Book Review: Supernatural Selection

So far, it’s been about three months since Sci’s dissertation. During that time, she has:
- defended her dissertation
- moved to New Huge City
- started a post-doc(!)
- been sending out paper to beef up her little CV
- been learning large numbers of new, difficult, cool techniques
- been awesome
- completely failed to take a vacation.
Sci has ALSO, during this time, accrued yet another tidy little pile of books for review. In fact, there was a tidy little pile waiting on the doorstep of her new apartment ON THE DAY SHE MOVED IN. Sci was simultaneously excited (presents!) and dismayed (AUGH MORE SCIENCE TO READ) by the gifts. And so it has taken her a little bit of time to get started. I did get through “your brain on food“, but other than that it’s been slow going. And Sci admits that she paused a bit for some fiction on the way (delicious, delicious fantasy fiction. OM NOM NOM), and may pause for a bit more before she keeps going.
Anyway, the latest one the arrive in the mail was Supernatural Selection, by Matt J Rossano. And though it took me a while, due to various factors, Sci’s through it. And here is her review.
Supernatural Selection, by Matt J. Rossano

Friday Weird Science: Duck, duck, penis.

Sci is going to so some selfish Friday Weird Science today. Selfish, because this article isn’t new, and was reported on by one of the GREATS. This guy. He (of course) did a completely brilliant job, and when he talked about it at SciOnline this past weekend, Sci was compelled to go and see the material for herself. And it’s something to SEE. And so see it you shall.
The reason this is selfish is because Sci knows it’s been reported on before. She wants to do it her ownself, as an excuse to read and understand the paper. And an excuse to giggle about it while she blogs it. There’s that, too.
Images below the cut NSFW, especially if you work with ducks.
Brennan, Clark, and Prum. “Explosive eversion and functional morphology of the duck penis supports sexual conflict in waterfowl genitalia” Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 2009.

Book Review: The Tangled Bank

A few months ago, Sci had a secret shame. A secret, secret shame. For Sci is a science blogger, and blogs on Scienceblogs and…
…didn’t know ANYTHING about evolution.
Ok, perhaps that wasn’t exactly true. But Sci’s a physiologist, not an evolutionary biologist. I studied neuroanatomy, not HOW that neuroanatomy evolved. In my day to day life, I could care less how it GOT that way, what I’m concerned with is what goes wrong with it, and how I can go about fixing the problems to improve the lives of people. Let’s just say they don’t force us grad students to take classes in evolution, and while the basic ideas were covered in Bio 101, I hadn’t had much exposure to them since. It’s not that I don’t WANT to know about evolution. But if you’re going to give me a choice between, say, a book by Stephen Jay Gould and a book by Oliver Sacks, well…
And Sci’s always been a little ashamed of herself over this. I mean, I’m a SCIENTIST! Evolution is one of those things I’m…supposed to know about. For cocktail parties (cause, y’know, grad students go to a LOT of cocktail parties). Like stem cells and vaccines, there are things that people who aren’t scientists just kind of expect scientists to be versed in, or at least to have a relatively well-founded opinion on. Sci hates to disappoint.
And so, when, in the deep, dark night of a relatively early Wednesday morning before her first cup of coffee, Sci expressed her shame to Laelaps, Brian immediately had a solution. “Carl Zimmer just wrote a book on it!” quoth Brian, “you should ask to review a copy!”
Hmmm…learning about evolution (check). Learning about it from a blogger I totally respect (check! His tattoo gallery is wicked!). Free book (BONUS!).
I emailed Carl. I was TOTALLY TOTALLY thrilled when I realized he had actually HEARD OF ME!!! *squee!*
And a few days later, I got a TOME in the mail. A tome of SCIENCE!!!

(DUDE! Is that Tiktallik on the cover!? SWEET!)

The Tangled Bank: an Introduction to Evolution by Carl Zimmer.
Unfortunately, Sci got a galley copy of the book. For those unfamiliar with the publishing world, that means a GIGANTIC PILE of xeroxed pages, as yet unbound. I ended up being very sad about this, which I will get into. SciCat, on the other hand, approves of the galley copy, and is in favor of all books being in this format. She’s sitting on it now.

Book Review: Attachment, Evolution, and the Psychology of Religion

First off, Sci should warn you. If you send me books (and some of you do, and for those of you who do, SCI LOVES YOU A LOT), keep in mind they may take a while. Sci IS in grad school after all, and while I’m a happy little book worm when surrounded by books, a lot of times, more than 10 pages a night just isn’t going to happen. After all, I’ve got this whole “science blogging” thing to keep up with as well, and that’s a time sink, lemme tell ya. So this means that if you send me a book, it may be a long time before it gets read and a review goes up about it. Sci just finished three books, and there is still a pile of 12 on her little bedside table. So be patient. And send me books anyway.
That said, the latest book sent to me that I managed to read was via friend of the blog JD, who sent me a book by his Psych prof: “Attachment, Evolution, and the Psychology of Religion” by Lee Kirkpatrick, professor of Psychology at the College of William and Mary.
And when I got the book, Dr. Kirkpatrick had signed it!!! Signed books are even better than unsigned, because they make Sci feel so famous. And I quote:

This is the best book you will ever read, on any topic. No, really. Seriously, not kidding. Enjoy!
-Lee Kirkpatrick

And he promised me my money back if not fully satisfied.

Friday Weird Science: Sex: the good, the bad, and the ugly

We know that a lot of organisms, from humans to bacteria to birds to bees, have lots of sex. But what has mystified scientists for years is WHY. I mean, it’s fun and all (unless you’re a poor beetle girl stuck with this), but what purpose does it serve? On the face of it, in fact, sex seems to be pretty BAD for about half of the population: the women. For example, there’s a lizard out there than can reproduce both asexually and sexually. When it reproduces asexually, it producing nothing but girls, all of whom can reproduce both asexually and sexually. Net win. But when it reproduces sexually, it will produce about 50% BOYS, which can only reproduce sexually, and if they aren’t lucky and their courtship messages suck, they won’t even do that. Why bother?! Why not just keep reproducing asexually and passing your genes directly on (no mixing!) to hundreds of thousands of lizards?

For many years scientists puzzlesd over this one. But recently, a series of three new hypotheses has been formed. Welcome to the good, the bad, and the ugly.

Zimmer. “On the origin of sexual reproduction” Science, 2009