1. New discovery proves 'selfish gene' exists

Comment #197380 by Konradius on June 21, 2008 at 11:59 pm

To me the most damning line in this article is the last. The point of the book is that ALL genes are selfish. If they're not they get selected against and disappear.

I would have loved to get some actual understanding of the finding, but that seems to have been omitted from this article...

Oh yes, and then the remark about fundis thinking evolution is evil.

Well, yes, evolution *IS* evil! Evolution is just as evil as earthquakes, volcanoes and other natural occurrences that one usually does not personify.

Getting a child with a genetic defect is an evil occurrence, and one that we should try to prevent. However this is natural selection at work. That is, your child will be selected against!

The remedy is to understand evolution and limit its effects. And this is what we should stress. Yes evolution is evil and you're helping it if you deny that it exists!

2. 'Uncontacted tribe' sighted in Amazon

Comment #186664 by Konradius on May 31, 2008 at 12:28 am

To all people who doubt that these people get wiped out because of contact with the outside world I recommend reading 'guns germs and steel' by Jared Diamond.
Come to think of it, I recommend it to all others too.
People in the Americas were only marginally killed by the European invaders. Or at least marginally compared to the death toll of diseases, which was far more severe than the complete history of the black death in Europe.

Sure I want to give them the choice of contacting us or not, even though we make the option of never making contact unavailable. But physical contact will most likely wipe out 90% of them, possibly rounded up.

Note that I am operating from an assumption that these people havn't had contact with the outside for quite some time. It could be that in the past they had contact with tribes that had contact with, etc. They do have to mingle with other tribes for genetic diversity.
However from accounts of other tribes that got in contact with us the 90% sounds pretty accurate.

3. Youngest galactic supernova (not aliens) found

Comment #180474 by Konradius on May 15, 2008 at 3:57 am

I am reminded in this thread of the old joke of a museum attendant who told of a dinosaur that it was 70,000,007 years old.
"Well, they told me it was 70 million years old when I started working here 7 years ago".

Obviously the 28000 lightyears is an approximation and could be 27500 or 28500, losing the 140 years in the deviation.

On the other hand as I understand it, for the light itself no time has passed in transit. (As light travels at the speed of light time is slowed to a full stop)

4. Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution After Introduction To A New Home

Comment #164721 by Konradius on April 20, 2008 at 3:33 pm

I know a mechanism that prevents speciation: make sure the population interbreeds well.
The special thing about ring species is that the populations on the ends of the ring are unable to interbreed. This causes them to speciate, even though (overlapping) populations along the ring remain able to interbreed.

Of course even with an interbreeding population, if you could somehow take an individual from x generations before, you would find they are unable to breed because the population as a whole has drifted.

(to be honest, I am a layman, but this is my understanding of the process)

5. Sex for diploma offer caught on tape

Comment #164439 by Konradius on April 20, 2008 at 8:57 am

I agree with earlier comments that this story shouldn't be of much interest to us.
I can easily imagine a similar case where an atheist headmaster (or founder) of a secular school did the very same thing. We would balk at any linkage christians would propose and rightfully accuse them of discrimination based on religion or lack thereof.
So we shouldn't make the same mistake.

Nothing in this story suggests any influence by religion, good or bad.

6. The Passion of 'Anonymous'

Comment #124667 by Konradius on February 10, 2008 at 2:54 am

Would this be a good time to point out that, strictly seen, scientologists are atheists too?
Xenu might be a galactic overlord, but a god he is not.

(Raelians are atheists as well, just like some buddists)

This is one of the reasons I like to call myself a rational atheist. To distinguish me from the deluded people above...

7. Violence fear over Islam film

Comment #113598 by Konradius on January 20, 2008 at 6:41 am

I like the fact that Ayaan is labelled here as a moderate.
I would also like to point out that Wilders has in fact split from the VVD party just like mrs. Verdonk. Both have their own setup for a party and are rating quite high in polls.

Even though I quite hate these right wing near fascists, I also quite dislike mr. Balkenende, the current prime minister. He in response said dutch traditions did not support Wilders to needlessly hurt the muslims feelings. What he should have said is that Wilders has every right to do so, even though it might not be constructive. Having a right does not mean you have to use it.
My personal feeling is that this right of criticizing is under attack by the whole of Dutch and European politics, and therefore I support this movie. Even though, knowing Wilders past, I suspect it will be full of errors, it will be far weaker than it could have been, and will discredit all other criticism of islam.

(edited for accuracy)

8. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #105709 by Konradius on January 1, 2008 at 3:51 pm

When reading this article I thought Zahavi's idea was not at all counter intuitive. Actually, I have some ideas/predictions on when and how this strategy can develop.

I think this strategy will develop whenever male mortality is low. When the average and below average male gets to live to be able to produce offspring females will have to choose a mate based on something other than the fact that the male is alive.
Actually, this will happen in reverse as well if the male is required to invest in his offspring. He will invest in the offspring of the female that he deems fittest. And if females have no problem surviving, then he will look for signs that indicate fitness. Could this be an explanation for male homo sapiens liking big breasts and blond hair in their women?

So what sign gets picked? Well, if there's still some mortality and it is clear how to escape mortality then the mate gets picked based on the better display of survival skills. Faster flying could get promoted, or an aversion to landing on a freeway.
Eventually though all choices would have just about maxed out the possibilities of the different allelles present in the population. And anyway, how would you see a difference in a flying speed of 50 km/h or 60 km/h in your mate?
Well, this is where the handicap comes in. Your best bet is a mate with a handicap who thrives in spite of that handicap.

And why not would that handicap be a genetic one? In an evolutionary sense, the only handicap that has a chance of being sustained in a population is in fact a genetic one.

And consider this: Sure, the pheasant has a beautiful tail. However in a few generations this tail can be lost while the advantages that were needed to sustain that tail will still be in effect. A genetic handicap like that tail is like stored fat, it is an insurance for a rainy couple of generations for the species.
This is actually my intuitive eureka moment. Sure, the fitness is erased completely for this generation and a couple afterwards. But this is peanuts for species that have been around for hundreds of thousands of generations. You can't stop development just because you're doing well for a couple of thousand years! Should disaster strike then you can quickly ditch the fancy handicap and be the better species for it. Perhaps a hundred generations you're laying low, enjoying all the benefits you collected during the fat years and then you've adapted to the new situation.

So again the species has it easy and now is the time to bring the new feathers out again (of course still in the population because of recessive genes). Whatever it was that gave you a hard time can now graze your species just enough to keep you on edge, weed out the below average guys.

I think this is the reason why handicap genes are in some populations and are succesful. They actively allow a better selection on real genetic benefits, and are easily repressed as soon as a threat comes along that makes use of the handicap to decimate the population.

Predictions?
- The handicaps mostly are traits that can easily be shed like the phesants tail. It is not impossible to develop a handicap that is not easily shed, but if a new or improved predator comes along the species dies out. So this would be a lot rarer.
- The handicaps will manifest themselves in species with low mortality. If mortality is higher and the population has genetic differences that affect this mortality then that will be the more important driving force. Handicaps will deminish in such populations, probably even when the handicap does not directly influence the new source of mortality.

You know, I personally always thought survival of the fittest was only half of the story. It's not enough the fit survive, the unfit must die as well to get any development going.

Rogier van Vugt

(I'm keeping my internet nickname as logon)

9. For the glory of God

Comment #88597 by konradius on November 18, 2007 at 2:16 am

Again I see a whole lot of statistics here. These statistics are based on what people answer on surveys.
Now what I would like to see is the following survey. In stead of asking directly what someones religion is, start the survey by saying the purpose of this survey is to determine if some billionaire wants to choose this city to build his new university. Bill Gates would be ideal. He is an atheist, but not in-your-face about it. And he is thought of as a man that favours science.

Now the first question would go like this. Science says that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. This is based on stellar mechanics, surveys of asteroids and geology. Do you believe this statement is true, probably true, probably false, false or don't know. (do you english people still use milliard?)

All other questions are asked the same way. You provide the right scientific answer, give a short description how science came to that answer and ask if they agree or not.

After a couple of these questions you ask the religion, and as a bonus you ask how sure people are that their religious ideas are true.

So basically you're biassing the survey as much in favour of atheist/agnostisism as you possibly can. I would really, really be interested in those results. Why? Because theists have been biasing all other surveys so far. Only god can hold you accountable for what you answer on those other surveys. So wouldn't you cover your bets in light of that if you're anything but a staunch atheist?

10. Fossils Reveal Clues on Human Ancestor

Comment #72546 by Konradius on September 21, 2007 at 2:48 pm

By tradition, erectus is the hominid...

Am I the only one who is reminded by pr Dawkins example of how scientists do not reason when discussing science?

Or did someone have a revelation why erectus should be the middle and is it official dogma that erectus is the middle hominid?

Of course, after reading The Selfish Gene we know that putting spiecies in boxes with names is a human construct. And it does seem the option was open to challenge the prevailing mindset.

But still, I didn't like the wording.

11. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #69206 by Konradius on September 10, 2007 at 2:23 am

I think the alusion to fascism works better than would communism. There is a visceral dislike of fascism whereas communism is still seen as a valid intellectual exercise by many and does not get quite the same reaction.

Actually, this is exactly why the communist delusion would work better than the fascist delusion. Sure, you would not get much of an impression with someone who holds fuzzy feelings for both religion and communism. ("Well, 'true' communism isn't atheistic!").
However it would work better for people who have fuzzy feelings for religion, but are critical of communism. It works better because these people can know of people who think communism is a valid intellectual exercise while they themselves are still critical of it.

Bottom line is to give someone a birdseye view of the debate. This can be done by comparing the debate they are in by a similar debate they are removed from. The communism delusion would work better because the debate is more similar.

Having said that, the piece is absolutely brilliant!!

12. The smallest signs of retreat

Comment #68422 by Konradius on September 7, 2007 at 6:47 am

First!
And again a piece of complete and utter drivel. Apparently Bunting (what's in a name?) has never let any viewpoint challenge hers.

13. Bible Belter

Comment #68371 by Konradius on September 7, 2007 at 3:00 am

I'm fascinated to see the analysis here regarding Hitchens' use of "mammal" to describe religious leaders. I thought he was simply poking fun at those who willingly describe themselves as "primates".

Well, there's more to the use of 'mammal' as a prejorative. How cool is a description that is repulsive to your opponents, but ok to you and your friends?

14. In God we doubt

Comment #67248 by Konradius on September 3, 2007 at 12:43 am

I got as far as the 2nd paragraph, then skipped to his 7 strawmen, saw they were moronic and skipped the rest.
If this guy is an agnostic (went back to check this, yes, he claims that) then he clearly believes in belief. And he should read The God Delusion in stead of at best skimming it.
This guy has no single clue about how to get answers to his questions. He would have after reading that book.

15. Public Debate on Complexity and Evolution

Comment #61173 by Konradius on August 4, 2007 at 3:00 am

Hah! I could have had first, but at least I started to listen to this event.
I think one question was a bit bungled. I think it's *easy* to get a mouse to fly.
Select for bigger paws, select for webbing between the digits (it's already there for a large part), select for a higher placement of the legs, select for the mouse that actually knows how to fly.
Sure, it'll take you some million generations (with lots of offspring per generation), but you have the advantage that you can feed the mouse, it doesn't have to do that himself.

And perhaps it is less than so many generations. Look what we did with wolves (now dogs) in 10.000 years.

Lastly feathers. Well, you may eventually get a mouse with hair that has hairs themselves. Cherish that mouse and breed him till you get more "real" feathers.

16. Is Christianity Good for the World? A discussion between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson

Comment #55706 by Konradius on July 12, 2007 at 3:39 am

In true biblical fashion most of Wilson's argument can be put in the following analogy.
Christianity is a car, Wilson is the car salesman and morality is scoring chicks.

Car salesman: You cannot score a chick without a car!
Potential buyer: I can score chicks without a car.
Car salesman: Hah! You can't say how you score a chick without a car! Surely you must need a car to score a chick!
Potential buyer, now put off: I know I can score a chick without a car. And anyway, I wouldn't want the chicks that can get scored purely on the basis of a car.