1. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176340 by Epinephrine on May 7, 2008 at 7:35 am

Seeker -

More evidence is typically required for extraordinary claims.

No evidence for a "great flood" exists that can't be as easily used to explain smaller, localised floods.

Localised floods, in societies that live on riverbanks, would likely thus appear in nearly all mythologies, and as mentioned already, would be inflated by storytelling.

You asked for least convincing evidence of a great flood?

My pick is mythology (like the bible) - it's simply a claim something happened, and is likely the exagerration of a natural disaster. The presence of flood mythologies among groups that lived on flood plains is not evidence of a global flood.

I know of no good evidence, though, so I can't offer you a "most convincing" bit.

2. Was the new finger a 'natural' miracle?

Comment #174412 by Epinephrine on May 2, 2008 at 11:45 am

Regeneration of digit-tips in mice is known, and humans can too; Scientific American had an article on this (April 2008), and says that it has been documented in medical journals thousands of times. Work is being done to determine what processes are behind this in mice, since we can't randomly chop fingers off people - but apparently the literature is full of cases of children, teenagers, and even adults regenerating fingertips. One "treatment" that doesn't work is to put a skin flap over it - this will prevent regeneration even in salamanders.

3. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #172038 by Epinephrine on April 29, 2008 at 7:09 am

TTID:

Epinephrine,

I did watch the other video. Again, I know you make no distinction between what I call Micro vs. Macro Evolution, but in my mind, this video explained micro-evolution in which I readily understand. I swear that I'm not trying to frustrate you or I am not intentially being hard-headed, I am being truly honest. Colors change, sizes change, but to add an appendage? Would not every random mutation between the first and the final need to be advantageous in itself in order for natural selection to continue in that direction. How would the first mutation leading to a hand offer a beneficial advantage for natural selection to continue in that direction?

Please have patience with me.

Of course - I have nearly no end of patience talking politely about a topic :)

I'm glad that you accept (as you put it) micro evolution, and you are correct in your guess that I make no distinction between micro- and macro- evolution, seeing the latter as merely the former over longer periods of time.

The example of the organisms adapting to their environment (which I thought was well done with the computer simulation, showing a slight delay often before they catch up to the environmental changes) can of course explain how a single homogeneous group can become two discrete groups.

Speciation is thought to occur in a variety of situations, and there are names for each; one type which might apply easily to this type of population is allopatric speciation, in which some form of barrier comes into being between two populations. Some examples would be separation of continents, a river, chasm, desert or other barrier to population mingling, being blown of course and populating a new and distant area, etc...

If such a thing happened, it's easy to see that one population might settle into one colour configuration, while the other might settle into another. This is of course occuring in genes other than colour as well, and eventually the two populations may differ so much that they no longer breed. tada! Speciation.

Now, this doesn't address your question of the development of something like a hand, at least not directly. It's very similar in principle though - we must remember that hands didn't develop on a plant or amoeba; they developed on a creature with something resembling a hand. It is certainly incremental.

So I suppose I have a few questions, to try to pinpoint where you may be feeling resistance.

1) Could you see something like the human hand developing from something like the ape (chimpanzee, orangutan) hand? These are fairly similar structures, and require only some changes to the length of bones, shifting of tendon attachment points and so on.

2.) Is the development of an ape-like hand from a more primitive hand a problem? Say, from a lemur, aye-aye, or other small prosimian?

3.) Could you see, through gradual changes, a paw like that of a squirrel or raccon, changing to become more like a prosimian's hand?

To me, these are pretty similar structures. working our way back, slowly, it doesn't seem at all surprising, the changes seem small, and easy to account for. Of course, the evidence is sparser the farther back one goes, but (to me, at least) it's not surprising that finding 90 million-year old hand bones is harder than finding recent ones.

The interesting thing is that it isn't just the bones/fossils that tell this story, it's also in the genes.

Is your trouble with the idea much earlier, with the idea of developing limbs at all? Why would a fin become a limb, why would a fin be advantageous over not having one?

Even slight changes can be advantageous, and there is a remarkable history of bodyparts being co-opted for use in a function that differs markedly from its original use (exaptation) - the bee's stinger, for example, is a modified egg-laying tube (ovipositor), and the lobed fins of some of the putative ancestors of terrestrial animals are thought to have been useful for moving in shallow waters. The eventual use of walking on land was not selected for, rather, they were handy right then, for staying put in a moving current, or for moving through weedy, shallow waters. The panda's "thumb" is another interesting example of exaptation, but there are countless examples. It's important to remember that no feature could ever be selected for as being advantageous later, but they may have been advantageous for some other purpose.

So, does the development of something like the hand need to be incremental? Yes. Beneficial at every step? Not necessarily for the function of being a hand. Beneficial for something, most likely.

4. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #171689 by Epinephrine on April 28, 2008 at 5:22 pm

TTID:

I'm really impressed that you watched the video, and came back to ask questions. Your mention of the idea that two different offspring might possess different traits presenting benefits is indeed possible; in fact, in every generation there are bound to be many variations that are beneficial, some of which will be lost. The best adapted individual can happen to die young. The nice thing is that overall, better adapted individuals are more likely to survive than the poor variations.

I'll invite you to watch another short film actually, called "How Evolution Really Works" - I like this because it shows that sometimes, through chance, the best adapted specimen dies. The number of generations and the selection pressure will still result in adaptation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeTssvexa9s

Hopefully you'll enjoy this one, if I recall it was well done, though it might not address all your questions. It's still a good example of how evolution can occur.

PS: ignore the Wagner. It's a bit overplayed :P

5. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #171314 by Epinephrine on April 28, 2008 at 12:28 pm

DamnDirtyApe

Side note: much dumber animals (crows) are excellent tool users, and very good at making and using spears for 'fishing' grubs

What makes you think that crows are "much dumber"?

6. Humans nearly wiped out 70,000 years ago, study says

Comment #169446 by Epinephrine on April 26, 2008 at 5:55 am

Well, since we've successfully managed to get the vast majority of the votes there, perhaps we can influence the "yahoo movies" rankings, since Expelled was a "B" yesterday, and it's down to a "B-" today - but the vast majority of the "helpful" reviews are still positive.

If you have a yahoo account, feel free to go vote with your heart ;)

7. Humans nearly wiped out 70,000 years ago, study says

Comment #168743 by Epinephrine on April 25, 2008 at 10:27 am

Thanks, I edited the link so it will work now. Nearly 10:1 for "No" at present! :D

8. Humans nearly wiped out 70,000 years ago, study says

Comment #168713 by Epinephrine on April 25, 2008 at 10:03 am

A bit OT, but I figured I'd mention it in a thread that is still being read - there is a poll asking whether ID should be taught in the classroom over on http://www.myspace.com/expelledthemovement if anyone wants to voice their opinion on the issue, the rational out there have pushed the score from 2:1 in favour of ID to about 5:1 against it so far. You may have already followed the link from PZ's Pharyngula blog, but if not, it's a chance to embarass the Expelled folk by having the poll on their site clearly against ID in the classroom :)

9. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168120 by Epinephrine on April 24, 2008 at 2:32 pm

I do not restrict my children reading list nor do I force them to read my suggestions. My children have literary freedom.

That's great! So do ours. At least we can agree on that much :)

10. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168116 by Epinephrine on April 24, 2008 at 2:29 pm

Evolution isn't an atheist conspiracy, it's a fact of the natural world and of science.

11. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168078 by Epinephrine on April 24, 2008 at 1:55 pm

Hey, we fooled you with Hugh Laurie you know.

Naw, my wife loves him, but one of her favourite games is to listen for the words that trip him up a little, and hear the accent peek through :)

12. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #168070 by Epinephrine on April 24, 2008 at 1:51 pm

TTID -

Bogus.

That about sums up your case. Give it up.

13. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #168055 by Epinephrine on April 24, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Where is the mutation in Darwin's finch scenario?

Why don't you read Darwin. He wrote wonderfully about it. Then again, you might learn something.

You don't answer our questions, I'm done answering yours.

Why are there so many religions, and miracles witnessed by those following other religions?

14. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #168039 by Epinephrine on April 24, 2008 at 1:32 pm

Next.

What next? you haven't managed to respond to a single question asked of you.

Or are you meekly asking for your next whipping? I would think that the intellectual drubbing would get a little embarassing for you, since all you manage to do is hold up worn out creationist garbage, debunked countless times.

15. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #168026 by Epinephrine on April 24, 2008 at 1:26 pm

Yes, and at one time most scientists thought that the world was flat, that the earth was the center of the universe, being bled was a cure. Majority does not dictate right from wrong. You see, science is constantly changing.

Right. We learn, and build on knowledge with more evidence. Oh, and sometimes bleeding is a cure. It may have worked in antiquity for hypertension, and is still used today for hemochromatosis, as an example.

ID is constant.

And wrong. And it'll be just as wrong tomorrow as it was yesterday.

16. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #168022 by Epinephrine on April 24, 2008 at 1:25 pm

Oh, don't quote me, I'm paraphrasing another poster (or possibly author). Someone wrote something along the lines of: accepting microevolution but not macroevolution is like saying, "Sure, putting one foot in front of the other, you can walk out the door, maybe down the street, but all the way across the country? Impossible!"

17. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #168011 by Epinephrine on April 24, 2008 at 1:19 pm

No, the evolution you all are proposing is nothing like the observable modification or adaptation that takes place

Actually, it's exactly like that. Just like walking from Ottawa to Montreal is exactly like walking from my chair to the door, only difference is that it takes a little longer.

18. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #168004 by Epinephrine on April 24, 2008 at 1:17 pm

TTID:

You are the one who is ignorant. Getting 700 "scientists" in favour of ID is nothing. See project Steve.

19. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167988 by Epinephrine on April 24, 2008 at 1:09 pm

TTID:

Back at you

20. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167986 by Epinephrine on April 24, 2008 at 1:08 pm

Exactly. The proven scientific evidence of the complexity of life leaves without a doubt that there had to be a designer.

Not true, the complexity of life proves that there couldn't be a designer.

21. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167980 by Epinephrine on April 24, 2008 at 1:06 pm

There is no big debate. There is no big conflict. There are a very small number of scientists who use religion in place of reason.

If Christianity is right, why are there so many other religions, which also have holy texts and witnessed miracles? I don't see much conflict in atheism.

22. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167789 by Epinephrine on April 24, 2008 at 10:32 am

Steve Zara -

I am not even sure what "macro" evolution is supposed to mean. I am guessing "evolution in a big leap". We do occasionally see that. As I often mention, we get new species in a single generation by chromosome duplication.

However, what I suspect "macroevolution" is really intended to mean is "evolution in bigger steps than scientists have yet found", so it is goalpost-moving

Indeed. I suspect that "macro-evolution" is their term for speciation, but viewed through an ID perspective. Where's the crocoduck-type speciation.

The science daily article (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm ) on lizards and evolution (found on RD.net as well) is a fascinating example, but as PZ points out on Pharyngula, "yes, this population of Podarcis sicula is still made up of lizards, but they're a different kind of lizard now." The ID folks won't be happy until a frog turns into an owl or some such.

23. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167653 by Epinephrine on April 24, 2008 at 8:39 am

decius -

May I ask you what you imply with your reference to people's backgrounds? If you think that it's a class or education-related issue, I have to disagree. Among others, I know a heart surgeon of upper-class extraction who cusses like a fishwife

Nothing of the sort - I meant their past experiences, the formative factors which (along with genetics) influence their behaviours.

For example, attitude toward religion may depend in part on your experiences with it, and while social class and education won't predict with any real accuracy an individual's patterns of self-expression, their behaviours (in speech/text, for example) are no doubt related, at least in part, to their experiences growing up. My brother and I are like night and day in some ways, but we had very different experiences as young men.

24. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167586 by Epinephrine on April 24, 2008 at 7:22 am

Al-rawandi, Quetz, and others -

I wasn't pointing fingers, and I do get that it's frustrating. And there are those that I would also insult, but there are folks who do it much better than I do.

I don't mind the insults to the habitual trolls, in that they are often well-deserving of your (our?) scorn and derision, having abandoned any attempts at rational thought. Wooter in particular was amusing, and I enjoy the poetic way he is handled when he makes his incomprehensible quackings. And of course you are all free to express yourselves, I have no clue what your backgrounds are, and there can be very legitimate reasons (other than the frustration we all share) to have some vitriolic fury at the believers who proselytise here.

I just hope that it doesn't drive away those who may really be coming here to learn, and decide that it's not a nice environment. I don't hold anyone here responsible for it, and I appreciate all the effort made to encourage discussion and share knowledge - it's just a regret for those who might not stay, since there is so much more here than the odd insulting post might manage to portray.


And decius - I hope it's obvious that I'm not a troll...

25. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167542 by Epinephrine on April 24, 2008 at 6:41 am

I agree with lol mahmood, actually. I find it discouraging that there are members more prone to insult than talk, but that's what happens when one takes a sample - you get folks from all walks of life, with all sorts of attitudes. I don't think it's particularly helpful (though perhaps at times fitting, and even mildly amusing) to insult the trolls that come here, as they're apt to simply be after some ire to quotemine anyway.

More important is really how we seem to those who might be interested, but are turned off when they load in and see ad homs/insults flying.

==========================

Re: TheTruthID; you make claims that have no evidence, we're ignoring it. I can just as easily say that the bible has been disproved (and it has, it's self contradictory and full of false information), and that a host of very religious people have realised that there is no god (same argument you make, that there are scientists who believe in god). It's as meaningful as anything you've posted.

26. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #166939 by Epinephrine on April 23, 2008 at 1:55 pm

If your main argument is "but look, there are scientists who believe in creation," you've already lost.

The proportion of scientists who believe in ID is vanishingly small. And while scientists are, by virtue of their education, as a whole better trained in rational argument than the lay person, that doesn't prevent long -held delusions from surviving their education, biases from life affecting judgement, nor does it mean that they are infallible. The proportion of scientists who believe in ID is much smaller than the proportion of the population as a whole, and among those who study biological sciences it is even lower. The more educated about the subject, the fewer people believe in ID. Maybe because ID has no supporting evidence (excepting of course a really old fairy tale collection), and relies on garbage science, misinfomation, quote mining and such.

Please, bring a legitimate argument or stop trolling.

27. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #166924 by Epinephrine on April 23, 2008 at 1:45 pm

TheTruthID

No one wants to defend one of your own. You keep asking me for reasons why I beleive in ID, and when I quote one of your own, no response.

Very interesting?

A physicist who believes in creation does not prove it is true.

Despite having an education, a physicist doesn't necessarily know a thing about evolution - much like the vast majority of people who haven't studied it.

Oh, and he's not "one of our own". We're atheists, he clearly isn't.

28. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166504 by Epinephrine on April 23, 2008 at 9:25 am

Steve Zara

How exactly do you expect the general public to react to discussions of statistical significance?

A really good question.

I think this needs to be addressed, possibly more than any other issue of science education, as it applies to nearly every aspect of science (not saying that evolution is unimportant!).

The vast majority of science issues that face the public, from safety of drugs, to contaminated groundwater (lead paint, vaccine risks, global warming, DNA tests and criminal trials...) all have to do with statistics. We need the lay person to understand the concepts, at least in a broad sense.

It should be part of maths early in school, starting in kindergarten most likely. Pulling marbles (or tokens or something) from a hat, and showing that you can get different samples from the same source. That bigger samples are better. That you don't always get an answer that you can be sure of, but that with enough sampling you have a pretty good idea of what's going on.

29. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #166445 by Epinephrine on April 23, 2008 at 8:52 am

Prospero811-

Question: How does the Creationist or ID-er explain extinct species?

You are underestimating the IDer's ability to make stuff up.

I predict answers would be selected from:

-There might not have been many (after all, how many parahippus have been found?)
-God punished them?
-Fossilisation enlarged/shrank the bones, and they're all just horses (some might be young)
-They are all of a baramin (some word for "type"), hence only one of those was needed on the ark, the others drowned
-They are all of a baramin, and varied widely after the flood, but only the ones god really liked are still around.
-Further inanity...

30. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165921 by Epinephrine on April 22, 2008 at 3:28 pm

Chewmanfoo -

But I choose something that engenders respect for my fellow man and for the creation, an awe for the wonders of science and for our ingenious scientific method, which is leading us every so slowly to God.

Bully for you. I also happen to have chosen something that engenders respect for my fellows; man, woman, animal and plant - indeed, all my fellow travelers.

Your use of the conjunction "but" to start your statement seems to imply that we don't value life. I assure you that you are wrong to generalise in that manner - many atheists are very moral, and in fact unlike those who do good out of fear of punishment, our actions are motivated by a desire to better the world.

If you came here to ask questions, to learn, to get a new perspective, I applaud you. If you came to try to peer down at us because we "lack" something, I have no use for you.

Cheers,

Epi.

31. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165219 by Epinephrine on April 21, 2008 at 8:27 am

I notice that Hmmmm's question about "convergence" was answered a few ways, but I don't think it addressed the question he was asking. I suspect he was really inquiring as to why there are discrepancies between sources on the tree of life structure, and that his "convergence" would be that many researchers would end up with the same findings, if they were true. One person (alexmzk) responded that "they all provide the exact same 'tree'", but that isn't entirely true - there are small variations on the tree; the second part of his statement however is true - "the same 'tree' (would you believe it) you'd expect had evolution occurred." - Though a few variations on the tree exist, they all fit the data known so far.

So here's my attempt to answer the questions I think Hmmmm is asking.

Q1.) Why are there conflicts between scientists if evolution is true (i.e. there is a single tree)?
A1.) Not all the evidence is available on every branching point of the tree. The conflicts are typically very minor, but are necessary to science. Science relies on building theories based on evidence, and the current evidence can support more than one explanation for some things. As an example:

Fruit bats (megachiroptera) don't have echolocation for the most part, while the small insect eating bats (microchiroptera) do. One could conclude that likely the bats split and one type developed echolocation to catch a tough prey, while the other type didn't as fruit don't move much. It turns out that a few fruit bats do have echolocation though - so the story gets trickier; perhaps all bats developed echolocation, but those that had no need (since they adopted, over time, a lifestyle that didn't rely on it) lost this ability. This is possible, and then the few fruit bats that have echolocation may depend on it more than we would guess. Another possibility is that echolocation evolved twice, once for the microchiroptera, and again later for the small group of fruit bats.

As you can see from the example, this is not exactly a problem with the scientific method, or with evolution. Either version could be possible and only additional evidence will settle the question. I'm fairly confident that further genetic analysis will reveal the answer, but only because science allows itself to question theories will be continue to close in on the true solution. While the trees may differ slightly in the timing of a few features, it's much like reading the American and British versions of a book. The overall content is the same.


Q2.) How can there be a difference between models?
A2.) The short answer is that there can be multiple solutions to a problem, and multiple theories to fit data. If you know that X Y=10 they are infinitely many solutions. If you know that X and Y are natural numbers it reduces the number of choices to 9 (or 11 if you count 0 as a natural number). If you discover more evidence telling you that X is odd, you now have only 5 possibilities. This is exactly what happens in science - we have data suggesting one of a few models can fit, and as new data is found it generally restricts the options, converging on a single solution.

Sometimes an earlier assumption turns out to be false. For example, Newton's theories weren't wrong, but they didn't apply to curved space. The curvature of space wasn't known or indeed measurable, so he couldn't include it in his models. In such cases, instead of narrowing our choices additional data can actually increase the number of choices, but it always builds on the data available, and there are often multiple models that fit.

Q3.) If the conflicts are minor, why do we hear about them?
A3.) The conflicts truly are minor - they often involve issues such as whether a given bone is an early human (homo) or not, or other such similar issues. As Dawkins points out many times, such exercises in line drawing are pointless, since really there is a continuum, that's the nature of evolution. A ring species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species) is an example of this in the geographic sense, while we are looking at the same issue from a temporal perspective. (Incidentally, there is a nice video on the site about a type of salamander, illustrating the concept of a ring species)

Those who would like science to seem self-contradictory exaggerate these conflicts. They may ask rhetorical questions like, "why should we believe we evolved from these primitive forms when scientists can even decide if this bone belonged to a human or an ape?", misleading the public as to the nature of the disagreement, and making a controversy out of something as simple as a name.

32. Teacher Expelled Over Religion

Comment #162199 by Epinephrine on April 16, 2008 at 10:08 am

My understanding of the situation was that she was fired for passing on information about an anti-ID talk, using her work email.

It wasn't about her not teaching creationism in science class, unless things have changed since I last read about her case.

I'm not suggesting that the TEA were in the right (they most definitely are imbeciles), but I'd like to be clear on what the issue actually is; the article text above says

Chris Comer, a Science Teacher in Texas was Expelled for not teaching Intelligent Design in her science class. It's a scary day indeed when our science teachers get fired for recognizing that creationism is not science.

and if that's not the case it should be removed - we don't need to distort the truth, it's already bad enough.

33. Inadequate, private and late apology with grotesquely inadequate excuse

Comment #160240 by Epinephrine on April 13, 2008 at 8:45 pm

BFKate

Glad it's not necessarily me, very generous of you

No need to be sarcastic, I was perhaps belabouring the point that I was criticising the statement, not the author. Internet fora and response threads like this are prone to reading ad homs when none are intended, thus my caveat (which was meant to be humourous).

I don't agree with you at all, but I do so respectfully.

I don't see how you can say that she is just expressing an opinion, she is employed, and hence has a duty to her employer to act in a manner appropriate to her work. She represents several things (now as a non-American, I may get this wrong in detail, but it would be something like this I suspect) - the democratic party, the people of her riding (or whatever the boundary is for state representatives), the state government. I don't know the method/mechanism to discipline those who step out of line, but there is generally a system.

Sure, she has a "right" to say what she said, but she must face the consequences of it. A person has the right to say many things, but we still must be held accountable for our actions. The right to free speech doesn't prevent consequences, and you can be fired in many jobs for expressing opinions - or even facts.

If there is a system to punish her, it should be invoked, just as much as it would have been for other minorities. It's not the least bit amusing that it's acceptable to demonise atheists.

It reminds me of the time a female co-worker (at the office, in front of others) asked me if I was wearing anything under my kilt - I simply said that if I asked her if she had any panties on under her skirt, even in jest, I'd likely be fired for sexual harrassment. For some reason double standards crop up everywhere. What fuels my ire is that Rep. Davis is going to get off lightly not because of any lack of wrongdoing, or the sincerity of her apology, but because she was only attacking atheists.

34. Inadequate, private and late apology with grotesquely inadequate excuse

Comment #159192 by Epinephrine on April 11, 2008 at 3:18 pm

I'm no expert on law and this sounds like a fairly legal definition of freedom of speech which is not the sense I use the phrase in. I do believe the freedom has to be absolute to have any value.

Sorry, but this (not necessarily you) is idiotic.

According to you then, I could walk into an airport and say "I have a bomb!", and that's just my freedom of speech? Or encourage people to kill members of an ethnic group? Or perhaps utter death threats?

It's not absolute, and it never was. It's meant to protect your rights to express yourselves as individuals.

Rep. Davis wasn't speaking as an individual, she is a representative of the government, speaking in a government setting. It was completely inappropriate, and she should be fired, just as any person who works a retail would be if they were incredibly rude to a customer. You bet your ass a clerk will be fired if he hands someone their purchase and says something bigoted/threatening - freedom of speech won't protect them. Same issue. She violated her position and the trust of those who elected her, and all those she represents.

If the waitress at a restaurant said "get the hell out, you aren't christian, and this is a christian nation. Your kind believes only in Jihad and bombing innocents!" to a Muslim she'd be fired on the spot. This is EVEN WORSE. This isn't some shmo, it's the representative of government. She has even MORE of a duty to watch her mouth. If she isn't fired outright it's a joke. Replace the atheist with ANY minority religious or ethnic group pretty much and she'd already be on the curb.

35. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156238 by Epinephrine on April 7, 2008 at 6:55 am

If we want to replace use of the word "Darwinist" we need to come up with something nearly as simple. "Gene-centred evolutionist" or "modern evolutionary synthesist" are too cumbersome. I agree though that it's unfortunate, since the gene-centred view isn't exactly what Darwin was suggesting.

36. Biologists Take Evolution Beyond Darwin Way Beyond

Comment #156234 by Epinephrine on April 7, 2008 at 6:38 am

People seem to want to keep sneaking in selection at levels about the gene.

I have no issue with the possibility of selection at levels other than the gene, it's when they try to suggest that other levels are involved when genetic selection can explain it that I have trouble.

The ability to learn and pass on skills is genetically influenced, but what happens to be learned isn't. Humans of course come to mind, but other species could also benefit in this way.

For example, termite harvesting with sticks is a learned behaviour in chimpanzees, and could provide enough of an advantage to allow groups knowing the technique to survive a famine/drought while other groups couldn't. Both groups may have the same genetic ability to learn, but one has been exposed to the idea and knows how to fish for termites. Individual members who know how to fish for termites may not even be that bright, and the population as a whole could be less able to pass on skills, but the skill they happened to pass on effects their survival.

37. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151321 by Epinephrine on March 28, 2008 at 1:40 pm

a complete set of human DNA within a distinct body of cells is all that's needed to define a person as a person

Wow, and since a cancerous tumour has genetic differences from the original cells you it's a new person. I wonder whether tumours have souls?

38. Fleabytes

Comment #151103 by Epinephrine on March 28, 2008 at 6:57 am

There's somewhat of a misconception about beer strength and the USA. While there are certainly styles of beer that are stronger than those typically consumed in the USA, the beers most people are familiar with should not actually differ in alcohol content between the USA and another country (say, Canada).

The issue is that for some reason, many American legal standards refer to beer alcohol content in terms of alcohol by mass (abm), while the rest of the world uses alcohol by volume (abv). Since ethanol (the alcohol we think of in beer and other beverages) is less dense than water, this results in American beers having a lower percentage alcohol listed. An example would be the "3.2" beer laws of several states, which refer to 3.2% abm, which is roughly equivalent to a 4% abv beer.

39. Two More Fleas

Comment #148014 by Epinephrine on March 21, 2008 at 7:30 pm

I'll add a few to the list of similar animals -

how about the mustelids?

Clearmind (wooter), I invite you to examine the least weasel, ermine (stoat), long tailed weasel, black footed ferret, mink, pine marten, fisher, badger, river otter, wolverine, and sea otter.

Spanning the range of ~50 grams (2 ounces?) through as much as 45 kg (100 pounds), they are quite the assortment - and that's just a list of Canadian mustelids. They even resemble one another, once you get over the size differences and gradual changes that are required for specialised living. In fact, the least weasel, ermine, and long tailed weasel look pretty similar, and in areas without the least weasel but where ermines live the ermine tends to be smaller, moving in on the least weasel's niche.

Sure, looking at a wolverine and a least weasel it wouldn't necessarily jump out at you that they are similar, what with one being 400 times the size of the other, but they share dentition, body plan, scent glands and so on. When one sees the specimens all lined up the similarities are all the more striking.

This can be done again and again in the animal kingdom. It can be done at virtually any starting point. Looking a little farther back on the tree of life and following a nearby branch leads us to animals that are similar as well, but with bigger differences. The coati, ringtail, olingo, kinkajou, and the raccoon are all similar to one another, and more distantly similar to the mustelids - exactly as we'd expect, as the procyonidae are closely related to the mustelidae.

40. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #147416 by Epinephrine on March 20, 2008 at 10:59 am

Comment #147406 by Duffguy

I think to give them the same open minded attitude that we expect from them (ie. asking them to question their beliefs, and look into the works of some of the "four horsemen"), then we should by all means read the book.

If theologists are going to cite this book as a rebuttle, I'd like to know what I'm up against.

Quite frankly I'm a little disappointed in most of the comments on this. We expect them to accept our message, but we're shrugging off their response. The same attitude we generally accuse them of, no?

I agree that we should each, ideally, read every book on the subject thoroughly.

We simply can't - the "fleas" number at least a few dozen so far, I don't have time to read 20-30 books "refuting" TGD, so I will rely on excerpts from the books, reviews of the books by people in whom I can place some trust, and the argument highlights, in the same way that I often read abstracts of scientific articles or reviews of them before deciding whether to read an article in full.

While I agree that in principle we should read everything, it's unreasonable in practice.

If there are obvious logical flaws in the highlights, it likely isn't worth reading. If the arguments they choose to present are the same tired arguments that have been refuted, it doesn't encourage one to dig looking to see if maybe there is a new argument hidden somewhere.

When one writes an abstract, one tries to present information succinctly, setting out the hypothesis, method, and results in as clear a manner as possible. When one writes a summary/chooses an excerpt it should likewise be a good selection. When one writes a report, typically there is an executive summary/briefing note, as not everyone has time to read every report.

Day's book doesn't strike me as being worth reading, based on reviews, based on exceprts, based on arguments. I am as open to reading it as I am to any book, but given the limitations on my time there is a degree of triage done on my reading list, and even books that have made it to my bedside table sometimes languish there as other (more urgent?) books move ahead of them in the stack.

41. A Designer Universe?

Comment #147349 by Epinephrine on March 20, 2008 at 7:49 am

PlagioClase -

There is no evidence that I know of to suggest that the fundamental constants could be anything else. The entire idea of hypothesising that they might have been other than they are is pointless if they can't have been different.

The anthropic principle makes a lot of sense, in many areas - why we happen to be on a planet at this temperature (we are creatures that need liquid water to exist, hence it's hardly surprising that we exist on a planet with liquid water) - it makes some sense in that there are other types of planets with different temperatures (some of which may well also have life, but not life depending on liquid water, obviously).

Much of the issue seems to be a problem of logic, really.

* People point out that life as we know it couldn't exist if things were a little different.
** We don't know if things could be different.
** It only applies to life as we know it.

* Isn't it amazing that life exists, in a universe that has values of the constants that allow for it?
** It would be far more amazing if life existed in a universe in which the constants didn't allow for it. It's somewhat pointless the other way round - it's trivially true that "if there exists X in the universe, the constants allow for the existence of X."

Steve Zara seems to know a great deal about physics/cosmology, which is one of my weaker areas to be honest; perhaps he'll stop by to enlighten us.

42. Full house captivated by atheist Dawkins' take on religion

Comment #146970 by Epinephrine on March 19, 2008 at 3:37 pm

My point was that much of the sentiment against it is dogma, and recent. I have a particularly horrid little book called "Circumcision Exposed" (copyright 1998) which rivals creationist literature for its blatant falsehoods (I picked it up for 30 cents, for laugh value).

There's been evidence for medical benefit for circumcision for a long time, it's just the amount of benefit that is a question. And people routinely pay more than expected return on things (think of insurance), particularly when the cost is bearable and the benefit if needed is large (penile cancer prevention, reduction of cervical cancer). The circumcision debate is unfortunately led by people who essentially are against it because of principles (don't hurt children, don't choose for them) rather than looking at evidence.

43. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146872 by Epinephrine on March 19, 2008 at 1:55 pm

Comment #146865 by Steve Zara

Aw, thanks Steve :) You're pretty swell too ;)

44. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146858 by Epinephrine on March 19, 2008 at 1:47 pm

If there were an evoultionary advantage shouldn't gays be the norm and hetros be the benighted minority?

If one looks at game theory and evolutionarily stable strategies, we can see how a population can allow for the use of strategies that couldn't be stable on their own. Hawk-dove situations can support populations of retaliators, bullies, and all sorts of other strategies in the right mixes, and without some elements others couldn't persist stably. Bullies can't invade a hawk population, but they can invade doves.

Is there any evolutionary advantage? I am curious, I don't understand evolution well enough to know either way.

I don't believe that anyone knows with certainty, but there are reams of theoretical answers, varying from incomplete penetrance, multiple genes some of which provide advantages on their own, social advantages and kin selection and so on. Clearly non-reproduction doesn't make sense unless the genes help other copies of themselves, but there are many ways that can come about.

45. Full house captivated by atheist Dawkins' take on religion

Comment #146832 by Epinephrine on March 19, 2008 at 1:19 pm

Circumcision without medical reasons: textbook.

Curious about this one. Can you explain why? In Ontario (where I live) they decided to stop funding circumcision out of the provincial health care coverage, but they certainly don't call it abuse.

In fact, if one reads the report, the decision to stop coverage is based on a cost-benefit analysis, and in fact the results were that the costs balanced roughly with the benefit.

The overall evidence of the benefits and harms of circumcision is so evenly balanced that it does not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns.

Canadian Medical Association Journal 1996; 154(6): 769-780

Of note is the fact that there was in fact, a calculated benefit to circumcision, which matched pretty closely with the cost of the surgery and the cost of the risks. The choice to make it elective had nothing to do with the safety of people, but to do with the fact that the medical benefits were roughly the same as the costs. If an operation costs 110 dollars to perform, and grants 100 dollars on average of benefit, it is a bad idea for government to sponsor it (they lose money over the long term) - but it in no way means that the surgery is abusive - it still has an actual medical benefit, of an expected 100 dollar benefit.

Interestingly, the cost-benefit analysis only paid attention to effects on the male (penile cancer, UTI, balanitis, phimosis and paraphimosis) and ignores the epidemiological evidence of reduced cervical cancer rates among the female partners of circumcised males, thought to be due to a lower risk of tranmittal of HPV infection.

Speaking as a father who had to make the decision for his son (and we decided not to, though I was unsure about it) I got tired of the bullying from anti-circumcision folks that is dogmatic and doesn't actually examine the evidence. It's certainly not an easy decision, and I'll tell you that when I was sitting in the hospital with my 2 year old son, waiting to see if he'd need an emergency operation because of balanitis I sure as hell regretted not having had the circumcision (which would have prevented it) for him.

So, are you basing your opinion on epidemiological evidence? Or is this dogma?

46. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146674 by Epinephrine on March 19, 2008 at 9:16 am

There is a scientific tradition that if something occurs 1 in 20 times or more frequently, you can't consider it worth investigating as something different from normal.

RIP Gary Gygax, lover of icosahedra.

I mean, yes, alpha of 0.05 is pretty standard, though there are definitely times to use other alpha levels.

47. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146465 by Epinephrine on March 19, 2008 at 5:46 am

@Gordy

I think people might be missing the point here. As far as I know, the study doesn't differentiate between religions, it just claims that religious people are happier (on average) than non-religious people. This may well be true, but it's not because they're right and we're wrong. They can't all be right, because they all believe different things!

Actually, according to the article linked by pdiff (thanks, again) they did compare religions; Roman Catholics and Protestants had odds ratios of 1.127 and 1.126 (so they were 1.127 and 1.126 times as likely as non religious folks to report happiness), while other religions (which were grouped together) only had an OR of 0.96, meaning that they are actually *less* likely to be happy than non-religious people.

Given the relationship between variables (the fact that religion varies country to country, for example) I'd be somewhat surprised if the effects can be disentangled (there may be some multicolinearity, for example), and I haven't been able to find a single reference to the goodness of fit of their model, which makes me wonder if they even tested it.

48. First 'Rule' Of Evolution Suggests That Life Is Destined To Become More Complex

Comment #146271 by Epinephrine on March 18, 2008 at 9:28 pm

@the_ultimate_samurai

You quoted me, selectively removing the rather important, "To simplify things incredibly," with which I prefaced it.

I of course agree that the situation is more complex than my gross oversimplification, but the point was that it's long been thought that evolution, acting as a ratchet of sorts, is unlikely to function well in reverse. It's not surprising that the ratchet gradually advances.

49. First 'Rule' Of Evolution Suggests That Life Is Destined To Become More Complex

Comment #146097 by Epinephrine on March 18, 2008 at 3:50 pm

SmartLX:

The article actually acknowledges the existence of exceptions. They say, "hardly any crustaceans have taken this backwards route" and, "Of course, there are exceptions within the crustacean family tree, but most of these are parasites, or animals living in remote habitats such as isolated marine caves."

It's not really much of a rule, more of a general principle that has known exceptions.

50. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146038 by Epinephrine on March 18, 2008 at 2:01 pm

I don't know why this article is news. We've known for quite a while that religion is correlated with happiness.

I'm curious as to "how much" happier.

I remember something about the correlation of IQ with height. It turned out that if one was 4 feet taller it would account for about one standard deviation of difference.

I rather suspect that there are other factors which covary with religion that are more explanatory.