate>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 23:41:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-17T10:24:38.516-05:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">Rationalism v Superstition</category><title>Genetic Load</title><atom:summary> If the average rate of deleterious mutations is about 1 per individual per generation then the species can't survive. It means that most offspring will carry a mutation. This is an intolerable genetic load for a species.In fact it's worse than that. Simple calculations suggest than even a rate of 0.1 deleterious mutations per individual will spell doom for the species. This is a well-known </atom:summary><link>http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/11/genetic-load.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Larry Moran)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">16</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-9073444470356893453</guid><pubDate>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:51:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-17T17:48:52.007-05:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">Biochemistry</category><title>Monday's Molecule #144</title><atom:summary> This is another one of those times when there's no "molecule" that provides a clue to a Nobel Laureate.  Your task is to identify this creature and the reason why it's important. There are three Nobel Laureates who might be associated with the creature but two of them have already been covered. The last name of the this week's Nobel Laureate does not begin with the letters "E" or "D". Who is it?</atom:summary><link>http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/11/mondays-molecule-144.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Larry Moran)</author><media:thumbnail xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" url="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_DZH2cmCoois/SwHJ2gPjlGI/AAAAAAAAKWs/TkiaqnXQBpM/s72-c/Name_This_Molecule_%23144.jpg" height="72" width="72" /><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-7508293747075133952</guid><pubDate>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:06:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-16T13:20:04.739-05:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">Evolutionary Biology</category><title>The Hat Gene</title><atom:summary> Humans have always had a urge to cover their heads with various forms of headgear. There must be a hat gene in our genomes and it probably evolved in the human lineage after it split from chimpanzees. Chimps don't wear hats.If you believe this then you've probably fallen for the idea that FOXP2 is a gene for language and that there's a gene for God/religion. See The hunt for the Hat Gene for a </atom:summary><link>http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/11/hat-gene.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Larry Moran)</author><media:thumbnail xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" url="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_DZH2cmCoois/SwGXE-rNOgI/AAAAAAAAKWk/UBffFNmn1qY/s72-c/Prince_Charles_in_headdress.jpg" height="72" width="72" /><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">3</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-4553617825394350025</guid><pubDate>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:40:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-16T10:43:32.131-05:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">Rationalism v Superstition</category><title>Bill Maher on Vaccination</title><atom:summary> Bill Maher has attempted to clarify his position on vaccination [Vaccination: A Conversation Worth Having]. His blog is a lot like his TV show. It's a confusing, rambling, attempt at justifying an indefensible position using (attempted) humor, sarcasm and anecdote as a substitute for rationalism.The question is whether vaccinations are good or bad. It's a strictly scientific question with a </atom:summary><link>http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/11/bill-maher-on-vaccination.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Larry Moran)</author><media:thumbnail xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" url="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_DZH2cmCoois/SwFxx8lFTcI/AAAAAAAAKWc/TmyJ05QhkMc/s72-c/tmp.jpg" height="72" width="72" /><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">9</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5173671546508929856</guid><pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:24:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-13T21:52:33.174-05:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">My World</category><title>timmyme</title><atom:summary> Ms Sandwalk just got an iPhone. She's thrilled by all the things it can do and I'm happy for her. However, most of the things an iPhone does are not important to me. I already have a camera and I'm not interested in iTunes. My Samsung flip phone works just fine, thank-you very much.Up until last week, getting an iPhone was the last thing on my mind. It was a waste of money as far as I was </atom:summary><link>http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/11/timmy-me.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Larry Moran)</author><media:thumbnail xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" url="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_DZH2cmCoois/Sv2W-VxX0gI/AAAAAAAAKWU/YcrewDAV1IA/s72-c/tmp.jpg" height="72" width="72" /><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">9</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-3679763703789626840</guid><pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:34:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-13T09:44:29.099-05:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">Evolutionary Biology</category><title>Where do we come from? Where are we going?</title><atom:summary> This is the runner-up in Discover magazine's "Evolution in Two Minutes" contest. It was selected by PZ Myers [The Winner: Evolution in Two Minutes]. I seem to be one of the few people who think this is a horrible way to teach the public about evolution. I guess that's why I'm a curmudgeon. I think we can do much better. I think we should do better.</atom:summary><link>http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/11/where-do-we-come-from-where-are-we.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Larry Moran)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">5</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-3990936559772177823</guid><pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:05:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-13T09:28:50.066-05:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">Evolutionary Biology</category><title>The Theory of Evolution</title><atom:summary> Here's one of the submissions to Discovery Magazine's "Evolution in Two Minutes" contest. It's the one chosen by viewers [The Winner: Evolution in Two Minutes].I wish we could stop talking about "The" theory of evolution. There's really no such thing and the term conjurs up thoughts of evolution being only a theory. A better term is evolutionary theory.1 A short description of modern </atom:summary><link>http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/11/theory-of-evolution.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Larry Moran)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">7</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-8588611574099188776</guid><pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 00:01:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-12T19:09:31.766-05:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">Rationalism v Superstition</category><title>Three Options</title><atom:summary> Here's a multiple choice question from Barry Arrington on Uncommon Descent [Is a Modern Myth of the Metals the Answer?].He's concerned about the "fact" that "Darwinism" leads to immorality.There are three and only three options. 1.  We can continue to fill our children’s heads with standard Darwinian theory (which Dennett rightly calls “universal acid”), understanding that at least some of them </atom:summary><link>http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/11/three-options.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Larry Moran)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">9</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5104564764234226725</guid><pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 19:40:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-11T15:24:28.077-05:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">Nobel Prize</category><title>Nobel Laureate: Johannes Fibiger</title><atom:summary> The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine  1926"for his discovery of the Spiroptera carcinoma"Johannes Andreas Grib Fibiger (1867 - 1928) won the Nobel Prize for "proving" that gastric tumors could be caused by a nematode, Spiroptera carcinoma (now called Gongylonema neoplasticum). Unfortunately, later work showed that the nematode was not the cause of cancer, although it may contribute to a </atom:summary><link>http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/11/nobel-laureate-johannes-fibiger.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Larry Moran)</author><media:thumbnail xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" url="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_DZH2cmCoois/RsyJ0a7GSSI/AAAAAAAAC24/ENP1Y8spa-o/s72-c/Nobel_medal_medicine2.jpg" height="72" width="72" /><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">1</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5006656459440644794</guid><pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:57:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-12T10:22:31.750-05:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">Evolutionary Biology</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">Rationalism v Superstition</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">History</category><title>Was Charles Darwin an Agnostic Atheist?</title><atom:summary> Let me say, right at the start, that I really don't care whether Charles Darwin was a deist, an agnostic, an atheist, or something else entirely. He died on April 19, 1882. That was a very long time ago. And the truth of evolution does not depend on what Darwin may or may not have believed about God. Still, it's of some historical interest to learn what Darwin thought of religion. My own opinion</atom:summary><link>http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/11/was-charles-darwin-agnostic-athiest.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Larry Moran)</author><media:thumbnail xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" url="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_DZH2cmCoois/SvrxDh22cuI/AAAAAAAAKV8/vzA6VK_wTRk/s72-c/tmp.jpg" height="72" width="72" /><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">11</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-1082599247299882871</guid><pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:31:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-11T11:42:59.012-05:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">War</category><title>November 11, 2009</title><atom:summary> Today is Remembrance Day in Canada. It's a day to remember that war is evil and horrible. It's a day to remember that war represents the ultimate failure of a civilization.War is not glorious. People who kill other people are not heroes. The people they kill are not heroes. We are shamed when we turn average citizens into murderers. We lament their deaths because it means we have failed in our </atom:summary><link>http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/11/november-11-2009.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Larry Moran)</author><media:thumbnail xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" url="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_DZH2cmCoois/SvrM4xKheWI/AAAAAAAAKVs/YbGejMyeSJw/s72-c/tmp.jpg" height="72" width="72" /><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">11</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-85321289665253595</guid><pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:06:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-10T19:17:45.293-05:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">Rationalism v Superstition</category><title>The Positive Argument for Intelligent Design Creationism</title><atom:summary> I've often been critical of the arguments made by IDiots Intelligent Design Creationists. They consist mostly of claims that evolution can't happen. It's only fair that I point you to a rebuttal of this point of view by none other than Casey Luskin [Misrepresenting the Definition of Intelligent Design].Scott Minnich and Stephen Meyer also explain the positive argument for design:Molecular </atom:summary><link>http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/11/positive-argument-for-intelligent.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Larry Moran)</author><media:thumbnail xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" url="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_DZH2cmCoois/SvoCP1znpcI/AAAAAAAAKVk/PDrY4QFYr7g/s72-c/Welcome_to_the_Land_of_IDiots.jpg" height="72" width="72" /><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">20</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5211313157564808633</guid><pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:44:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-10T17:02:51.706-05:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">Biochemistry</category><title>Monday's Molecule #143: Winner</title><atom:summary> The creature is a nematode, specifically a Soybean cyst nematode. The relevant Nobel Prize was to Johannes Fibiger who got for it "discovering" that the nematode Spiroptera carcinoma causes cancer. This species is now called Gongylonema neoplasticum and it doesn't cause cancer. Oops! The first person to get it right was Linda Zhang, a former student at the University of Toronto who will soon be </atom:summary><link>http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/11/mondays-molecule-143-winner.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Larry Moran)</author><media:thumbnail xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" url="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_DZH2cmCoois/Svni31frmpI/AAAAAAAAKVc/gQjnVV8c9VQ/s72-c/Canada_flag.bmp" height="72" width="72" /><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">1</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-6466265846766873558</guid><pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:56:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-10T13:19:02.172-05:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">Evolutionary Biology</category><title>PZ Myers Gets It Wrong</title><atom:summary> Discover magazine sponsored a contest where you had to produce a two minute video explaining evolution. The judge was PZ Myers. Here's how PZ explains his choice [see   The Winner: Evolution in Two Minutes].Oh dear. Repeat after me, PZ, evolution is not natural selection! This is, indeed, the 21st century, and not the Victorian England of Charles Darwin. We now know that evolution is any change </atom:summary><link>http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/11/pz-myers-gets-it-wrong.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Larry Moran)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">25</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-985630471995775180</guid><pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:57:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-10T12:35:35.075-05:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">Science Journalism</category><title>2009 AAAS Kavli Science Journalism Awards</title><atom:summary> The American Association for the Advancement of Science has just announced the Kavli Science Journalism Awards for 2009. It's a very interesting group of winners. Among them is Carl Zimmer, who won in the category "Large Newspaper—Circulation of 100,000 or more." Awards are nice, but the problem with science journalism awards is that they are decided by a panel of science journalists. What this </atom:summary><link>http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/11/2009-aaas-kavli-science-journalism.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Larry Moran)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-949614035179373202</guid><pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:10:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-10T11:00:45.239-05:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">Blogs</category><title>Boycott Science.org</title><atom:summary> We all get spam in our mail box and usually there's nothing you can do about it. This time there is. I got this message today.Subject: Award Acknowledgment for sharing great PHYSICS information to the publicDear Blog Owner,Our website Science.org is a informational databases and online news publication for anything and everything related to science and technology. We recently ran a poll asking </atom:summary><link>http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/11/boycott-scienceorg.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Larry Moran)</author><media:thumbnail xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" url="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_DZH2cmCoois/SvmN0eu2rLI/AAAAAAAAKVU/r35mhEB03K4/s72-c/duncecap_lies.gif" height="72" width="72" /><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">12</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-6903960326627778550</guid><pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:18:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-11T14:16:39.417-05:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">Canada</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">History</category><title>The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald</title><atom:summary> Twenty-nine men died on November 10, 1975 when the S.S. Edmund Fitgerald sank in a storm on Lake Superior.</atom:summary><link>http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/11/wreck-of-edmund-fitzgerald.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Larry Moran)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">2</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-2991403525786240986</guid><pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:34:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-09T12:47:10.170-05:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">Science Journalism</category><title>Amazon's Top Ten Science Books for 2009</title><atom:summary> Check out the Best of 2009 for two lists of the top ten science books. One list was chosen by "editors" and the other list was chosen by "readers."There are some interesting differences ... and it's not what you expect. [Hat Tip: Jason Rosenhouse whose book The Monty Hall Problem: The Remarkable Story of Math's Most Contentious Brainteaser made one of the lists.</atom:summary><link>http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/11/amazons-top-ten-science-books-for-2009.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Larry Moran)</author><media:thumbnail xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" url="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_DZH2cmCoois/SvhVYh0yDjI/AAAAAAAAKVM/RNkj-o-muyU/s72-c/tmp.bmp" height="72" width="72" /><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">4</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-8814497830203285665</guid><pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:21:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-10T16:47:23.256-05:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">Biochemistry</category><title>Monday's Molecule #143</title><atom:summary> Sometimes it's almost impossible to find an image of a specific molecule that honors a Nobel Laureate. This is another one of those times.This spectacular photograph shows a particular kind of creature and its egg. You need to identify the phylum to which this species belongs and then use that as a clue to come up with an appropriate Nobel Laureate. Your answer should include the particular </atom:summary><link>http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/11/mondays-molecule-143.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Larry Moran)</author><media:thumbnail xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" url="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_DZH2cmCoois/SvgmIMhTdbI/AAAAAAAAKVE/1C3dmp3rhoM/s72-c/Name_This_Molecule_%23143.jpg" height="72" width="72" /></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-674037932883957140</guid><pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:46:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-06T11:16:12.080-05:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">My World</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">Evolutionary Biology</category><title>Ginkgo biloba</title><atom:summary> Ginko biloba is the only living species in the division (phylum?) Ginkgophyta. It is a species of deciduous tree that's only distantly related to to the other trees that we see around us. Some taxonomists classify it as a gymnosperm but that's not a universally recognized classification. It's certainly not an angiosperm (flowering plant). Ginkgo is often called a "living fossil" because it </atom:summary><link>http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/11/ginkgo-biloba.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Larry Moran)</author><media:thumbnail xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" url="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_DZH2cmCoois/SvRJq0AaHQI/AAAAAAAAKU0/_say1VPocFE/s72-c/Chicago_2009+011.jpg" height="72" width="72" /><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">11</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5051721345046810304</guid><pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:25:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-05T15:35:23.693-05:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">Canada</category><title>Charles and Camilla Are in Town</title><atom:summary> Charles and Camilla are visiting Toronto but you wouldn't know it if you didn't read the papers. Unless, of course, you just happen to be caught up in one of the mini traffic jams that are associated with such visits. I witnessed one last night as several motorcycles and police cars with red and blue lights flashing, and sirens wailing, raced up University Avenue and around Queen's Park. They </atom:summary><link>http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/11/charles-and-camilla-are-in-town.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Larry Moran)</author><media:thumbnail xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" url="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_DZH2cmCoois/SvMkmtVHH1I/AAAAAAAAKUk/LZEOniYWXJw/s72-c/tmp.jpg" height="72" width="72" /><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">5</thr:total></item></channel></rss>
