Sunday, January 17, 2010

Fresh fodder for your mockery

I knew the Expanding-Earthers were loonies, and I'm astonished that there are still Flat-Earthers out there, but not only flat but also a square? Surely no one could hold to such an outlandish belief, right? Wrong... The Square Earthers are apparently alive and well. Astonishing.

Via Strange Maps.

Labels: ,

Monday, January 11, 2010

Tree Lobsters: Skeptics and Charlatans

Thursday, December 24, 2009

Geolutions 2010

Last new year's, I stated some of my goals for the year. Here they are again; I'll bold the ones I actually accomplished, and strike through the ones that I didn't.

1. visiting the Galapagos Islands
2. visiting the high Andes (Cotopaxi, Chimborazo), Ecuador
3. finding a cool outcrop of graded beds in the Martinsburg Formation (late Ordovician turbidites in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia) that Rick Diecchio told me about last week
4. "walking on the Moho" in Gros Morne National Park, Newfoundland (late summer)
5. seeing Snowball rocks and Ediacarans on the Avalon Peninsula, Newfoundland (late summer)
6. visiting Egg Mountain paleontological site, Montana
7. joining my colleague Ken Rasmussen's field trip to the Culpeper Basin, a Triassic rift valley in northern Virginia
8. some cool trip next winter break (2009-10): perhaps Patagonia? Or Antarctica?

I've also got some big teaching resolutions:

1. Running a successful and robust Structural Geology course for George Mason University (spring semester).
2. Running a successful and innovation Environmental Geology course for NOVA (spring semester).
3. Running a successful and safe Regional Field Geology of the Northern Rocky Mountains course for NOVA (summer semester).
4. Preparing and running a successful and groundbreaking Honors Historical Geology course linked with English Literature 242 at NOVA, where the English professor and I will bridge the two subjects with readings of Lyell, Darwin, "A Pair of Blue Eyes," and others (fall semester). (didn't get sufficient enrollment for this one; bummer!)

On other topics:

1. Finish my M.S.S.E. degree (July)
2. Buy a house
3. Put together a series of geology 'vodcasts' on local geology (though I've gathered a lot of footage that will eventually go into this series)
4. Write a few freelance articles [link]
5. Publish one cartoon per month in EARTH
6. Prepping (cutting and polishing) a backlog of rock samples from all over the place (I'll have to share the story soon of how our "Campus Safety Officer" emasculated my rock saw out of a fear of accidents and ensuing litigation: it's an absolute abomination...)
7. Successfully moving the geology department into our new building

So what's up for the coming year, 2010?
  1. More structure at GMU! Bigger, better, tweaked towards greater learning.
  2. Hire and train a new member of the NOVA geology team to take on some of the tasks that my colleagues and I can't currently keep up with.
  3. Actually get up to Newfoundland this year. I've got a family reunion up there in early August, so hopefully that will be the catalyst. (My mom's side of the family are Newfies.)
  4. Run my Rockies course (with co-instructor Pete Berquist) again.
  5. Update my website's numerous mentions of "greywacke" (English spelling) to "graywacke" (American spelling).
  6. Get my geoblogging under control. I'm clearly devoting too much time to this for too little recompense. Maybe an alternate would be: find a grant or some such to fund the time I spend writing this blog.
  7. Continue my cartooning for EARTH. Also occasional freelance writing pieces.
  8. Scan my Cartoon Guide to Geology and post it for download/printing on Lulu.
  9. Take meaningful action as a "citizen scientist" to combat climate change misinformation, creationism and Intelligent Design mumbo-jumbo, and other forms of pseudoscience pertinent to my expertise as a geologist.
  10. Get those geology vodcasts going.
  11. Go to Antarctica. (fingers crossed)
  12. Work less. Relax more. Be creative. Enjoy life.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Bummer

Monday, November 16, 2009

2012

Yesterday I went to see 2012, the new movie by Roland Emmerich. It was a LOT of fun. I love so-called "disaster porn" movies, the genre including Dante's Peak, Volcano, Cloverfield, Independence Day, the Day After Tomorrow, Deep Impact, the Core, etc. What these films have in common is that they gratuitously display major scenes of destruction as a way of luring audiences to the theater. Most have a plot stapled on too! And maybe some pretty celebrities!

The science is not all there, though. I'm sure you're shocked to hear that.

Here's Emmerich's scenario:
Planetary alignment --> solar flares --> neutrino storm --> neutrinos heat up Earth's interior --> crust gets detached and starts sliding around willy-nilly --> hilarity apocalypse ensues

Here's the problems with that:
  1. Planetary alignments don't trigger solar flares.
  2. Neutrinos (mostly) don't interact with matter in the Earth. (50 million neutrinos will pass through your body today without any issues that we're aware of.)
...but if you ignore those two basic fundamental problems, you can enjoy the death and destruction that result. It's a smorgasbord for the eyes.

One of the main characters is a geologist, which is cool. The scene of Yellowstone erupting was probably the neatest part for me, geologically. Even crazy man Woody Harrelson thinks so, and it's the last thing he ever sees. The magnitude 10-plus earthquake that hits southern California/Las Vegas is pretty awesome visually, but doesn't really square with geological realities of how earthquakes happen. Basically the way Emmerich runs the show, soCal breaks into a huge number of separate chunks which mainly move apart from one another, although occasionally they exhibit convergent motion (maybe 1% of the time). Mostly, it's huge chasms opening up, and people/cars/buildings/airplanes/trains/Russians dropping into them. And of course, "California slides into the sea" (that old trope which ain't actually what geologists predict for the Golden State*).

There's a plot, too, but who really cares about that? That's not why you go to see 2012. So I won't even bother. Go for the effects; revel in the destruction of the world, but try not to think about the death of billions. It's all about planetary chaos, adrenaline, eye-popping awesomeness. You know you like to watch.

Some reviews worth reading:
  1. Rebecca Watson on Skepchick
  2. Ian O'Neill on Discovery News

____________________________________________________

* A better depiction can be seen in the AGI-produced Faces of Earth, episode 2, where Los Angeles (still a city much like the current one ~10 million years in the future), atop the block of continental crust west of the San Andreas Fault, slides past San Fransisco, briefly merging the two megalopoli into one.

Labels: , , , ,

Monday, November 2, 2009

Tree Lobsters: "Science Police"

If you don't read Tree Lobsters already, you should. Today's episode seemed particularly on-target.

Labels: , , ,

Friday, January 16, 2009

Skewed views of science

Chris Nedin alerted me (via his excellent Ediacaran blog) about this video (which was in turn posted at Larry Moran's The Sandwalk blog). I found it worth watching, though the language change partway through (from the third-person to the second-person) gives it an accusatory feel. In spite of that, this is probably worth viewing for introductory science students to distinguish what they hear labelled as "science" in general society from what a scientist considers "science." It's 10 minutes long, but in many places cleverly illustrated:

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Distinguishing valid science from pseudoscience (a guest post)

Today, I'm honored to present my first NOVA Geoblog guest post. After listening to my talk "Rise of the Geoblogosphere" at the Geological Society of Washington in September, E-an Zen (former president of the Geological Society of America, member of the National Academy of Sciences) approached me with some concerns about the nature of blogs as a vehicle for communicating science. I encouraged him to put his thoughts together, and that I would publish the resulting manuscript here as a guest post. Collaborating with Allison "Pete" Palmer, Dr. Zen provided me yesterday with the post you find below. Enjoy reading it, and please enter your comments below. --CB

WHAT IS "THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD"?
DISTINGUISHING VALID SCIENCE FROM PSEUDO-SCIENCE

E-an Zen and Allison R. Palmer
October 25, 2008

Debates about the nature of science and of science education are being actively carried out in our society, apparently reflecting a real need for improved understanding of what is at stake. On one side of the conversation are those who consider that science and "scientific research" represent efforts to rationally comprehend the physical aspects of the universe; in this process of understanding, the supernatural can play no part. Many advocates of this "rational" perspective consider their efforts to transcend cultural and institutional boundaries of human institutions.

There are others in our society, however, who point out that there are different ways of "knowing", and question whether the "rational" approach is adequate as a way to comprehend the universe. Particularly active against this "rational" model are some who consider the world we live in, and the life forms it carries, as creations of a transcendental being (some people of Abrahamic faiths might identify this being as the personal God). Among these advocates are some who deny the fundamental proposition that scientific investigation must exclude the "supernatural" because the latter is beyond rational and observation-based understanding. They point out that this exclusion is based on a particular model of knowing, and they challenge its validity in a real, rather than a model, world. Some Christians who belong to this group regard the Bible as literally inerrant and in situations of conflict the Bible trumps science-based inferences; others avoid the explicit invocation of a Christian God, yet claim that the world's life forms include products of direct and specific creative intervention of a super being (see Miller, 2008 for a thorough and informative exploration of this issue).

These apparently incompatible perspectives have generated passionate public concern because the public policy derivatives of the discussion include science education in public schools. Some who accept a role for the supernatural also promote the concepts of Young Earth Creationism and of Intelligent Design. Thus we must ask: under what circumstances could these be regarded as valid alternatives to observation-based science, acceptable not only for discussion among intellectually mature citizens, but suitable for pre-college science education? The debates, unfortunately, have devolved into legal contests resulting in judicial rulings which can make it difficult to carry out rational debate of the merits of the issues. Any educational value in a classroom setting with well-informed teachers is thereby forfeited.

The advent of the blogosphere has changed the landscape of this discourse: advocates on both sides can now broadcast, with limitless distribution, their arguments in cyberspace as "information" with neither peer review nor intellectual constraint. Blogs can be accessed directly by school-age readers, and the legal barriers about what may be taught in science classrooms cannot be enforced. There is no institution for prior review or vetting of mis-information about science by school boards, teachers, or parents.

How should the community deal with this challenge? Can we establish some consensus about what should be off-limits in blogs directed to school-age students, while keeping due respect for the sanctity of diversity of views about our world and its origins? How could we ensure that the students will be able to use the blogosphere for better understanding of the "scientific method of inquiry"?

We claim that "academic freedom" is not an adequate excuse for free-wheeling teaching in a science class. In a science class, the first order of business should not be to pass down masses of data and "facts", but to tell the students what doing or thinking about science amounts to. The core of scientific inquiry is its open-ended nature: We let the evidence lead us to the appropriate inferences, rather than use science as a tool to justify a predetermined conclusion. Scientific investigation never ends, because the answer to one question invariably leads to the next, deeper question of "why", "how", "when", or "where".

Let us describe our notion of the "scientific method" of inquiry, even as we recognize that this is not the only method for asking questions about our universe. We can do no better than quote Karl Popper. In his essay "Science: conjectures and refutations" (1963, p. 47-48 in the 2002 reprinted edition), Popper made the following (excerpted) sequential points:
"(1) It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every
theory - if we look for confirmations. (2) Confirmations should count only
if they are the result of risky predictions ... (3) Every "good" scientific
theory is a prohibition: it prohibits certain things to happen ... (4) A theory
that is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific.
Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a
vice. (5) Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or
to refute it. ... (6) Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the
result of a genuine [italics his] test of the theory; and this means that it can
be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory."
Popper concluded that "One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability*, or refutability, or testability."

* Popper used "falsify", "refute", and "test" as interchangeable synonyms. This is unfortunate because in common parlance "falsify" means to commit a fraud, to cheat, or to alter the record deliberately for nefarious purposes. The word "to falsify" should be avoided in the discussion of the scientific method (unless we want to say "to cheat"); instead, use either "refute" or "invalidate."

Popper went on to this bold, but important conclusion (2002, p. 61):
"This was a theory of trial and error - of conjectures and refutations... I
thought ... that scientific theories were not the digest of observations, but
that they were inventions - conjectures boldly put forward for trial, to be
eliminated if they clashed with observations; with observations which were
rarely accidental but as a rule undertaken with the definite intention of
testing a theory by obtaining, if possible, a decisive refutation."
It goes without saying that the initial conjecture must be triggered by some observations; It is not something pulled out of thin air.

The stories of Creation, in the version advanced by the Young Earth Creationists, or even by those who advocate Intelligent Design for the "irreducibly complex" apparatus of life organisms (see Dembski, 1999; Behe, 2008) are, by contrast, show-stoppers, because there is no way to apply to supernatural processes the method of scientific testing.

The process of invalidation, or refutation, of a scientific conjecture is a public process; it is open to everybody. The process includes peer review, formal or informal, of the reasoning as well as the conclusions. The scientific explanations, "theories" if you will, are forever on probation. There are varying degrees of certainty, but that certainty is never absolute and the most venerable hypothesis or theory may be demolished by a single "decisive refutation." The process of inquiry represented by invalidation never ends; Doing science requires a deep sense of humility and readiness to admit mistakes.

Those of us who subscribe to the Popperian method of scientific inquiry, however, could and should do a lot better when we communicate with our friends who admit a role for supernaturalism in science. We suggest that in debating this issue, we should:
  1. Show respect for those who disagree. Do not condescend: many of those who disagree are highly trained, very bright people. Our differences are one of philosophy, not intelligence!
  2. Seek to build dialogues that could enhance mutual understanding and mutual trust. That need includes a shared awareness of "trojan horses" that could sneak into a conversation. We need to be not just open, but honorable; We must understand that others may distrust us as much as we do them, often, alas, for good reasons!
  3. Be careful in the use of words. Words may have connotation that are objectionable to others, or that can confuse an issue through misunderstanding. We already mentioned "falsify" as an example. "Theory" is another one; Even "creation" has conflicted meanings. Each of us can think of additional examples. Let our discussions not run aground on such silly shoals!
  4. Emphasize that in teaching about science, the exploration of the METHOD OF SCIENCE is more important than the recitations of theories and facts. We should describe stories of both successful and failed "rational" ideas (for instance, the displacement of Newton's physics of the universe by Einstein's; Popper's essay contains a nice discussion). We should also analyse the "supernatural" perspectives to test for ways they either conform to, or fail to meet the demanding criteria of Popper. Remember that the Popper method is ideologically impartial. Philip Johnson, the intellectual guru behind Intelligent Design, used Popper's approach to challenge the logical underpinnings of Darwinian evolution (see Johnson, 1991, p. 145-148, for a lucid summary of Popper's thesis). The question is not whether Johnson is entitled to challenge Darwinian evolution as valid science. Of course he is. The issue is, was the challenge launched within the bounds of Popper's criteria for valid science, and did Johnson come up with valid refutation?
References

Behe, M.J., 2008, The edge of evolution: the search for the limits of Darwinism: New York, Free Press, 320 p.

Dembski, W.A., 1999, Intelligent Design - the bridge between science and theology: Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 312 p.

Johnson, P.E., 1991, Darwin on trial: Washington, DC, Regnery Gateway, 195 p.

Miller, K.R., 2008, Only a theory - evolution and the battle for America's soul: New York, NY: Viking, 244 p.

Popper, Karl, 1963, Science: conjectures and refutations, p. 43-86 in Conjectures and Refutations, London, Routledge (reprinted edition of 2002), 582 p.

Labels: , ,

Sunday, April 20, 2008

Editing is good

There was an article about local geology published last Wednesday in a series of local newspapers, the Connection newspapers. The reporter came out to campus at some point and interviewed me, as well as John, one of the retired gentlemen who are taking geology classes at NOVA for fun. (She also interviewed by e-mail David, another retired fellow with a penchant for learning geology.)

UPDATED: Here's a link to the article.

However, I'm ticked off. I knew that I was relating a complicated geologic story to the reporter, and because she had little geologic training, I encouraged her to send it to me for fact-checking before it was published. However, this never happened. As a result, the published story has major errors in its geologic details, and that bums me out because (a) misinformation gets spread around and (b) it makes me look like an absolute idiot.


In many ways, what I said to the reporter was just totally @#$%&*ing mangled, and I cringe to think that my colleagues might read this crap and think that's what I actually think (and teach!). UPDATE: the editor took down the digital version of the article, accepted many of my corrections, and it will be this corrected version which is published in the print edition. I'd like to publically thank the editor, Mike O'Connell, for being so responsive to my complaints.

For the record, here are the edits I would have offered:


Local History Etched in Stone
NOVA professor and class explore geologic history of Fairfax County

By Amber Healy
Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Driving through Centreville, Lee Highway takes a noticeable dip, sloping down toward Manassas and stretching the almost 60 miles out to Luray. But what many Fairfax County residents may not know is that the dip is evidence of a geological event, the creation of the Culpeper bBasin between the Blue Ridge and Piedmont rock formation ages physiographic provinces.

Callan Bentley, a full-time geology instructor at the Annandale campus of Northern Virginia Community College, said the area near Clifton is settled on the border of the two eras areas, a cross-section of geological history that may go unnoticed to the untrained eye.

"I feel really fortunate to live in an area with really fascinating geology," said Bentley, who has lived in this region most of his life.

WITH ACCESS to the Smithsonian's Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C., plus the U.S. Geological Survey headquarters in Reston, Callan said a wide array of resources are available for anyone with an interest in what lies on or below the topsoil in Fairfax County.

The creation of the ridges and the basin was the result of two major events: the creation of Rhodima, the first supercontinent, about 1 billion years ago, as it drifted away from what is now North America between 700 million and 570 million years ago, and the collision of Pangea, a better-known supercontinent, with North America. Pangea was created 320 million years ago and broke apart 245 million years ago. The area's geologic history shows two complete cycles of supercontinent formation and break-up. The oldest rocks in Virginia record the assembly of an early supercontinent called Rodinia about 1 billion years ago. Rodinia broke apart, creating a new ocean basin, sometime between 700 and 570 million years ago. Later, than ocean basin was closed as the continents drifted back together. When they collided, they built up the young Appalachian Mountains and assembled Pangea, a better known supercontinent, about 300 million years ago. Pangea then broke up about 200 million years, resulting in the Atlantic Ocean basin.

Stone that had formed on either side of the Pangea collision is metamorphic rock, created by minerals that collected and bonded through melting, while rock in the Culpeper basin is sedimentary rock, when water deposited layers of gravel, sand and mud.

"The Culpeper bBasin is where the Iapetus ocean once stood a rift valley that was formed when Pangea was breaking apart," Bentley said. The ocean was named for the father of the Greek god AtlantisAtlas, for whom the Atlantic Ocean is named. (This origin of the name Iapetus belongs with the discussion of that topic, not in the discussion of the much-younger rifting of Pangea.) "When Pangea opened rifted apart, that's when we got the Atlantic Ocean."

Had the rifts between continents happened differently, it is possible the Atlantic Ocean shoreline could have started in what is now Leesburg, and all the land east of there would be attached to Morocco.

Geologists have looked to the Appalachian Mountains to study plate tectonics, the way the earth under the ocean moves together and apart, Bentley said. Scientists who look to the geologic record to study patterns in the earth's crust believe infer [NOTE: I never use the word "believe" when talking about science: it's a huge pet peeve of mine!] the cycle will repeat again, "probably in 250 million years," Bentley said. "Assuming the world works in a logical way, we can figure out what will happen in the future by what has happened in the past," he said. "We can assume things like gravity, rain and volcanoes existed in the past because we have geological evidence that suggests they existed."

RECENTLY, BENTLEY and a group of his students went on a field trip to Clifton Road, to see if they could find more evidence of the geological rift. John Weidner, a retired math teacher professor who now takes Bentley's classes for the pure joy of learning, said he has learned how to pick out various geological attributes thanks to hands-on educational opportunities.

"The second most important thing I've learned is not something I hear in the classroom, but when a professor corrects my mistakes," Weidner said. "The most important thing I've learned is to go out and look at the rocks to figure out what has happened."

Bentley took his students out to Clifton Road to look at the difference between Piedmont metamorphic rock and Culpeper bBasin sedimentary rock. Unfortunately, the trip did not go as he planned.

"There were about four McMansions built on top of where we were supposed to find rocks, so there was only about a 10-foot wide sliver of open space," Bentley said. "What we were able to find was really interesting."

"It was fascinating, you could really tell where one formation ended and the other began," Weidner said.

Digging into the soil to find rocks to study is not the way most geologists prefer to do their research.

"First off, digging is a lot of hard work and we're kind of lazy," Bentley joked.

But digging into the soil is difficult when the soil is under a parking lot, or someone's house, and getting that kind of permission just does not happen, Weidner said.

"Often, the best outcroppings [NOTE: Like "believe" (above), this is another thing I never say. "Outcroppings" has one more syllable than "outcrops," a word which means the same thing. I prefer "outcrops," just as I prefer the verb "orient" over "orientate."] are the ones that are the easiest to access," Bentley said. He mentioned Sideling Hill in Maryland, a portion of the land that was blasted out to build Interstate 68. Imbedded in the rock is a semi-circle formation of rocks fold created when a lake was filled in with dirt over thousands, if not millions, of years flat-lying sedimentary layers were squeezed by the Pangea-forming tectonic collision.

Thanks to Bentley's classes and field trips, Weidner said he is noticing rock formations and geological events he had missed before.

For the amateur geologist, a lot of wonder and information is waiting to be discovered. For example, hot springs of mineral water are common in the western portion of the United States thanks to underground volcanoes. But there is no explanation for the hot springs just outside Harrisonburg estimated to be 47 million years old, when the youngest rocks on the East Coast are over 100 million years old. But the hot springs near Harrisonburg are enigmatic. Possibly they are related to anomalously-young volcanic rocks nearby. These volcanoes erupted only 47 million years ago, making them the youngest igneous rocks on the East Coast by 100 million years.

"That doesn't make sense to find hot springs there," Bentley said. "But if we had all the answers, life would be boring."

The geology of Fairfax County ranges from slate, schist rock and gneiss (pronounced 'nice') metamorphic rock in the western portion of the county to sedimentary deposits equal to sand covering the Piedmont in the Alexandria area, Bentley said. Drive a little farther south to Quantico, and evidence of the collision of North America and Pangea are evident in rocky outcroppings.

A volunteer at Hidden Oaks, Hidden Pond and Huntley Meadows nature centers, Weidner said plenty of local parks have displays on local geology that are worth investigating, not to mention the larger rock samples at the Smithsonian.

"I'm more interested in the storytelling aspect of geology," he said. "I'm curious about all the questions it raises, like why did Pangea form, why did Africa crash into North America, why did it split apart again?"

David Dantzler, another retiree who has come to geology after a life of wondering at rock formations and all things scientific, said he would prefer to study the rocks around Annandale because it has better specimens of rocks during the Pangea collision.

On top of metamorphic rocks common to the area are rocks found in streambeds from later geologic eras, when streams from the Culpeper basin Appalachian Mountains were reaching out to the newly formed Atlantic Ocean. "When dinosaurs were wandering around Annandale," Dantzler said. "Now, if I close my eyes and imagine all that happening, it is way cool."

Taking natural and historical geology courses has enhanced his travels, Dantzler said, and he hopes other young scholars would consider taking those classes if available to them. But for those who want to see evidence of Fairfax County's past etched in stone, Dantzler suggests a person need go no further than a creek or streambed.

"Much of our geology is obscured by vegetation, but places like Great Falls or our stream valley parks expose a lot of fascinating earth history if you have a good guide like Callan," he said.

------------------------

Has anyone else had an experience like this? Being misunderstood is one thing, but misquoted is something else again! I'll write a letter to the editor of the Connection, but the damage has already been done. If I ever speak to a reporter again, I'll insist on fact-checking as a precondition of granting the interview.

If this story has a moral, it is this: Editing is good! Having someone look over your writing before it's published invariably catches errors. Sometimes these errors are minor (like the misspelling of my name in the tenth paragraph) and sometimes they are major (like the garbage being presented here as a geologic history). Peer review is one of the greatest intellectual inventions of mankind. More of us should use it.

UPDATE: I'm convinced anew of the power of complaint. I'm glad that I took the time to write to the editor, and I'm glad that he was willing to work with me to set the record straight. Editing is good.

Labels: ,

Wednesday, April 9, 2008

Hallettestoneion SeaZoria Dragons (!)

Holy cow. Check out this dude, who's seeing dragon fossils in Cambrian rock slabs in Utah (video below). You probably don't want to waste half an hour watching the whole thing, but it's worth 5 minutes or so to get a flavor for how imagination and pseudoscience can yield some interesting results. Also, it will give you a new appreciation for running spellcheck.

My favorite lingo from the presentation is "duckbill horseshoe snoutic configuration" although I am also partial to the presenter's elucidation of "internal growth genetic substructure of the zoria repeating biological structure."

Thanks to Michelle for cluing me in to this gem!

Labels: ,