<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.2" -->
<rss version="2.0">
    <channel>
        <title>MedWorm Tags: chimp</title>
        <description>MedWorm provides a medical RSS filtering service. Over 6000 RSS medical sources are combined and output via different filters. This feed contains the latest medical blog items that have been tagged with 'chimp'.</description>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.medworm.com/rss/search.php?qu=%22chimp%22&t=%22chimp%22&r=Exact&o=d&f=tag]]></link>
        <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 02:39:20 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <item>
            <title>Why Race May Influence Us Even When We “Know” It Doesn’t</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2201226&amp;cid=t_161936_109_f&amp;fid=36089&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fthesituationist.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F02%2F19%2Fwhy-race-may-influence-us-even-when-we-know-it-doesnt%2F</link>
            <description>The image to the left is a portion of a controversial cartoon that ran in yesterday&amp;#8217;s New York Post. The cartoon (the entirety of which is here) includes this punchline: &amp;#8220;Now they will have to find someone else to write the stimulus bill.&amp;#8221;
* * *
A common assumption among most Americans is that race is not an issue these days; after all, most of us rarely if ever feel ourselves being &amp;#8220;racist.&amp;#8221; If we are not thinking about race when we go about our daily lives and if we are not harboring any racial animus when we interact or socialize inter-racially, then, we assume, race is not influencing us.  We may not be blind to color, but we might as well be.  Most Americans, I&amp;#8217;m guessing, would therefore not have a problem with this cartoon.
Rev. Al Sharpton, on ...</description>
            <author>The Situationist</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2201226</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2009 05:40:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2201226</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>I Am Not a Chimp--And Neither Are You</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1726301&amp;cid=t_161936_87_f&amp;fid=34825&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wesleyjsmith.com%2Fblog%2F2008%2F08%2Fi-am-not-chimp-and-neither-are-you.html</link>
            <description>As promised, I have a more extended piece up at the Weekly Standard Website demonstrating that the case for granting equal rights to chimpanzees with humans is not justified scientifically. First, I describe the ideological agenda behind the effort to reduce humans to the status of apes. From my column:THERE IS A CONCERTED advocacy campaign underway across several disciplines aimed at knocking human beings off our pedestal of moral exceptionalism and redefining us as merely another animal in the forest. Toward this end, elements of the natural world are being personalized by public intellectuals, even as they seek to strip personhood from some people. The point of this ideological drive is to degrade our perceived self-worth so much that we will readily sacrifice human prosperity and welfa...</description>
            <author>Secondhand Smoke</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1726301</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 22 Aug 2008 15:21:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1726301</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Humans Are  Not  98% Genetically Identical to Chimpanzees</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1700584&amp;cid=t_161936_87_f&amp;fid=34825&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wesleyjsmith.com%2Fblog%2F2008%2F08%2Fhumans-are-not-98-genetically-identical.html</link>
            <description>I have been researching the purported genetic near-identity between humans and chimps-- asserted as the &quot;scientific&quot; basis for the Great Ape Project--and found (unsurprisingly) that the entire advocacy line that &quot;humans and chimps share 98% of our genes&quot; is plain false. This gets a little complicated, so stick with me.First, the 98% figure is probably overstated. An article in Science puts the actual figure at 94%. (Jon Cohen, &quot;Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%, June 29, 2007). But even these figures are only measuring about 2% of our total genetic makeup--that is, those genes that code for proteins, the building blocks of our physical bodies and functions.The vast majority of our DNA, known as &quot;non-coding DNA&quot;--sometimes called &quot;junk DNA&quot; because it was once thought not to have functio...</description>
            <author>Secondhand Smoke</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1700584</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 12 Aug 2008 16:21:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1700584</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Brain Games, and Cognitive Fitness News, for the Weekend</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1162720&amp;cid=t_161936_122_f&amp;fid=36582&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FSharpBrains%2F%7E3%2F219450554%2F</link>
            <description>Did you read about the recent experiment where young chimps displayed amazing visual working memory capability, beating humans?
- You can watch a short video here.
- Lumos Labs has released a very fun game to test your own skills: try out this Chimp Game!
 
Also, some very good recent news articles:
1) Is it worth going to the mind gym? (New Scientist). This is one of the best articles we have read in a while (unfortunately requires subscription).
- &amp;quot;Birdwatching is the brainchild of San Francisco-based Lumos Labs, just one of the dozens of companies that have sprung up in recent months to cash in on the &amp;quot;brain-training&amp;quot; craze. Like most of its competitors, the theory behind ...&amp;quot;
Comments: the article introduces readers to much of the research and scientists we disc...</description>
            <author>SharpBrains</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1162720</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 19 Jan 2008 16:26:55 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1162720</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Cooked and the Raw</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1113419&amp;cid=t_161936_133_f&amp;fid=35096&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.b5media.com%2F%7Er%2Fb5media%2FAutismVox%2F%7E3%2F204852056%2F</link>
            <description>Recalling the discussion about big heads a few days ago, I was drawn to theory that cooking is the secret to humans having big brains. Richard W. Wrangham, the Ruth B. Moore Professor of Biological Anthropology at Harvard University&amp;#8217;s Peabody Museum, responds to a Q &amp;#038; A in the December 19th Scientific American:



I tend to think of the advent of cooking as having a huge impact on the quality of the diet. In fact, I can&amp;#8217;t think of any increase in the quality of diet in the history of life that is bigger. And repeatedly we have evidence in biology of increases in dietary quality affecting bodies. The food was softer, easier to eat, with a higher density of calories—so this led to smaller guts, and, since the food was providing more energy, we see more evidence of energy u...</description>
            <author>Autism Vox</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1113419</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 23 Dec 2007 00:40:21 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1113419</guid>        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

