1. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #178477 by Quine on May 11, 2008 at 1:35 pm

Nairb, in her book Infidel Ayaan Hirsi Ali tells about getting the Dutch officials to start counting these killing so they could even find out that they had a problem (which they did). What is the French policy of counting and reporting?

2. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #178460 by Quine on May 11, 2008 at 1:05 pm

Nairb, do you think the tolerance (if not support) of these killings, as expressed by the community, is also "not representative"?

3. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #178416 by Quine on May 11, 2008 at 11:28 am

According to the theory, mutations are random events and are unrelated to, and therefore unresponsive to, environmental influences.

4. I Am Evolution

Comment #178387 by Quine on May 11, 2008 at 10:39 am

I have said this before, but this is a good place to reiterate that when people ask me if I believe in evolution, I answer, "I don't have to believe in evolution; I can check it."

5. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #178384 by Quine on May 11, 2008 at 10:32 am

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire.

Deep sadness, but not so much surprise.

6. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #178344 by Quine on May 11, 2008 at 9:26 am

I turned on the radio this morning just in time to catch a "This I Believe" essay on NPR. Many of these are very good, but too often filled with unjustifiable statements of faith, so imagine my pleasant surprise to hear one about evolution from a practicing paleoanthropologist, Holly Dunsworth. She was great, and I recommend her to all here for a breath of fresh air after all this "evolution is just faith" on the radio rubbish.

[Edit: I see Josh just put up a link to this on the front page.]

7. Church of Scotland mediators to quell disputes

Comment #178339 by Quine on May 11, 2008 at 9:10 am

A "sheep look up" moment?

When structures built upon hypocrisy start cracking, they tend to collapse quickly.

8. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #178061 by Quine on May 10, 2008 at 11:28 am

txpiper, the mutation rates have been carefully measured and modeled to establish that the changes we see in the fossil record do match the expectation considering both that mutation is relatively infrequent, and that beneficial mutation is rare. The key concept is that the beneficial is kept and passed on while the detrimental self limits. Evolution itself works on the rates of mutation. There are organisms that have much more DNA repair capabilities than others because they live in environments with high causes of DNA damage. However, organisms that have very high resistance to change by mutation, are in danger of failing to be able to track the changes in their environments; some balance has to be maintained.

While we are on this, if you have not read The Selfish Gene you need to do so to get the concept of the "gene's eye view." We tend to see the outward form of changes in animals, but evolution is actually working on the succession of gene frequencies in a population. What this means is that a mutation may be bad for the life of the individual, but if it promotes its gene frequency in the population of descendants, it will be selected.

For example, a mutation that shortens an animal's life span may be selected if it also causes that animal to have more viable offspring. There are fish who die after their one and only spawning; many forms of spiders are eaten by their one and only brood of hatchlings. Also, remember all those mutations in birds that just make them more sexy but have high cost in maintenance of plumage (like keeping that Ferrari going in the city).

9. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #177874 by Quine on May 9, 2008 at 9:40 pm

txpiper, I used the cancer example to address your idea of just how rare mutation is; very rare from a single cell viewpoint, but because organisms have so many cells, not so rare at that viewpoint.

On the more general point, cancer has been recognized as evolution in microcosm. It takes several independent mutations for a cell to go neoplastic (cancerous). We would never expect (probability too low) to see these happen in a single cell at a single time, but what we do see is successive mutations over time and number of generations (divisions). Natural selection comes in because mutations that kill the cell stop the progression, and mutations that make the cell look too different from normal cells are taken out by the immune system.

However, if the mutations cause the cell to loose replication control and become "undifferentiated" enough to stop doing what they normally do and start moving around, and still fly under the radar of the immune system, from its view, it has adapted by mutation and selection to an eco niche where it and its daughters can grow and prosper (of course, it does not know about killing the host, you). So, people who are exposed to radiation or chemicals that promote DNA breaks or copy errors, make a population that has higher rates of cancer because their cells have more chances at breaking out of their constraints.

The "new information" in the DNA of cancer cells does not come from anywhere in your parents (although they can pass you something close so you are in danger). It comes from mutation and natural selection over perhaps thousands of generations of cells, in your one lifetime.

Want to fight cancer? Make sure kids are educated about evolution.

10. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #177836 by Quine on May 9, 2008 at 7:56 pm

Yes, Diacanu, but he is, actually, right about a theory having to stand on its own power. It doesn't help his basic lack of understanding; it just deflects Rev's poke at him, and saves him from having to actually do any thinking.

11. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #177829 by Quine on May 9, 2008 at 7:40 pm

Mutations are very rare, that is why we all do not die of cancer at an early age even though we have a (big exponential number) of cells that replicate (copy DNA) day in and day out for several decades. However, cancer does happen (and all kinds of benign tumors) because mutation does happen. The bigger the population, the more cases of cancer because there are more of those (big exponential number) of cells doing it.

Mutation happens, nature selects, we evolve; get over it.

12. Scientists Know Better Than You--Even When They're Wrong

Comment #177819 by Quine on May 9, 2008 at 7:04 pm

Oh, well, not being an expert astrologist I guess I am not in a valid position to say it is rubbish.

13. Atheists are nice people who will roast in hell, says Cardinal

Comment #177812 by Quine on May 9, 2008 at 6:33 pm

Should be a great party, with some terrific folks. Check out Who's Who in Hell now on-line.

14. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177774 by Quine on May 9, 2008 at 4:59 pm

Paula, I think we should have a continuing "Follow the Money" thread re religion. Bonzai, if I remember, made some comments about this, and there is a section in Pascal Boyer's book that taps into it.

I have often wondered what parts of scripture are there specifically (if not coincidentally) just to keep the cash flowing to the institution (and its clergy). [Edit: This goes waaaay back to temple sacrifice (and the cut the "temple keepers" got) long before there was money as we know it.]

15. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177769 by Quine on May 9, 2008 at 4:50 pm

Thanks, 82abhilash, for that Sagan link; I thoroughly enjoyed it.

16. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177741 by Quine on May 9, 2008 at 3:17 pm

Sorry, there are none, we're all individuals here.

I'm not.

(Sorry, couldn't resist it!) :)

17. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177716 by Quine on May 9, 2008 at 2:30 pm

Belief Works?

18. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177684 by Quine on May 9, 2008 at 1:23 pm

Part of what is going on with the "free pass" is the childhood conditioning of sitting through all those wind bag sermons every Sunday. No mater how vacuous the father/minister/rabbi/guru/etc. was, no one was allowed to stand up and shout "rubbish." On the theologian side, almost all these people have been ministers, etc., and the practice of giving these unquestioned sermons causes them to slide right into that mode when they are, supposedly, presenting an intellectual argument.

Thanks again to Prof. Dawkins for calling them on this. Keep hitting them there. Perhaps someday young folks will, at least, go blog after the sermon and type "it was all rubbish."

19. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177174 by Quine on May 8, 2008 at 5:28 pm

Spinoza, was that the artist formerly know as "Prince" until he was not known as "Prince" but is now know as "Prince"?

20. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #177144 by Quine on May 8, 2008 at 4:43 pm

txpiper, please watch this clock evolution simulation and then try to calculate the probability of the positive mutations. Note how little progress is made until the first couple of parts come together.

Oh, and Flood?

21. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177083 by Quine on May 8, 2008 at 2:21 pm

Double-talk, double-talk , double-talk and more double-talk. No way am I going to put in the time to straighten that pile of mental spagetti. Here are some telling things:

Our faith is not founded on the conclusions of reason, but it is grounded in the Logos, the expressive Word that comes from God, and it is compatible with reasoned thought.

The atheism we see around us today perhaps flows from an apologetic which attempted to prove God's existence independently of any religious tradition or faith, ...

God is said by Christian theology to be ineffable, beyond our categories and thought capacity.

22. Gene map proves platypus is part bird, mammal and reptile

Comment #176948 by Quine on May 8, 2008 at 11:27 am

So, here you go. Any deity could convert the scientists of the world by having left a copy of scripture encoded in the junk DNA of the platty. Clearly, the animal is so strange that it screams "LOOK HERE FOR CREATION EVIDENCE!!!" however, look we do, and it is going to turn out to be just the reverse.

23. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #176893 by Quine on May 8, 2008 at 9:19 am

We are all familiar with the expression, "seeing is believing." Unfortunately, this is turned around (illogically) to "what I don't see happening, isn't happening" (although, imaginary friends seem to get a free pass on this part). Indeed, many who do not except the origin of species ideas of Darwin will, inconsistently, allow for so called "micro-evolution" because it can be seen, and thus, is much more difficult to deny. You can't deny that someone can walk down the street, but the idea that a vast number of footsteps could take you across a continent (so called "macro-evolution") is out of the question (except that it has and does happen).

So, what to do? First, it must be kept very simple. Yes, I know, the truly great parts are not simple, and you need to study how all this biochemistry works to see their grandeur. However, to make progress a simple, clear cut goal is needed; after such a goal is reached (high enough percentage understand) the next goal can be selected. The presentations by Prof. Dawkins and the writings here lead me to believe there is such a goal, and it is simply to get the public to see that the environment can do the selective breeding that we know passes down adaptation.

Why this and not the full mutation and natural selection picture? It is because they can see it. They can accept that milk cows are much changed from the wild African beasts that are those cow's ancestors. They can see all the changes in breeds of dogs. They may be willing to step up to beak changes in finches. The point is that the population in general will accept adaptation, so we should press that to get as high a percentage understanding in the population as a new base from which to extend to the next level.

Before you jump on me for this, please understand that in no way am I suggesting that evolution be watered down in the classroom; I think it should be strengthened and given to the students as the key to biological science. No concession should be made to establish that there really is any significant distinction between adaptation and speciation. The idea is simply that the talking-point style of addressing the public (which cannot convey complex classroom education) can gain us some ground, step by step, to take us to the long run destination of fuller understanding.

24. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #176668 by Quine on May 7, 2008 at 9:01 pm

Yes, Brian, I like it. Thanks.

25. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #176663 by Quine on May 7, 2008 at 8:55 pm

I guess I am going to have to get used to saying this over and over again: that evolution happens and has happened is a fact; how it happens is the subject of Darwin's theory which has been subsequently refined and supported by evidence beyond any reasonable doubt.

26. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #176651 by Quine on May 7, 2008 at 8:37 pm

"Neurons that fire together wire together" Repetition of ritual rewires brains through neuroplasticity. This is, and has been, a main tool of cults (religions) throughout history.

27. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #176606 by Quine on May 7, 2008 at 6:46 pm

Chato, can you elaborate as to the nature and properties of this "spirit" concept?

28. Ken Miller on Intelligent Design

Comment #176418 by Quine on May 7, 2008 at 9:39 am

Ken Miller gave a talk at Pepperdine University in November on Darwin and Christian Faith. I give this link out to any religious person I run across because Ken is talking directly to students of religious studies on their own turf and in their own language.

29. Dumb and Dumber: A discussion between Ben Stein and Glenn Beck

Comment #175600 by Quine on May 5, 2008 at 4:58 pm

Anyone else notice the deep (and disturbing) irony of the long accusation of science killing people and then the quick mention of stem rust, which could cause the starvation of millions if those with real knowledge of biological science are not there to stop it?

Edit: also see stem rust article in the NY Times.

30. Dumb and Dumber: A discussion between Ben Stein and Glenn Beck

Comment #175500 by Quine on May 5, 2008 at 2:06 pm

As for Stein's remark about reception of his movie by believers, see my comment on the Open Letter thread.

31. Research Volunteers Needed

Comment #175339 by Quine on May 5, 2008 at 9:22 am

The study of formal logic has ruined me for survey questions.

32. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #175321 by Quine on May 5, 2008 at 8:31 am

Comment #175268 by BNCbright:

From a philosophical and physics perspective it's interesting to posit/assume them - but for someone trying to advocate reason and science, for the mainstream, sticking to something a bit more 'certain' might be better.

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

Comment #175192 by Quine on May 4, 2008 at 7:39 pm

Chris Heard, Associate Professor of Religion at Pepperdine University has written a review of Expelled on his blog. I recommend this link be given to any theists you know who might think that there is any truth in the movie. It contains things about Jonathan Wells that I did not know.

Chris also linked to this thread about the letter from Mr. J.

34. Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools

Comment #175044 by Quine on May 4, 2008 at 9:05 am

In this piece of church news it looks like the ID folks may be able to get the churches to provide an alternate venue for teaching "their side of the controversy." They are clearly justified keeping it in the church with the other unjustified beliefs, but of course, as it festers there will be constant attempts to have it ooze over onto the schools.

Also, they seem to have come around to the fact that they are going to have to concede on natural selection with regard to changes within species. I think we should take that as a win and proceed to ready all our speciation evidence for the next round.

35. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #175034 by Quine on May 4, 2008 at 8:20 am

In view of this, I believe any theist of that persuasion we can push over to, lets say, the Ken Miller wing, is one less supporter for the nutters. Probably easier said than done, but perhaps easier than trying to completely de-convert them.

36. Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools

Comment #175028 by Quine on May 4, 2008 at 7:53 am

(minor edit 'plus' I can't seem to get the 'plus' sign - minus '-' works fine??))

37. Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools

Comment #174924 by Quine on May 3, 2008 at 9:17 pm

This foreign enrollment will only increase while American students enrollment will decrease.

38. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174869 by Quine on May 3, 2008 at 5:21 pm

In my comment about not holding religion against earlier people, I did not intend to imply that I don't give credit to people such as Laplace and the Epicureans, and others who thought their way clear of religion even earlier.

Neither Darwin nor DNA prove the absence of all deities, but do show that the teachings of our ancient mythologies do not comport with objectively observed reality.

39. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174808 by Quine on May 3, 2008 at 3:19 pm

I should point out that Euler was a religious fanatic.

40. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174804 by Quine on May 3, 2008 at 3:07 pm

Corylus, if you have not seen these, they may make you feel somewhat better:

Expelled: Ben Stein's Fall from Disgrace... to... Something Even Lower

Even right-wingers know Ben Stein is a moron

Repelled

Conservative Ben Stein insists, "Science leads you to killing people"

Arianna v. Ben Stein: Apocalypse Soon?

41. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174772 by Quine on May 3, 2008 at 12:48 pm

exp(2*i*pi)=1, welcome aboard. Another Euler fan, I presume. If you read through some of these long threads, I think you will find many things of interest.

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

Comment #174383 by Quine on May 2, 2008 at 10:51 am

While reading these recent invectives from the right wing I am trying to see what is causing the writers to go to such mental gymnastics to try to keep the public ignorant. There is a consistent linking of evolution, and science in general, to philosophical materialism as in the quote mining of Alfred North Whitehead in this piece.

Of course, it is easy to quote some philosopher of the past who has not seen the recent DNA sequencing results, and never heard of Tiktaalik. I think there is a deeper fear that without dualism there is no means of breaking symmetry with regard to who deserves to have the respect (and social/economic status) of righteousness and who does not.

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

Comment #174180 by Quine on May 1, 2008 at 8:10 pm

Thanks, Brian, for the blog link.

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

Comment #174140 by Quine on May 1, 2008 at 6:20 pm

Is Expelled exploiting an existing Christian game plan to link Darwin and Hitler? This piece seems to say so.

45. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #174047 by Quine on May 1, 2008 at 1:39 pm

I was very glad to hear in his latest video that "they" had measured eternity and it came out to exactly forever.

Also, I like his image of religion as the clothes on the invisible man. This explains why the pope needs that hat.

46. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173538 by Quine on April 30, 2008 at 8:54 pm

Dick, there will be a plan for all of this if we collectively wake up and take the responsibility to make one. Else is just wishful thinking.

47. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173503 by Quine on April 30, 2008 at 8:19 pm

Back on ontology, I usually try to do it by starting, "It is a logical contradiction to assign, to any being, the properties of ..."

I know Mike likes to take on the properties of omnipotence and omniscience. You can go on to several other properties that people have made up to assign to their deities over the centuries.

The point of Russell's Teapot is that you cannot strip away all the properties so as to leave nothing. There can always be some kind of being that we do not know about, however, it would not be like the kind of cartoon character you get in catechism class. (Yes, Dick, I also went to Catholic school.)

48. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173492 by Quine on April 30, 2008 at 8:05 pm

Didn't we have this whole discussion a few months ago when DR didn't understand about the tiny elephant in Paula's frig?

49. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172576 by Quine on April 29, 2008 at 6:43 pm

Yes, I know. It is an ultimate fallback they will bunker down in after loosing on heliocentricity, lightning, demon possession, faith healing, evolution, dualism, abiogenesis and fine tuning. For the laws of logic they will claim that we do not get to use the laws of logic to force a loose on them as in all the other battles.

50. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172565 by Quine on April 29, 2008 at 6:22 pm

Well, please don't tell the IDiots or they will claim that mathematics is too complex to have been constructed without supernatural intelligence. We don't need that can of worms crawling up the blackboards.