Solve these critical thinking puzzles, win a prize!

I love logic puzzles, and a friend showed me some particularly good ones the other day. These are based on puzzles written by the Mathematician from AskAMathematician.com.
If you’re the first to get all three of them correct with correct explanations for all of your answers, you’ll win a prize! Skepticon will send you either 4 Skepticon pint glasses or 6 Skepticon shot glasses. To be eligible for the prize, include the work “banana” in your comment.

And as a bonus just for fun – these questions were from a larger set of 8, and I included the only question I got wrong. Which one did I mess up on?

Question 1: In front of you are four cards. You know that each card has a photo of a famous person on one side, and a photo of an animal on the other. The four sides that are visible to you are as follows: Ken Ham, Richard Dawkins, a narwhal, and a T-Rex. I let you know that all of these cards follow the same rule – that if a card has a religious person on it’s famous person side, it has a dinosaur on its animal side. What’s the lowest number of cards you’d need to flip to determine if this rule is true or false for these cards, and which cards would you flip?

Question 2: Because I’m super nice, I give you a giant one hundred pound watermelon as a gift. You determine that this giant watermelon is ninety-nine percent water by weight. Unfortunately you let the watermelon sit out in the sun, and some water evaporates. Now the watermelon is only ninety-eight percent water by weight. To the nearest pound, what does the watermelon now weigh?

Question 3: While you were at TAM9, you decided to suspend skepticism and gamble – specifically, by playing roulette. But since you want to have some sort of strategy, you decide to flip a coin before each bet to decide whether to place a bet on red or on black (which should have a 50/50 chance of happening). Sadly, you lose sixty seven times in a row – that is, the ball always lands on the opposite color that you pick. If you turned your skepticism back on, it would be most rational to think:

A. You just have shitty luck
B. It’s terrible strategy to flip a coin to pick what color to bet on in roulette
C. You should keep up this strategy because you’ve really likely to win the next bet
D. The roulette table is obviously broken, but you can’t assume that’s intentional
E. The casino or the staff are dirty crooks who have rigged the game against you somehow
F. You can’t reasonably decide which of the listed options are more likely

Good luck!

EDIT: Katie from Skepticon adds:

“Keep posting! Even if someone has already given your response, I’m strongly considering a small consolation prize (for the first 10 correct folks), so it’s in your best interest to post. Unless you don’t like getting special prezzies in the mail, of course. :)”


This is post 10 of 49 of Blogathon. Pledge a donation to the Secular Student Alliance here.

Sarah Palin adds another grandchild to her list of hypocrisy

She’s against comprehensive sex education. She’s against contraceptives being available in schools. She cut funding for a program that helps teen mothers. She set up her daughter – who admitted abstinence is not realistic after having a child of her own – to be a spokesperson for abstinence, making hundreds of thousands of dollars in the process.
And now? She has another out of wedlock grandchild on the way:

In a not so surprising turn-of-events, the news that Sarah’s son Track is expecting a baby with his wife Britta was just released Thursday.

Pictures of the new bride posted on Facebook show that she is rather obviously expecting, while her marriage took place just two months ago.


The quick ceremony prompted many to ask whether Britta was pregnant, but supporters of conservative Sarah became extremely upset, continuing to argue that the new couple was not expecting. It certainly seemed like a shot-gun wedding, and today it was finally confirmed that the pregnancy came before the marriage.


You know, I wouldn’t give a flying diddly about this if Palin wasn’t trying to shove her beliefs down everyone’s throats. I think people should have all the sex they want regardless of their marital status, and that said status shouldn’t matter if you want to have a child.

It’s one thing to force abstinence only education on the public when study after study has shown it to be ineffective. When you’re anti-science like Palin, I can understand that things like facts wouldn’t change your mind. But when you can’t even use your method effectively in your own family, you think that would be a sign that maybe this shit doesn’t work.

But you know what I think is the really scary part of this story? That it’s more important to have shot gun weddings to save face instead of using a fucking condom. You’re going to make a life commitment to someone because you accidentally knocked them up? Really? And these are the same people arguing about sanctity of marriage. The same people who won’t let same sex couples who love each other get married.

Yep, that’s a great system of morals.

This is post 9 of 49 of Blogathon. Pledge a donation to the Secular Student Alliance here.

Amy Winehouse found dead in London home

Breaking news from the Washington Post:

Winehouse shot to fame with the album “Back to Black,” whose blend of jazz, soul, rock and classic pop was a global hit. It won five Grammys and made Winehouse — with her black beehive hairdo and old-fashioned sailor tattoos — one of music’s most recognizable stars.
Police confirmed that a 27-year-old female was pronounced dead at the home in Camden Square northern London; the cause of death was not immediately known. London Ambulance Services said Winehouse had died before the two ambulance crews it sent arrived at the scene.

Only 27, sheesh. The saddest part is my reaction was “Wait, I thought she had already ODed? She was alive?”

…Don’t do drugs*, folks >_>

*At least not the ones that are highly addictive and will mess you up. Moderation is a good thing.


This is post 8 of 49 of Blogathon. Pledge a donation to the Secular Student Alliance here.

Why did we evolve to die?

Second donor question (might as well get them out of the way when I’m still awake!):

“I would like you to tackle the question of why there is death in terms of evolution.”


What a good question! I should preface this by saying this isn’t my particular field of research, so I don’t know any relevant studies to cite off the top of my head – but I’ll try to explain death in general evolutionary terms.

So, why do things die? At first glance, it seems counter intuitive. The whole driving force behind evolution is “survival of the fittest” – fittest being those who produce the most viable offspring. Wouldn’t it benefit an organism to live as long as possible, continuously producing more and more offspring?

The roadblock is that organisms are constrained by the laws of physics. When you boil it down to the basics, living things are just really complex molecular structures and chemical reactions. And it takes a lot of energy to keep the entropy or “disorder” of a system from increasing (which is a vast oversimplification of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, I know – forgive me). That energy comes from things like the sun (woooo photosynthesis!) or metabolizing food (woooo citric acid cycle!).

Aging is basically the general decay of processes. As you build up more and more errors, things just don’t work as well. And there becomes a point where you make a trade off. Do you expend lots of energy to keep the old structure alive so you can inefficiently reproduce, or do you scrap it and focus on the newly made organisms?

Now, that’s a painfully anthropomorphic view of evolution, but it’s basically how it works. Keeping a decaying organism alive doesn’t significantly increase its fitness. In fact, it can even decrease its fitness! If you’re in an environment where resources are scarce (aka, pretty much every environment), you’re competing with your children for those resources. So resources you use to keep yourself alive could alternatively be going into making grandchildren for you. Sometimes it’s in your best evolutionary interest to die!

I think this can sometimes be an odd concept for humans to grasp, since we’ve recently been able to avoid nature’s typical limitations. Back in our savanna days, we’d usually get eaten or die of disease before aging took place. There was no evolutionary benefit to have mechanisms in place to stave off aging even longer when we’d usually die before getting to that point. Evolution doesn’t care if your joints start hurting or you don’t reproduce as well, because you wouldn’t have been around anyway!

And that’s what differentiates scientists from the rest of people. I find this absolutely fascinating, while I probably just depressed a lot of you by calling you decaying bags of molecules that nature doesn’t care about. Ah well.

This is post 7 of 49 of Blogathon. Pledge a donation to the Secular Student Alliance here.

Is society taking a step backward?

Our first top donor question:

“I was a teenager in Southern California during the 70s. I was raised in an environment where feminism was considered the norm. Imagine my surprise when 30 years later I find the social climate seems to have taken a step back. I’m often thinking, “Didn’t we already cover this?” Feminism is just one example. The persistence of anti-science views such as anti-evolution and anti-vaccinations are others. Lack of tolerance for anyone who doesn’t adhere to society’s norms. I’ve always assumed that as a society we are moving forward, but I’ve never looked for concrete confirmation. Are there objective measures for things like social tolerance? If so, how are we doing?”

I’m not sure if there’s a truly objective measure – you can’t whip out your Tolerancometer and see how many milliKings a person is emitting. But we can estimate how much progress is being made in social movements by comparing where we are now with where we were ten, fifty, or a hundred years ago.
And I think that’s what you have to keep in mind – that we need to look at general trends. Social progress, like many things, is often two steps forward, one step back. Sometimes the current climate is certainly daunting – evolution and climate change deniers being as loud as ever, women’s health being thrown by the wayside, gays still not being able to have the same rights as straight couples.

But in the big picture, we have come a long way. Science triumphed over ignorance in the 2006 Dover trial, unlike in the Scopes trial. Birth control is one step closer to being subsidized, where 40 years ago you couldn’t even get a legal abortion. More and more states are legalizing gay marriage, when coming out in the 80s could get the shit beaten out of you.

Are things perfect? Certainly not. That’s why it’s still important for people to be outspoken advocates for science, feminism, and gay rights. Because while it’s better now, we want to limit that one step back to just one step, instead of tumbling all the way back to the Dark Ages.

You also have to take location into account. Southern California isn’t exactly a typical representation of the rest of the world, the rest of the US, or the rest of California for that matter. There are pockets of places that are more progressive, just as there are pockets that have a lot of catching up to do. Hello, the Middle East. …And China. …And Africa. …And…oh dear, we have a lot of pockets to work with, don’t we?

So even if your little spot on this planet seems to be doing alright, activism is still important. I see a lot of apathy in Seattle because it’s basically godless liberal paradise. What people forget is that if all of your neighbors are socially regressive, their views and votes will eventually effect you. So stay optimistic about the future, but keep up the endless fight for progress.

This is post 6 of 49 of Blogathon. Pledge a donation to the Secular Student Alliance here.

My very own Creation Museum

Speaking of evolution denial in the Pacific Northwest, apparently someone thought I missed the creationist craziness from back home. They went and build me my very own creation museum, this time in Idaho! How…thoughtful.
What is the Northwest “Science” Museum?

What is the Vision?

The vision for this museum is to present a “Natural History” museum from a Biblical point of view. This museum would display similar exhibits to the well known natural history museums (i.e. Denver Museum of Nature and Science, American Museum of Natural History, Chicago Field Museum) but interpreted from a Biblical world view.

What is the purpose?

To lead people to a better understanding of God by viewing His creation. To show that creation science can explain the evidence we see in the world around us and that it is not just religion. The Museum is devoted to understanding and explaining origins, history and our present world as revealed by scientific discovery interpreted through the worldview of Biblical truth.


What is the Mission?


To share the everlasting gospel through God’s creation with people here in Treasure Valley, the entire Northwest, the entire United States, and regions beyond.

And of course, it has a fascination with dinosaurs:

Seriously, with all the dinosaur-loving creationists do, you’d think Jesus was martyred by velociraptor attack instead of a crucifix. Or was a velociraptor.


Honestly, it makes as much sense as what these “museums” are teaching.

(Via Friendly Atheist)

This is post 5 of 49 of Blogathon. Pledge a donation to the Secular Student Alliance here.

I’ve lost my appetite for Dick’s

Now that I have your attention…Dick’s Drive-In is a burger chain in Seattle. There’s one right by my house, and I was pestered incessantly to try it when I first moved here. I’m not sure what the fuss is about, because it’s woefully mediocre. I have a feeling it’s typical drunk food (in which case it would probably taste much better) or the product of years of childhood nostalgia. When I say I don’t really like Dick’s, Seattlites get kind of offended.

After they’re done giggling.

But now I have another reason to dislike Dick’s, not just because of their crummy cheeseburgers or stale fries or tiny (though undeniably delicious) milkshakes. James Spady, the owner of Dick’s, is also on the Board of Directors of the Discovery Institute, the Intelligent Design pedaling, evolution hating, intellectually dishonest shame of Seattle. Lovely.

Oh well. I didn’t need much more motivation other than taste to avoid Dick’s. Seriously, if I want cheap delicious food, why would I even walk past Rancho Bravos to get to Dick’s? Now I have even more motivation to stick to Mexican.

This is post 4 of 49 of Blogathon. Pledge a donation to the Secular Student Alliance here.

Neanderthals and the beauty of science

A common creationist debating tactic is to sneer at science, saying something like “It changes all of the time! Scientists can never make up their mind, and often times they’re wrong! Why would you want to trust something that admits it could be wrong?”
And my response is usually to laugh, because that’s precisely what makes science so wonderful. We don’t stick with some dogmatic book even when faced with mountains of contrary evidence. We’re constantly trying to figure out where we’re wrong, so we inch closer and closer to an understanding of reality that’s based on…well, reality. Finding out we were wrong and correcting that mistake is the beauty of science.

I bring this up because a recent news story illustrates this perfectly to me. You may have seen the story circulating that non-African humans are part Neanderthal. Yes, some Neanderthals and Homo sapiens interbred back in the day!

At first I was a little confused, because I thought we had established this in May of 2010 when the Neanderthal genome paper by Svante Paabo’s group came out. But this new paper serves as a confirmation of that work, since it avoids one of the main criticisms of the study – that the human and Neanderthal DNA were cross contaminating each other. This new research only looked at human DNA, and compared it to the Neanderthal sequence. What they found was that about 9% of the X chromosome has a Neanderthal origin in non-African humans.

But if I go back to just April of 2010, everything was different. I was taking my 500 level Evolution class at Purdue, about to graduate. Our final project included downloading mitochondrial DNA sequences of humans, Neanderthals, and other apes to determine if humans and Neanderthals had interbred. From that data alone, the conclusion was an obvious “no.” And that’s what all prior knowledge had said up until that point.

I remember one of the last questions on the project being to explain how new information could potentially change this viewpoint. We needed the whole genome before we could definitively say Neanderthals and humans didn’t interbreed! Mitochondrial DNA is only a tiny part of the whole genome. We need more information because we’re so closely related. And what if only Neanderthal males were the ones mating with humans? Then no Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA would be passed on at all!

One year later, and my professor has to totally redo his lesson plans.

And that’s what makes science awesome.

This is post 3 of 49 of Blogathon. Pledge a donation to the Secular Student Alliance here.

SCA pressures Obama on faith-based hiring discriminaton

Yesterday President Obama was speaking at a town hall event in Maryland. The first person to ask him a question was none other than Amanda Knief, Government Relations Manager for the Secular Coalition for America. Go Amanda!

Transcript from Friendly Atheist:

Knief: I’m an atheist, and in Zanesville, Ohio in 2008, you asserted that no organization receiving taxpayer funds would be able to discriminate in hiring or firing based on a person’s religion. However, you have not rescinded the Executive Order that permits this type of discrimination.

In a time of economic hardship, when it’s difficult for a person to get a job based on her skills, what would you say to a woman who has been denied employment because of her religion or lack of religious beliefs by a taxpayer-funded organization?



Obama: Well, this is a very difficult issue, but a more narrow one that I think might be implied. It’s very straightforward that people shouldn’t be discriminated against for race, gender, sexual orientation, or religious affiliation.


What has happened is that there has been a carve-out dating back to President Clinton’s presidency for religious organizations in their hiring for particular purposes. And if — this is always a tricky part of the First Amendment. On the one hand, the First Amendment ensures that there is freedom of religion. On the other hand, we want to make sure that religious bodies are abiding by general laws. And so where this issue has come up is in fairly narrow circumstances where, for example, you’ve
got a faith-based organization that’s providing certain services. They consider part of their mission to be promoting their religious views.


But they may have a daycare center associated with the organization, or they may be running a food pantry. So then the question is: Does a Jewish organization have to hire a non-Jewish person as part of that organization?


Now, I think that the balance we’ve tried to strike is to say that if you are offering — if you have set up a non-profit that is disassociated from your core religious function and is out there in the public doing all kinds of work, then you have to abide generally with the non-discrimination hiring practices. If, on the other hand, it is closer to your core functions as a synagogue or a mosque or a church, then there may be more leeway for you to hire somebody who is a believer of that particular religious faith.


It doesn’t satisfy everybody. I will tell you that a lot of faith-based organizations think that we are too restrictive in how we define those issues. There are others, like you, obviously, who think we are not restrictive enough.


I think we’ve struck the right balance so far, but this is something that we continue to be in dialogue with faith-based organizations about to try to make sure that their hiring practices are as open and as inclusive as possible.

Amanda was disappointed with the response:

“Unfortunately, the president didn’t address the most egregious aspect of this policy – that religious discrimination is occurring on the taxpayer’s dime. Discrimination is wrong in all forms, especially when it is being funded by taxpayers.”

Or as I like to summarize it:I think this summarizes why I’m disappointed with Obama on so many issues. To me, it’s not doing what will satisfy the most people. It’s doing what’s constitutional. If something makes your religious constituents cranky or not theoretically shouldn’t even be taken into account.

But I know, I know. It’s politics. He wants to get reelected and all. I keep fantasizing that once Obama is in his second term, he’ll rip off his shirt and reveal some sort of godless, gay marriage-loving super hero underneath.

…Wishful thinking.

This is post 2 of 49 of Blogathon. Pledge a donation to the Secular Student Alliance here.

And Blogathon 2011 has begun!

Woooo!
Actually, I have no idea why I’m wooing. I was so comfortably asleep when my three alarms woke me up around 6:15am. I set them that early because I was theoretically going to shower and eat and get all prepared. Instead I hit snooze a bunch. Off to a wonderful start!

Anyway, I look forward to blogging all day for your entertainment. But remember, this craziness is for charity. We’re already at $2,525.53*, which has almost matched last year’s total – hopefully we’ll destroy it by the end of today!

And if you have any post ideas or things that will encourage you to donate more…please email me. I probably won’t have time to read all of the comments while I’m writing, but I’ll certainly skim emails for help!

Okay, time to go chug some coffee. Urgh.

*The ChipIn widget does funky things on some people’s computers. If the total doesn’t match that number or seem to be updating, you need to clear your cookies.

This is post 1 of 49 of Blogathon. Pledge a donation to the Secular Student Alliance here.