Co-operation and Evolution

Mark Vernon writes about Sarah Coakley’s inaugural lecture at Cambridge.  Coakley argues that sacrifice is an integral part of the evolutionary process.

Her argument stems from her collaboration with Martin Nowak, professor of biology and mathematics at Harvard University. He’s been working on the possibility of a new principle in evolution, that of co-operation, without which, he’s shown using game theory, “competitiveness dethrones itself” – which is to say that natural selection couldn’t work. By co-operation he means something quite specific: foregoing of fitness advantage so that others may have it. His work resonates with that of other evolutionarists, notably Lynn Margulis, who’s argued that multicellular life could never have evolved without symbiosis. The point is that this kind of co-operation is not just a supervenience on essentially selfish mechanisms, as advocated in the work of Richard Dawkins. Individual advantage cannot explain it, co-operationists say. If that’s right, co-operation must be as fundamental in evolution as mutation and natural selection.

Newsflash: Scientists Discover that Women in Bikinis are Awesome

It’s not uncommon for scientists to “discover” through research a result that virtually everyone already knows.  For example, scientists have recently determined that men see bikini-clad women as sex objects.  What a shock.  Women have wearing bikinis for several decades now, like this girl, and . . .

. . . what was I writing about?  It is baseball season yet?  If the Yankees can get past the A-Rod mess, they might be okay.  And my cats have been acting really weird lately.  When is Spring getting here anyway?

Oh yeah, I remember.  It’s very easy to take common knowledge for granted.  A great deal of what we think we know we really don’t, until someone does some research to back it up.  Think of how many times common knowledge has been overturned.  That’s part of what science does for us.  It helps us back up our common knowledge when common knowledge is correct, and tears it down when it’s wrong.  That’s one reason why this kind of research is not even close to a waste of time.  Another reason is that gives me an excuse to post another picture of Bar Refaeli:

Here, Refaeli is saying, “Yes, I am beautiful.  And you shall never have me, you puny little man.”

New Science Curriculum in Texas Pleases Scientists

Matt Frazier writes for the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram:

The final proposal for the state’s science curriculum pleases scientists and watch groups, who say it will help protect Texas public school classrooms over the next decade from what they call “watered-down science” — specifically during the instruction of evolution.

Much of the concern over earlier versions of the proposed curriculum centered on a requirement that students be able to analyze the “strengths and weaknesses” of scientific theories, a phrase which some say is being used by creationists — including some members of the State Board of Education — to subvert the teaching of evolution.

The new proposal uses language from the National Academy of Sciences—click here for the full text.  Follow this link to compare the current language, which has been much criticized by scientists.

My take: In the coming decades the United States will face extraordinary competition from India and China, among other places.  To maintain our economic independence it is critical that our children receive the best possible education in math and science.  Among other things, that means teaching evolution in biology classes.

Follow this link to learn more about biological evolution.

HT: Religion Clause.

Debit Card Security Measures: How is RSA Actually Used?

Cryptology is a cool science, and obviously essential in an age of electronic banking.  I don’t know very much about it, but I find it fascinating and I’ve been doing some recreational reading on cryptology over the last few weeks.

Here are two problems I’ve long been interested in, but I’m not sure how they work out.  First, how do debit card readers use your PIN to verify that you are the owner of the card without giving away the PIN to the entire world?  Second, how does the card reader communicate with your bank in a secure way?

In this article I’ll explain my guess about how this works, based on what I’ve been able to piece together from my reading and my imagination (a dangerous combination, I know).  If any of my readers can correct my stupidity, please do so!

First, I need to assume that you’re familiar with RSA encryption, but here is a very brief description.  RSA uses a very big number (N), a public key (K), and a private key (E).  N is determined by multiplying together two large prime numbers (p and q).  K and E are calculated from p and q using a detailed algorithm that helps guarantee the RSA process.

The big number N and the public key K are used to convert plaintext into cyphertext, and the big number N and the private key E are used to convert the cyphertext into the original plaintext.  Encryption is a one-way process.  Once a plaintext is enciphered using N and K, it cannot be decrypted using N and K.  Only N and E can be used to decipher the encrypted text.  Further, it’s impossible to determine E from N and K.  To determine E, we need to factor N into the two very large prime numbers (p and q) that were multiplied to create N.  This factorization is essentially impossible, even with the world’s fastest computers.

The security of RSA is invested in (1) keeping E, p, and q absolutely secret, and (2) the numerical difficulty of factoring N to determine p and q.  If N is factored, then K and E can be quickly calculated, and the gig is up.

So, my first assumption about debit cards, my bank, and card readers, is that the private key E is never actually calculated.  There is no need to decrypt my PIN, since I already know it.  Generally, I would think that decryption never actually occurs with electronic transactions that use RSA, because decryption requires the private key E.  If the private keys are kept on file at the bank, they’re liable to be stolen, which is no better than just keeping unencrypted PINs on file.

So here is how I think the PIN is authenticated:

First, when I swipe my card at the card reader, the reader takes from the magnetic strip several pieces of information:

• the big number N (the same for all customers at my bank)
• the public key K (unique to me)
• an encrypted PIN, determined and recorded by my bank using N and K when I selected my PIN.  The PIN itself is not recorded anywhere, even on the magnetic strip.  Suppose my encrypted PIN is 2525.

Next, the following steps take place:

1. The card reader asks for my PIN, and I punch it in.  Suppose my PIN is 1776.
2. The card reader encrypts 1776 using N and K.  Suppose it gets 2525.
3. The card reader compares 2525 to the encrypted PIN from the magnetic strip.  Since these match, the card reader is satisfied that I in fact own the debit card.

The PIN itself is never transmitted over the Internet, and isn’t recorded anywhere.  The encrypted PIN is available for stealing, if someone takes my debit card and reads the information on the strip.  But the encrypted PIN itself is useless.  Without knowing the private key E, which isn’t recorded anywhere, a thief cannot use the encrypted PIN to recover my plaintext PIN.

Now, how does the card reader communicate with my bank in a secure way?  I think the key to security here is that my account number and debit card number not be transmitted across the computer network, because a third party could intercept them.  The following is my best guess at how this works, although I think I probably have the details wrong:

1. The card reader sends the public key K to the bank’s computer.  (Since this key is public, there is no security risk involved.)  The bank’s computer confirms that K is on file with one of its customers, viz., me.  It may seem that K is a de facto account number, and in a sense I suppose it is, but there should be no way to access my account using only K.
2. Next, the bank needs to determine that the debit card is legitimately attached to an account at my bank.  We don’t want to transmit account numbers across the network, even in encrypted form, because the private key E isn’t stored anywhere.  So instead, the bank creates a random number (R), say, 20 digits long, and encrypts it using N and K. Call the encrypted random number R*.
3. The bank’s computer sends R (not R*!) to the card reader, with an instruction to encrypt it using its N and K, and send the encryption back.
4. The card reader determines R* using R, N, and K and sends it back to the bank’s computer.
5. The bank’s computer compares the R* from the card reader to the R* it calculated.  If they match, the debit card is authenticated, and I can buy my stuff.  They only numbers transmitted across the network are useless random numbers.

Is this really how it works?  Remember, I’m guessing about this, and hoping someone can correct me or fill in important details I haven’t thought about.  In the method I’ve described, the bank is essentially confirming that the big number N on the debit card’s magnetic strip is correct.  But it seems this number could be made public, which I why I think I’m probably wrong about how the account information is communicated between the card reader and my bank.  If I am wrong, what am I missing?

Science and Faith

The pastor of my church has asked me to speak about naturalism and theism at our Wednesday night supper this week, in part to lay some groundwork for his discussion of creationsim and evolution next week.  These kinds of presentations are never easy for me.  I’m not a philosopher, so I spend considerable time just making sure I can correctly define all the terms I’m using.  Further, these kinds of talks force me to think about the relationship between science and faith, a relationship I’ve never fully understood.  That said, here are some of my thoughts on the matter, copied from a post I made to a usenet group a few years ago.

Physicists Reaffirm Statement on Climate Change (Updated)

On Tuesday, the American Physical Society (APS) released a statement reaffirming its 2007 statement on global climate change:

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

The APS is the second-largest professional organization of physicists in the world.

Click here for more information.  A full list of APS statements can be found here.

7/29/08: The writers at Real Climate have posted a response to an article published in an APS newsletter that questioned some established facts related to global warming.  It was that article that prompted the general APS statement quoted above.

Puzzeling Out Noah’s Flood

At Theological Scribbles, Robin Parry offers the first article in a mini-series about Noah’s flood.  He outlines one of the primary reason why many Christians, including me, do not believe Noah’s flood was an historical event: external geological evidence makes it simply impossible to believe the entire planet was covered by the waters of a great flood.  Parry promises at least three or four articles in the series, and one of them will answer the most common question posed by those who read the text literally: How can we take the text seriously if we don’t read it literally?

The Bible and Science

At EthicsDaily.com, Drew Smith writes about the Bible and science.  His thesis: the Bible cannot be used as a scientific textbook.

First and foremost, we must understand that the narratives of Genesis were written by ancient humans, who, without the skill of modern science, sought to explain their world and the origins of the natural world from a religious viewpoint. Genesis, then, was the ancient Hebrews’ story of their beginnings and the origins of the world and humanity as they saw it from their theological, but not a scientific, point of view. Like other ancient peoples, the Hebrews justified their religion and their view of the world by telling their creation story, which detailed how the world came about as an act of their God.

Visualizing Global Climate Change: The Climate Time Machine

The Jet Propulsion Laboratory, working with NASA and the California Institute of Technology, has released a web-based animation, the Climate Time Machine, illustrating the effects of global climate change.  You can see the decrease in the polar ice cap since 1979, the increase in sea level since 1996, the increase in CO₂ emissions since 1980, and the increase in global average surface temperature since 1885.  The changes are easy to observe, and dramatic.

I would appreciate it if any skeptics out there will not merely argue against the data that underlies the animation, but provide pointers to the “real” data that tells us what’s actually happening to our planet.

A Baptist Who Doesn’t “Get It” (Updated!)

Yesterday (5/15), a coalition of political and religious conservatives introduced the “We Get It” campaign. Among the enlightened one finds the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, the Family Research Council, and U.S. Senator James Inhofe, one of the most strident critics of global warming. What they “get” is that “the science is not settled.”

I wrote in an earlier article that skepticism about global warming is not necessarily a bad thing, insofar as it indicates a willingness to ask questions, evaluate evidence, and form an independent conclusion. But the “We Get It” campaign is not about skepticism. It’s about a settled position: global warming is scientifically “unproven.” They repeat the claim that scientists have not reached a conclusion on global climate change, a claim that does not pass the laugh test with this professional scientist.

The assertion that working scientists have not reached a consensus about the fact of global warming and mankind’s role is functionally equivalent to the claim that scientists have not reached a consensus on whether cigarettes cause cancer. After all, there are scientists working for the tobacco companies whose “research” fails to establish such a link.

I’ll have more on the “We Get It” campaign later, if time allows. in meantime, some links:

• Mainstream Baptist: Between Southern Baptists and Bill McKibben
  
• Melissa Rogers: The Rollout of “We Get It”
  
• Ethics Daily: Christian Right Leaders Push Back Against Concern for Global Warming
• New! Mainstream Baptist: NASA on Human Caused Climate Change
• New! Brian Kaylor: They Don’t Get It!

HT: Melissa Rogers