Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
God tells Adam and Eve not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. If this was the only way they could understand the difference between good and evil, how could they have known that it was wrong to disobey god and eat the fruit?
[Laurie Lynn (sechum-l secular humanist discussion list)]
Vertebral variation, Hox genes, development, and cancer
Anencephaly and right-wing moralizers
Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.
« If it's Saturday, it must be Seattle | Main | Poe's Law…confirmed again! »
Category: Chatter
Posted on: May 31, 2008 10:10 AM, by PZ Myers
Is it biological or physical? It's a little unfair, you ought to be able to just click "physics" for everything and get a perfect score, but I managed to get 12 out of 12 by the simple strategy of calling anything interesting biological.
(TrackBack URL for this entry: )
YES! Send me a free issue of Seed.
If I like what I see, I'll receive 5 more issues (6 in all) for just $14.95. That's 50% off the cover price! If I'm not completely satisfied, I'll simply write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing. The free issue is mine to keep.
(Non-U.S. subscribers, click here.)
Comments
11/12 for thinking the Helix Nebula was some kind of anemone.
Posted by: Alcari | May 31, 2008 10:31 AM
Just remember all you lowly biologists: All science is physics or stamp collecting.
Posted by: Max Fagin | May 31, 2008 10:36 AM
arrgh... 9/12... martian sand dunes, liver cells, and dust whatevah
Posted by: mikeg | May 31, 2008 10:49 AM
11/12
They've got it wrong; if those Martian sand dunes look like life, then the simplest explanation is that they are life.
Posted by: Cody | May 31, 2008 10:51 AM
I found the ballot extremely confusing and demand a recount.
Posted by: Sven | May 31, 2008 10:55 AM
8/12...I am bringing up the rear this morning.
Maybe I should stick to rollerderby.
Posted by: BobbyEarle | May 31, 2008 10:57 AM
Um...aren't they all physical?
Posted by: defectiverobot | May 31, 2008 10:58 AM
My strategy: since there must be pitfalls everywhere, I clicked on "physics" when I thought it was "biology" and vice-versa.
Result: 8/12. Not convincing...
Posted by: Daniel R | May 31, 2008 11:04 AM
C'mon PZ, the Cat's Eye Nebula not interesting???
Posted by: BigT | May 31, 2008 11:05 AM
12/12 Woot! I did, though, use the PZ Algorithm
Posted by: Hank | May 31, 2008 11:11 AM
I will grant bioluminescence could be called bio, but why isn't it physics? Actually, I was looking for the chemistry option...
Luminescence is great physics.
Posted by: Pablo | May 31, 2008 11:12 AM
The first 12/12 (with the exception of PZ?)! Woot!
Maybe I'm a generalist or something, but I found just about all of 'em interesting...
Posted by: kcrady | May 31, 2008 11:13 AM
Heh - I got the Helix Nebula wrong too. Though I thought it was sperm or summat. Does it show that I never paid attention in biology? (Before coming here of course.)
Posted by: Sili | May 31, 2008 11:35 AM
Twelve of twelve. By the simple expedient of using the inverse of PZ's formula. (I.e. anything interesting is physics. :-)
Posted by: Frank | May 31, 2008 11:38 AM
12/12 :-), although I thought the stained liver cells were somebody's testicles.....
Posted by: Planeten Paultje | May 31, 2008 11:49 AM
10/12
That's funny, my strategy was to call anything interesting physical.
Posted by: stuwat | May 31, 2008 12:02 PM
Hey, how do they know that those dust knots in the Helix Nebula aren't sentient? Have they been there? Huh?
I mean, just look at this thing staring back at you. Nothing biological going on there? Hmph!
Posted by: RamblinDude | May 31, 2008 12:11 PM
12/12, and I'm sorry PZ, but for me biology shines most in the processes and macroscopic end results, and less in the actual, "this smudge right here are collagen fibres" bit, especially when compared with, ahem, beautiful nebulae light years across.
My opinion, obviously.
Posted by: Santiago | May 31, 2008 12:24 PM
10/12. Phobos? That's Phobos? It's all ... shiny.
And I have to echo BigT: "C'mon PZ, the Cat's Eye Nebula not interesting???" My god, it's full of stars!
Posted by: Bob Munck | May 31, 2008 12:28 PM
10/12 pfft!
Posted by: The Science Pundit | May 31, 2008 12:29 PM
12/12. Easy, but for an out-of-focus rock that kind of looked like limestone but which turned out to be an out-of-focus mars rock.
Posted by: A. Rice | May 31, 2008 12:39 PM
LOL, I should've read the comments before taking the quiz. I got the Cat's Eye Nebula and dust knots of the Helix Nebula wrong - 10/12.
Posted by: Nancy | May 31, 2008 12:47 PM
You scored 12/12.
You mislabeled 0 biology things and 0 physics things.
Yay? ;> I took your tip PZ and it worked. xD
Posted by: trast | May 31, 2008 1:04 PM
Physical science =/= physics, so those were really stupid labels. (10/12)
Posted by: Carlie | May 31, 2008 1:06 PM
Yahoo! 12/12. The really sad thing is that I actually knew what eight or so of the pictures were showing.
Posted by: SteveN | May 31, 2008 1:17 PM
Hmph! 10/12. That cat's eye nebula certainly looks like a foram, and Phoebos looks a lot like part of a polyp.
Posted by: BaldApe | May 31, 2008 1:27 PM
11/12, thought Phobos was a coelenterate. Oh well. That'll learn me when I get smacked by it on my ill-advised tour of the inner solar system in a home-made ship.
The pretty blue things:
Correct.
This is an In-Situ Hybridisation of chromosomal RNA in mouse embryonic stem cells, and therefore biological.
Bah. Fluorescent In-Situ Hybridization is equal parts mad-physicist-playing-with-horrid-chemicals and mad-physiologist-tormenting-cute-critters. It's both.
aren't they all physical?
Yes, yes they are. Even at the trivial level of considering the fact we are looking at photographs, taken using principles of optics, the study of which is firmly within the Physics department.
Posted by: TheBrummell | May 31, 2008 1:30 PM
I got 10/12.
I gambled and guessed wrong on the guy with the beaker.
Posted by: Tony Popple | May 31, 2008 1:46 PM
10/12 there. I thought Phobos was the bell of some sort of jellyfish, and I was getting punchy at the end with the trichrome stained cells and thinking "that looks biological, but it must be a trick".
Posted by: MPG | May 31, 2008 2:13 PM
I only got the guy holding the beaker of bioluminescent dinoflagellates wrong, thinking it was a beaker of cold plasma or something like that. I also recognised three of the physics pictures, so you can probably guess that physics is my preferred area :P
Posted by: NoXion | May 31, 2008 2:18 PM
9/12
phobos looks like a cnidarian
the helix nebula and the cats eye nebula i recognized having seen them sooo many times that part of it was easy to see..im trying to learn basic astronomy.... i got tired of creationists finding that i have a bio degree and then asking me something about particle physics or cosmology ....actually that stuffs pretty interesting ..time really IS variable! ..but not how YECs think of it
Posted by: brightmoon | May 31, 2008 2:30 PM
Is it cheating if you're such a space nut that you recognized all those photos from having seen them before?
And its the physics stuff that's the coolest.
In physics, craters are cool. In biology, craters are at best regrettable.
Posted by: craig | May 31, 2008 2:56 PM
Note that all, if I'm not mistaken, of the physical ones are astronomical or planetary. Score! Although some bubble chamber tracks would have looked cool.
11/12
Posted by: Nicole | May 31, 2008 3:12 PM
Somewhat off-topic - but I suppose stupid polls are never really off-topic here.
Do You Believe in UFOs?
Yes: 68% (507 votes)
No: 31% (237 votes)
744 total votes so far
The site won't let you vote twice, but since so few people have voted I'll bet we'll be able to mess this one up in no time.
p.s. 11/12
Posted by: wotthe7734 | May 31, 2008 3:22 PM
Got 9/12. I was tricked by the Plumes, liver cells, and dust knots.
Posted by: Brandon P. | May 31, 2008 3:27 PM
Re: #34,
Unfortunately, there are flying objects which remain (or once were) unidentified. Yes, I believe that. However, just to be a *rational* person, I'll answer "no", since I very much doubt they were any sort of alien-inspired craft.
Posted by: co | May 31, 2008 4:13 PM
11/12 - got the stained liver cells wrong :(
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | May 31, 2008 4:51 PM
12 for 12, too easy.
Posted by: ed | May 31, 2008 4:52 PM
10/12, and I don't think that's too shabby for a liberal arts major.
Posted by: catta | May 31, 2008 5:25 PM
12/12. The photo of the chap holding the large flask was the only one where I essentially took a coin flip.
Posted by: Togusa | May 31, 2008 5:53 PM
dang it! got one wrong:
"incorrect.
These are liver cells stained with florescent antigens, and therefore biological."
i coulda sworn those were nebulae
Posted by: anonymouse | May 31, 2008 6:01 PM
11/12
I didn't even suspect the picture of the guy with the beaker would be about bioluminescent dinoflagellates :P.
Posted by: -R | May 31, 2008 6:13 PM
i wanna put in my 2 cent to the "aren't they all physics" discussion:
Sure, yes - but there also exists a subset of the images which exhibit emergent properties of biology, which are in turn emergent properties of chemistry, which are in turn emergent properties of physics. So if we choose to define biology as something two orders of complexity magnitude above physics, then it's clear how the choices are quite distinct.
Though i agree with a previous poster that the phenomena pictured which are primarily chemical make it hard to pick a camp. however, going down that road gets you into an epistemological discussion regarding the labeling of reality, and then we get all french post-modern, and then all hell breaks loose.
Posted by: anonymouse | May 31, 2008 6:15 PM
Hey, Togusa, is that a pseudonym? i wanna share with somebody that I just finished S.A.C 2nd Gig. Brilliant!
Posted by: anonymouse | May 31, 2008 6:24 PM
Hope you people enjoyed it.
Those of you feeling bad about only getting 9 or 10: I can assure you that plenty of people did much worse but declined to comment here.
Thanks for the link PZ!
Posted by: Olaf Davis | May 31, 2008 6:33 PM
10/12. I thought the liver cells might be astronomy-- but I also thought they did look like cells, so even though I guessed wrong, I feel content.
Phobos I got wrong because I used PZ's formula. Dammit, I *saw* it had craters, but decided that if interesting = biological, I must be wrong about the craters and they were really pores or summat.
I think when it comes down to it, I actually find physics more interesting.
Posted by: Samantha Vimes | May 31, 2008 6:50 PM
11/12
Seem like I remember one of PZ's co-professors, Van Gooch, use to(still does?) work on bioluminescent dinoflagellates, specifically their circadian rhythms, as I recall. I missed the damn stained liver cells, errg. Fun eye candy puzzle, but I find the cosmological just as interesting as the biological.
Posted by: chuckgoecke | May 31, 2008 7:10 PM
10/12. I suppose that's not bad for a math guy. I recognized the astronomical objects and the bioluminescence. Should have caught the stained cells, too, but I was overly suspicious.
Posted by: Zeno | May 31, 2008 7:15 PM
11/12, because I somehow misclicked the Encedalus image. Seriously, how'd I screw that one up? I almost got the Martian dunes wrong, but figured I had too many biology things and switched it before submitting. I was expecting harder images, frankly.
Posted by: Randall | May 31, 2008 7:29 PM
8/12
Mistook the glowimng beaker for ordinary chemical flouresence and the RNA thingy for something like a dark matter distribution map on the biology side.
The physics side I've got better excuses. I mistook the erosion grooves in the mars rock for a fossil and I blame the dunes mis-identification on the fact that it's a false colour image.
Posted by: Knight of L-sama | May 31, 2008 7:31 PM
Yeah, 10/12 !
I mislabeled the liver cells with florescent antigens - thought it was some nebula - and dust knots in the Helix Nebula - mistook for a a lake colonized by algae.
Posted by: Fifi | May 31, 2008 7:38 PM
Thanks for posting this PZ :-)
For people going through these comments, seeing all the high scores that commenters have got, and thus feeling like a failure: Of the people who have taken the test so far, the median score was 9, and the most common score was 8.
So either people who do well are more likely to comment, or people who post comments are better than non-commenters.
Take your pick.
Luke
Posted by: Luke | May 31, 2008 7:55 PM
11/12. I first thought the cat's eye nebula actually was a nebula, but it looked too symmetrical to be nebular. I then guessed it was some kind of spiral cleavage. Tsk, tsk
Posted by: natural cynic | May 31, 2008 8:05 PM
I got 6/12. I think that officially gives me the "Dumbest Pharyngulite" award. I thought the guy holding the beaker was mixing up some weird type of margerita and I really should get extra points for the originality of thinking the Mars sand dunes were a close up of some raspy type thing like a cat's tongue.
Aaah, looks like, based on those results, academic success has yet again eluded me and I'll just have to get on in life with only my witty and sparkling personality.
Posted by: Bride of Shrek | May 31, 2008 8:25 PM
ah, the continuum. the sentience of salt can not be discounted.
Posted by: genesgalore | May 31, 2008 8:40 PM
3/12 here. No one else need feel dumb now.
Posted by: uknesvuinng | May 31, 2008 9:02 PM
I'm not sure about the scoring system on this one. Copied and pasted:
12-2=9 now?
Posted by: Grep Agni | May 31, 2008 10:01 PM
9/12.
Some of my successes came from psyching out the testers: "Is this a biological thing that seems physical, or a physical thing that seems biological?" For example, luminescence can be either physical or biological, but bioluminescence is less typical.
Posted by: John Emerson | May 31, 2008 10:01 PM
12/12 Quite worryingly I have already seen many of those images and I knew what they were.
Posted by: Coffeeassured | May 31, 2008 10:08 PM
I was also going to say, only four of the slides were basically familiar to me (martian geology and stained cells). Someone who had worked in biology would have visually recognized certain kinds of test reports (liver cells and RNA).
Posted by: John Emerson | May 31, 2008 10:14 PM
11/12 - thought Phobos was biological.
Posted by: Coturnix | May 31, 2008 10:35 PM
As a friend of mine once said: if it moves it's biology, if it stinks it's chemistry, and if it just sits there doing nothing it's physics.
This explains a lot about me.
Posted by: Notkieran | May 31, 2008 11:04 PM
12/12 - Phobos and Enceladus set the astronomical theme, but I recognized the nebula dust knots (if not the Helix nebula) anyway. Too much widely spread photos perhaps. That colony animal is also stock photo, I believe.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | May 31, 2008 11:16 PM
10/12 for missing the flagellates and the dunes.
And, with profuse apologies for being a bit off-topic, has anyone ever heard a sweeter song about Drosophila?
Posted by: Masks of Eris | June 1, 2008 2:17 AM
Wow did as you PZ and only 6/12. I wonder did they change some?
Mike
Posted by: Mike | June 1, 2008 3:23 AM
12/12. though it really ought to be called "Biology or Astronomy?" since all of the physics pix were on APOD at some point. And, yes, they were all physics.
Only the fellow with the beaker was a bit of a puzzler until I remembered physicists almost never work with flasks full of stuff you can actually hold in your hands without dying!
Posted by: Don Smith, FCD | June 1, 2008 4:04 AM
i got 0/12, just to be contrarian!
Posted by: djlactin | June 1, 2008 5:40 AM
Thank you Don Smith. As a non scientist who got 10 / 12, I simply guessed wrong at the beaker picture. I was wondering what amazing insight you chaps had. Now I know.
Posted by: douglas clark | June 1, 2008 7:59 AM
9/12 here. Screwed up on the dinoflagellates, Phobos, and the dunes. I just took a guess on the dinoflagellates, but Phobos looked like a 3D rendering of a cell pore. I have no excuse for the dunes, although I convinced myself afterward that I thought they were guard cell on plant stomata. Btw, did anybody else think the stained Hela cells looked like they had little alien heads floating around inside them?
Masks of Eris, that was brilliant. I especially liked the part where the lyrics went something like "Nyner Nyner" :)
Posted by: Richbank | June 1, 2008 9:49 AM
Well, as I posted earlier: 8/12
And I dosent rieley pheel dum att al,
Posted by: BobbyEarle | June 1, 2008 10:34 AM
Holy crap! I got 11 out of 12 -- and I'm only a BA in Poli Sci.
Posted by: Sonja | June 1, 2008 10:57 AM
Hey, hey, now.... several of the physical shots were "interesting" as well, at least to me. In fact, two of my more popular yarn colorways are derived from that picture of the thawing dunes on Mars and a variation of a different picture of the Cat's Paw Nebula, so I already knew those pictures. :-)
Posted by: Knitterman | June 1, 2008 11:18 AM
12/12 maybe i've been reading too much science lately ...
Posted by: claschxtreme | June 1, 2008 11:26 AM
50 years of nice church lady kicks back in...I'm not going to go look at a picture of anyone doing something naughty with a fossil. Humpff! Dinoflagellates, shame on the whole lot of you perverts.
Posted by: Patricia C. | June 1, 2008 1:36 PM
And, yes, they were all physics.
How is a rock physics?
Posted by: Carlie | June 1, 2008 5:13 PM
11/12; I considered whether that was bio- or some other kind of luminescence, but figured the guy swirling the flask looked more like a physicist. And though I'm a biologist I'd seen most of the space pics before.
Posted by: John Scanlon, FCD | June 1, 2008 9:52 PM
11/12. I missed Phobos, which looks awfully biological to me: it must be an artist's impression rather than a real image of the satellite.
Posted by: Monado | June 2, 2008 12:00 AM
Has anyone else noticed that the sixth photo is the same one from this post, about someone looking for trilobites in Martian rocks?
Posted by: mona | June 2, 2008 12:16 AM
10/12. Not bad for a philosophy major :) For some reason, the Colony of Siphonophora looked like a starscape to me, so I got that one wrong. And I was totally flummoxed by those liver cells.
Posted by: philosophia | June 2, 2008 8:35 AM
Environmental Science is applied Biology.
Biology is applied Chemistry.
Chemistry is applied Physics.
11/12.
Posted by: Cappy | June 2, 2008 9:13 AM
11/12. Stupid dinoflagellates.
Posted by: wintremute | June 2, 2008 10:30 AM