1. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175570 by Donald on May 5, 2008 at 3:56 pm

This is the best and most stimulating article I have read on this website. Congratulations to Sam Harris. The question is what can be done about it? - clearthinker(aka David Robertson)

Expose and ridicule all religious myths so that Islam eventually will lose credibility too?

Or would you prefer we preserve and protect Calvinism as well as Islam?

2. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #175550 by Donald on May 5, 2008 at 3:07 pm

http://www.et.byu.edu/~adw45/Carbonpercentage20Dating.htm

You'll have to remove the word 'percentage' and use the symbol % in its place when you copy/paste... sorry. Limitations of this site I guess.

No, not limitations of this site. "%20" is one way to display the "space" character when an actual space would be misinterpreted by some software. Here is the link with the space character displayed as normal: http://www.et.byu.edu/~adw45/Carbon Dating.htm

What bothers me is that every dating method used is subject to a similar amount of variables and corrupting factors yet, according to naturalists, they all lead us to consistent ages plus/minus these small ranges. It's just all too neat for my liking.

It's not neat at all. The problem is that it is complicated, that is, there are a lot of interrelated factors to take into account, in order to get an accurate understanding, and obtain accurate C14 dates of samples from different geological environments. Many hundreds of scientists and thousands of scientific papers have been written about these matters, and the result is that isotope dating has now become well-understood (by the practitioning scientists) and most datings have become mutually consistent.

If we can't nail down C-14 much past 4000 years due to unknown and un-testable variables beyond that period, how the heck are we supposed to swallow millions and billions of years as accurate ages?

Because dates before a few tens of thousands of years are not obtained by C14 dating. Isotope ratios of other atoms are used, such as potassium-argon dating of rocks, which is useful up to billions of years.

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

Comment #174549 by Donald on May 2, 2008 at 4:15 pm

I personally find it shameful that I am the only self-declared Christian I have ever seen comment on this website. Do you have any idea how many atheists challenge Christians on *Christian* forums? If atheists aren't scared to engage Christians in debate on their own websites, then why don't Christians have the guts to do the same on atheist sites? - Ryan (Bizarro)

Well said! (But there have been quite a few other self-declaring Christians here. They tend to disappear after a while. It's not only the insults. They also get serious replies that (I think) make them worry about whether their beliefs are really well-founded.)

4. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174538 by Donald on May 2, 2008 at 3:53 pm

I offered C14 dating on fossils which result in ages of thousands of years vs. the same sample dating into the millions with 40Ar/39Ar/K-Ar. Same principle but both can't be correct. I believe I was presented with a link showing a possible freeze variation that would account for the lower date from C-14 being tossed out (e.g. delayed C-14 decay) - seeker_of_truth

As Rev Dark has already posted, the range of accuracy of C14 dating is limited to 10K years or so. This limit basically arises because the number of atoms of C14 becomes too small to count reliably. However, there is another source of inaccuracy in C14 dating. This is the effect of neutron irradiation on C13 (1% of all carbon). If the sample (e.g. fossil) has been close to rock or mineral that contains uranium or other radioactive material, there will be a few C13 atoms that get converted to C14. The effect of this is that the count of C14 atoms will increase and make the sample appear younger than its real age. Just thought I'd mention that, because I once saw an absurd claim on a YEC site that was based on not understanding the possibility that C14 could be produced within ancient rocks by radioactivity, as well as within the biosphere by cosmic rays.

So, Seeker, C14 ages can be inaccurate in the too-young direction if researchers did not test for (or did not have any information about) nearby radioactivity associated with the sample. That is the most likely explanation for the discrepancy you report.

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

Comment #174526 by Donald on May 2, 2008 at 3:00 pm

I find it absurdly boorish when some of the atheists on this site bash God on an article that is totally unrelated to the issue of His existence (or non-existence). - Ryan (Bizarro)

Actually articles about healing amputees are related to the issue of god's existence. Have you visited and read the site http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/ ?

It suggests an insecurity in their own beliefs since they find the need to twist any issue (relevant or not) to validate their belief that God must certainly not exist. - Bizarro

Insecurity can be exhibited in many ways. Drive-by comments as opposed to sustained dialogue with people who have studied the matter and have opposing views, for example.

Actually I agree that RD.net is oversupplied with insulting, rude and uncivilised comments (some of which are justified by extreme provocation from pervasive religious lunacy). However there are atheists here who focus on being polite, kind and thoughtful, just like your family and religious mentors, but without treating ancient myths as if they were factual. If you wanted to seriously debate the question of god's existence, how society obtains moral values, and how society could promote the kind of loving, caring society we all want, without believing in fictional gods, then you could certainly find suitable people here to do that. I think Corylus was essentially offering that in her reply to you.

6. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #171143 by Donald on April 28, 2008 at 10:32 am

Decius,

We agree about the undesirability of pandering to myths. But in dealing with the avalanche of misinformation and misperceptions surging through human society, a certain amount of triage is vital. We both see it as more important to tackle theism and leave deism alone for now.

Regarding the terminology, or philosophy of science if you prefer:

I say that untestability places things outside science, because I regard testable predictions as being essential to science. However, I also would say that plausibility/credibility can be judged even in the absence of testability, so that unscientific beliefs, such as the existence of fairies, the existence of a larger universe in which our universe is but a simulation, the existence of a deity who created the universe specifically for humans, the existence of teapots inside black holes, etc, can be judged as implausible/incredible (or credible in some cases).

If something is outside science, I am willing to say it is compatible, and restrict my criticism to the implausibility.
Your comment "I do not subscribe to the notion that what is currently untestable is therefore compatible with science" seems to be suggesting either:
that untestable speculations are incompatible with science, because of their lack of testability
or perhaps:
that untestable speculations are incompatible with science, because of their implausibility

I'm not sure we have any essential difference in our view of the world and of science, but perhaps we have slightly different associations, and hence shades of meaning, in our use of words such as "science", "compatible", "testable", etc.

7. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170763 by Donald on April 28, 2008 at 1:15 am

... The point I am trying to convey is simply that God's character (and Bob's) have no significance regarding the probability of their existences. ... - Ryan (Bizarro)

Welcome back, Ryan. I agree that discussing the character of the god of the bible is a minor argument for whether god exists or not. But it is not right to say it has no significance.

People today have to judge whether the ancient scraps of text that constitute the bible are fact or fiction (we know they were written down by humans). If we found stories of a similar age about a benevolent being who brought presents to millions of children at the time of the winter solstice, we would be faced with the same task of deciding whether the stories were fact or fiction.

The behaviour and character of the personna in the story are definitely a factor in deciding whether the stories are fact or fiction.

... If God's nature is all-loving and He must be consistent with His nature to be defined as God, then any action perpetrated by God is a loving action. It doesn't matter if you think it is loving behavior; that is totally irrelevant. ... - Ryan (Bizarro)

Ah. Once one has decided the fact or fiction question, yes.

But first we have to decide whether the stories are fact or fiction. You have jumped ahead to the conclusion of that decision process, and started arguing from an assumption that god exists.

I'm not convinced that the bible stories: genesis (2 conflicting versions), flood (genocide by god), exodus, jesus (miracles and resurrection), etc, etc, are fact. Evidence from geology, biology, biochemistry, astronomy, and yes, the character of the various biblical dramatis personae, overwhelmingly point to the bible being fiction stories - sometimes based on real human events and history, sometimes totally invented. (And Revelations clearly being some poor fellow's nightmare!)

8. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170357 by Donald on April 27, 2008 at 5:13 pm

the alleged compatibility of a deistic god with science is a pandering myth - Decius

It is compatible with science in the same sense as a belief that we are all simulations in a supercomputer built by aliens who inhabit an even larger universe. Or a belief that the purpose of the universe is to generate black holes for harvesting by time-travelling beings who created this universe. All I was saying was that deistic beliefs are compatible with science. They are compatible because they are untestable, not because they are credible.

I think the point is that deistic beliefs are essentially pointless and usually harmless. Provided that is all that other people believe then it's ok with me.

What I object to are beliefs that god is behind supremacist scriptures, beliefs that god has laid down laws in those scriptures that everyone has to obey, beliefs that god will reward after death people who enforce those scriptural laws, beliefs that god hates and punishes anyone who doesn't worship him, beliefs that prayer can be a effective alternative to studying how the universe works, belief in enternal hellfire, etc.

I also wish to challenge beliefs that, if there is no god, then anything goes. Moral behaviour is still required for personal benefit and societal stability - just grounded in humanistic considerations, e.g. the golden rule.

I don't think we disagree.

9. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170337 by Donald on April 27, 2008 at 4:26 pm

I've read William Phillips' essay now. His was refreshingly different from Schonborn's. It was coherent and tried to outline how he reconciles his work as an eminent scientist with his religious belief. (He is one of those rare highly-distinguished scientists who believe in god.)

Perhaps it was his essay that prompted riandouglas's comment that "Science, for some, may make belief in an intelligence reasonable." However, I personally think Phillips is trying to preserve religious belief against the rising tide of science, rather than deducing religious belief from the discoveries of science, even though Phillips does say that he finds the order (mathematical laws etc) in the universe evidence for a god.

Phillips essay is primarily a defense of Deism, not the god of the bible. Deism, if defined as the belief that a god created the universe, then left it alone, is perfectly compatible with science. That kind of Deism is an optional extra to science. That kind of Deism predicts nothing and demands nothing. It's ok with me. Phillips' Deism goes a little further, attributing feelings of love, beauty, etc to an intention of god the creator. That's still compatible with science, provided Phillips stops short of asserting that god intervenes in the universe. Indeed, in trying to establish how belief in god can be compatible with science, he is careful to make all his statements about god, be statements that are not subjectable to any tests of truth and falsity. He has nothing to say about whether intercessary prayer works, whether any biblical stories are literally true, etc. He also honestly acknowledges that the existence of suffering in the world, the multiplicity of different religions, etc, give rise to doubts for him (perhaps he prefers not to look too closely into those aspects of the world).

He mainly enjoys the loving company of other people who base their world view on a Jesus the loving god, rather than a humanistic world view. Fine, I can understand that. I feel the lack of a sufficiently developed humanistic social club myself.

10. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170288 by Donald on April 27, 2008 at 3:06 pm

I have read two so far: (1) Stephen Pinker was excellent, as usual. (2) The opening paragraphs of Cardinal Schonborn's piece were very different and made me momentarily angry. But I managed to overcome this initial reaction by stepping back, trying to understand why it made me angry, and analysing his writing.

First the bit that annoyed me. Schonborn started with two extraordinary statements that were the direct opposite of the truth. First he wrote: "The knowledge we have gained through modern science makes belief in an Intelligence behind the cosmos more reasonable than ever." Then he said: "Yes [science makes belief in god obselete], as a matter of mood, sensibility, and sentiment."

Quite extraordinary. In fact, knowledge from modern science makes belief in an Intelligence behind the cosmos unnecessary, optional, and therefore much less reasonable than before. It is also clear that science fails to make belief in god obselete for people for whom mood, sentiment, and emotional responses dominate beliefs.

Schonborn has stated the exact opposite of the effect of science on religion. Why? Does he see things differently? Have I missed something?
After due consideration, I don't think I missed anything or misinterpreted what Schonborn wrote.

So why did Schonborn write the exact opposite of the truth?

Once the question is clearly put, the answer becomes clear too. Lying for Jesus.

It is sometimes said that if one wants a lie to be believed, the bigger the lie the better.

As far as science and religion go, a claim that modern science makes god more likely is certainly a big one. (Perhaps Schonborn has found that it goes down well with his flocks on Sunday sermons.)

After that startling start, Schonborn's essay contiunues with such gems as "This theistic outlook has been fully vindicated", meanders through lip service to various scientific discoveries, and concludes that "...our incompleteness leads us ...[to god]".

I did wonder whether Schonborn might genuinely believe what he wrote at the start of the essay. But I don't think that's very likely. Cardinals have to be quite intelligent to get to be cardinals.

A phrase from that viral "beware the believers" rap video comes to my mind: "... the stooges of popes...". That phrase could certainly apply to Herr Schonborn.

Anyway, posting this comment got rid of my annoyance. :-) Perhaps I'll read some more of the essays now.

11. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #157472 by Donald on April 9, 2008 at 6:18 am

I thought RD said if his head was a carbon atom the nearest one is 1 km away. Maybe he meant a carbon nucleus?

Yes, he meant a carbon nucleus, and the Devil's Chaplain had the same error.

But, one slip amongst so many effective, educational and eloquent points can be forgiven.

The UHI talk was excellent.

Well done Paula.

(But I wish he would update what he says about group selection - I think he misspoke there as well.)

12. Pastor attacks scientist's talk

Comment #154720 by Donald on April 3, 2008 at 3:43 pm

Excuse me? This is BBC newsworthy? That a second-rate clergyman says that UHI should arrange its invited speakers in a different way?

Must have been a slack day.

13. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #154689 by Donald on April 3, 2008 at 3:10 pm

Sect members were given a cow after they left the cave because they refused to drink milk from cartons that carried bar codes.

Says it all. Absurdity of the beliefs. Kindness of the more enlightened.

14. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153767 by Donald on April 2, 2008 at 3:04 am

Islam in the middle east today is strongly authoritarian, forcibly supressing other religions and applying religious doctrine to political power

this is how Christianity was until quite recently.

Christianity has undergone hundreds of years of adaptation that Islam has not yet had.

Western powers destroyed the Caliphate after WW1, carved up the territories into mandates, created Israel, installed rulers... How much influence could Islam have had?

It created the notion of the Caliphate, and the Ummah, and it combines deep indoctrination with a powerful sense of ingroup-outgroup. It thrives on propagating fear of a terrible vengeful god, wickedness of nonbelievers, and contains instructions for war and martydom. If you look only at the rulers, then yes, western interference has been widespread, but if you look at the influence of Islam on the education of the people, on the acceptance or blocking of intellectual thought, on scientific education, and particularly on the political processes within Islamic countries, then the influence of Islam is massive.

True, but I'm looking at the influence of the same "holy" scripture that underlies them all, and the direction in which that scripture drives them

And I say again, it is just a book. It all depends on the translations, as it were.

Hmm. Just a book? True on one level, of course. It is similarly true that DNA is just a chemical, but if I said a recessive gene for cancer or anaemia is ok because it can be overridden by control genes, people carrying the gene might feel uneasy about that. When we look at the effect this book has had on the world, and the extent to which it has influenced the thinking of billions of people and their political processes, it certainly gives me cause for concern.

Anyway, I agree with most of what you write. It's unfortunate that internet comment threads tend to gravitate into is-isn't soundbites. I try to resist that, but I'm not always successful.

15. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153656 by Donald on April 1, 2008 at 6:50 pm

we see from history and in the present middle east, that things are different when Islam gets control

Different to what?

Different to the benign version apologetics present. Islam in the middle east today is strongly authoritarian, forcibly supressing other religions and applying religious doctrine to political power. In the west apologists present it as merely seeking to coexist multiculturally. I think that, if Islam were ever to gain a majority in a western country, it would seek to suppress alternative religions and take political power, just as happens in the middle east today. That is different to the liberal, part-xtian, part-secular, regimes that prevail in the western world today.

The present Middle East could be said to be in its current situation as a result of Christian western interference.

No doubt christian western interference was a significant influence, but I think Islam had a much greater influence.

From history we see that there was a greater degree of tolerance in the Islamic world than there was in the western.

I'm not knowledgeable enough to debate this in detail. My impression is the opposite.

Aboriginal populations of various English speaking countries could also argue against your point.

I have no doubt that aboriginal populations were treated abombinably, perhaps genocidally in some cases, but they mainly were hit by diseases neither side understood properly, and religious doctrines were a smaller influence. And since my point was about the relationship of western islamic apologists to middle eastern islamic regimes, I don't see how aboriginal views affect that.

Islam in the west is different to Islam in the Middle East which is different to Islam in Asia.

True, but I'm looking at the influence of the same "holy" scripture that underlies them all, and the direction in which that scripture drives them. I don't like what I see.

16. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153613 by Donald on April 1, 2008 at 4:47 pm

I think there's value in sorting Islam into teaching, consensus, and practice. Then we can imagine specific interventions to limit the toxic effects of the religion. - from comment #153596 by Dr Benway

Good post, Doc.B. I'm a pragmatist too. However, I also support clear thinking about what is the nature and magnitude of the problem before we consider interventions. I think there is a need for more people to understand the nature of the Islamic threat (and I do see it as a threat to western civilisation) before intervention. So I wish more people would read the Koran, and see how it propagates its memes. It does differ significantly from Xtian religions, and we need to understand those differences. I also am rather disturbed by the prevalence of misleading apologetics for Islam - it seems to be presented as benign, and similar to xtianity, when in a minority in western countries, yet we see from history and in the present middle east, that things are different when Islam gets control.

17. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153587 by Donald on April 1, 2008 at 3:51 pm

I noticed that apostasy got mentioned:

... Here is a mail from a muslim who saw one of my vids on YT. ... Beheading apostates? ... Go watch probably the most respected Muslim on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X28J8-xt6hU
... - from comment #153399 by briancoughlanworldcitizen

I had a look at that video. This "most respected Muslim on Youtube" was certainly polite and softly spoken.

So polite and reassuringly softly spoken that one could easily overlook some of the statements nested within his talk:
"the Koran does not specify that a person who leaves Islam is to be put to death"
"the Hadith, when talking about putting to death ... a person who leaves Islam .. " so Islam does specify the death penalty for apostasy
"the punishment is ... for the person who leaves Islam and then works against Islam (or wages war against Islam - war does not necessarily have to mean combat)" ah, I get it, only apostates who SPEAK OUT against Islam are to be hunted down and killed.
"the person who leaves Islam in order to work against Islam, to harm Islam, comes under the Islamic Sharia" and what does the sharia prescribe? - oh yes, that the person is to be put to death.
"the person who leaves Islam to become Jew/Xtian/Atheist ... there is no question of putting that person to death" Oh, that sounds better...
"... until and unless he starts to work against Islam" ah, death penalty applies after all.

Why do people believe the death penalty applies to all apostates?

"there is one hadith which people quote a lot in which Mohammed says whoever changes his religion is to be put to death" Oh, you didn't mention that just now. So how does that square with your earlier claim that there is no question of putting them to death?
"that hadith is so general that it could apply to any religion" excuse me, what did you say?
"that hadith is so general that it could apply to any religion" yes, but then all the suras and hadiths about "unbelievers" could be about any religion!! We all unbelieve in something - even devout muslims will be in trouble with allah in that case. Are you seriously trying to tell us that therefore this hadith doesn't apply to persons leaving Islam?
"this hadith has some weakness in the chain of narration" Ah. Then how about this one:

Narrated 'Ikrima:
Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle [Mohammed], 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

Merciful! (and I note that the Islamic religion is mentioned explicitly in this hadith, despite the claim that another hadith is "general")
And this one:

Narrated Abu Burda:
... There was a fettered man beside Abu Muisa. Mu'adh asked, "Who is this (man)?" Abu Muisa said, "He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism." Then Abu Muisa requested Mu'adh to sit down but Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle [Mohammed] (for such cases) and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, "Then we discussed the night prayers and one of us said, 'I pray and sleep, and I hope that Allah will reward me for my sleep as well as for my prayers.'"

How about this one:

Narrated 'Ali: ... I heard Allah's Apostle [Mohammed] saying, "During the last days there will appear some young foolish people who will say the best words but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have no faith) and will go out from (leave) their religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So, where-ever you find them, kill them, for who-ever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection."

All weak narrations I suppose. But when will Islam get around to actually tearing them out? And do any Islamic sects explicitly reject the principle that Mohammed was the "exemplary perfect man" to be emulated today?

The following countries have the death penalty for apostasy: Afghanistan, Iran, Mauritania, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudia Arabia, Sudan, and Yemen.

Fortunately, I've never been a Muslim, so I don't have to worry that some stray maniac will misinterpret those hadith. But I wonder - are significant numbers of muslims deterred from renouncing Islam because those hadiths exist, however "weak"? Just asking.

18. Beware the Believers

Comment #152246 by Donald on March 30, 2008 at 2:30 pm

Maybe it's just provocative fluff carefully calibrated to confuse, enrage and lampoon both sides of the debate. - Comment #152241 by briancoughlanworldcitizen

Yes, I could believe that.

Whatever the precise intent of the creators of this video, I regard the probable effects as:
Short-term: highly desirable for the expelled movie - the more the controversy, the more people will want to see it
Long-term: In the longer term (several years) good for the atheist view point. Religion thrives best if its beliefs are not publicly questioned. As many people as possible need to hear that there IS a credible alternative world view, and religion doesn't want them to hear that. Long after expelled has ceased its run, the effect of advertising a controversy will benefit the atheist argument.

19. Beware the Believers

Comment #152231 by Donald on March 30, 2008 at 1:54 pm

Comment #152230 by briancoughlanworldcitizen

I'd like to think you are right, but I think you are looking into subtleties, and not looking at the simple direct effect that the video will have on casual viewers.

20. Beware the Believers

Comment #152229 by Donald on March 30, 2008 at 1:39 pm

... just tell me whose side it's on. - Richard Dawkins

Well, I'm late to this thread but let's see:

o) Opening image "Ministry of Science Propaganda" with wartime newsreel sound
o) "Dick" instead of "Richard" (associating Richard with .. well .. you know .. )
o) Science as a sinister machine viciously expelling anyone who questions evolution
o) The scientist who questions natural selection speaks in a reasonable voice, and merely expresses an opinion. The "orthodox" scientist who calls for his expulsion is sinister and uses the codename "middle tool".
o) The rap mocks RD's qualifications
o) The video portrays RD (and the other atheists) as arrogant and condescending ("your concern is noted --- and stupid")
o) The rap portrays RD as being dictatorial ("listen to me and don't argue")
o) Were the figures below the atheist heads children dancing? If so was this an attempt to portray atheists as the ones with the childish beliefs?
o) RD kicking a dog
o) The money and dollar signs suggesting that atheists make money from their views

On the plus(?) side is the clever and accurately-worded lyric, catchy tunes, and amusing cartoon animation.

Some commenters here judged it to be on the side of science and evolution. That's not how I judge it.

21. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #135457 by Donald on February 29, 2008 at 2:02 am

The Merck vaccine was pushed through fast, and only had about 4 years of testing. The tolerability trials were done on ~22,000 women. There was an observed difference (non-significant) in the number of people developing lupus and arthritis (both auto-immune) between the control and vaccine groups. With only 3 cases in the control group and 9 in the vaccine group it wasn't significant, but that could be due to a lack of sufficient statistical power.

Given their scientific background, I expect Epinephrine and SteveZ know this, but for any other readers:

The information above is grounds for seeking further information, but is not necessarily evidence for an unsafe vaccine. First, we need to check the size of the control and treatment groups. (I expect they were approximately equal in this case, but in general one needs to check that - drug trials do not always have equal numbers in the two groups.) Second, we need to know the prevalence of lupus/arthritis in the overall population (suitably matched for age and any other factors already known to affect the prevalence of lupus/arthritis). To see that this matters, consider two examples. (1) overall incidence of lupus/arthritis is 3 in 11,000. In this case, the vaccine seems to present a significant risk. (2) overall incidence of lupus/arthritis is 9 in 11,000. In this case, the control group seems to have been merely a lucky group, and there is no concern about the vaccine.

Peter Donnelley gave a great ted talk on this kind of issue - entertaining, informative without requiring more than high school education to understand. I think it should be compulsory viewing for everyone!
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/67

22. Evolving Mistakes

Comment #135118 by Donald on February 28, 2008 at 2:46 pm

Can any of you clever scientists point me to a web-site which explains how sexual reproduction evolved? - hello

As our hero Richard Dawkins is fond of saying, we don't know, science is working on it.

But it already seems likely that the evolution of sexual reproduction started with prokaryotic cells that were capable of fusing together, to make a double-size cell with two copies of the chromosomes. As a separate step in evolution, some prokaryotic cells might have become polyploid (e.g. had two copies of their chromosomes) - this would give the advantages of redundancy, and the possibility of repair of genetic damage.

For sexual reproduction, there must be an intermediate stage in the act of reproduction when a cell has double the usual number of chromosomes - this is so that the chromosomes can pair off, and then be copied by a copying mechanism that sometimes switches between the strands, thus creating a new chromosome which is some mixture of the two original strands.

To evolve sexual reproduction, prokaryotes with polyploid DNA would have to reproduce by: (1) fusing, then (2) have the postulated "double chromosome copy" mechanism work on a mixture of chromosomes from the fused cell, rather than on chromosomes that only came from one of the pre-fusion cells.

All this is feasible, given what is currently known about chromosomes and meiosis, and the associated biochemistry. But since the evolution from simple prokaryotes to full sexual reproduction may have taken a hundred million years, occurring 3 billion years ago, we may never be able to identify the main sequence with any definite precision. But I think it's a safe bet that we'll have some possible routes worked out in some detail within a few decades.

There is quite a bit about prokaryotes and eukaryotes in wikipedia.

But to answer your original question, there is a little bit about the possible evolution of sexual reproduction in:
http://www.dorak.info/evolution/sreprod.html

BTW, do read the God Delusion. You might as well know what Dawkins has said, even if you don't believe it.

23. Fleabytes

Comment #134800 by Donald on February 28, 2008 at 8:14 am

Please Donald. Go and look up the word 'irony' in the dictionary. And whilst you are at did you realise that they have removed the word ËÅ"gullible' - clearthinker(DAR)

Lost the argument? Then resort to the language of the playground.

BTW, I think the word "gullible" is better applied to someone who believes the bible is inerrant.

24. Fleabytes

Comment #134007 by Donald on February 27, 2008 at 6:15 am

David, you are embarrassingly unaware of the extent to which you distort and manipulate and take out of context. Even in your comment #133977 replying to Richard Dawkins, while trying very hard to be polite in the face of accusations, you slip in:

incidentally I am delighted that you want people to be Christian - clearthinker(DAR)

Richard Dawkins has not said that, did not mean that, yet you try to assert it. No doubt just another cheapo debating trick, but it does not earn you any respect.

Then you go on:

Personally I think that the real reason that you do not like the book is that you struggle to answer it.

Here you provide us with more strong evidence that you are deluded, this time about your book and RD.

Despite one or two fair points made in your comment #133977, I'm still waiting for a post that would convince me that you can read atheists opinions without distorting the content and mispresenting it subsequently. As our "reverend dark" says, you set up a loaded question with an oblique insult built in, after writing a whole book which misrepresents and insults RD, so perhaps you shouldn't be too surprised if you got an insult back.

25. Fleabytes

Comment #133937 by Donald on February 27, 2008 at 3:24 am

Regarding McGrath, John Polkinghorne, Kenneth Brown, John Lennox, if they do fully understand the critical scientific discoveries of the past 300 years, then I would say yes, they are one of "unintelligent, deluded, dishonest". Because you have just excluded lack of knowledge. - Donald

Thank you. That is what I thought you were suggesting and that is what I said. Thanks for confirming it. - clearthinker(DAR)

NO, you said:

Does this mean that McGrath, John Polkinghorne, Kenneth Brown, John Lennox are all being dishonest because they clearly know about the critical scientific discoveries of the past 300 years?

You switched from one of "unintelligent, deluded, dishonest" to specifically "dishonest". Did you not notice the difference, or are you dishonest, as others here say?

Personally, I would leave open the possibility that you are a hopelessly superficial reader and writer, unaware of how poorly and inaccurately you write, and deluded with it. You could still change my mind by writing something fair and accurate. I won't be holding my breath though.

26. Fleabytes

Comment #132623 by Donald on February 25, 2008 at 3:57 am

Because an intelligent, undeluded, honest person could lack crucial relevant knowledge and then hold traditional theistic religious belief, not knowing it contradicts some of the critical scientific discoveries of the last three hundred years, your statement that Dawkins claims that "religious believers are either unintelligent, deluded or dishonest" is not true. - Donald

Does this mean that McGrath, John Polkinghorne, Kenneth Brown, John Lennox are all being dishonest because they clearly know about the critical scientific discoveries of the past 300 years? - clearthinker(DAR)

No. You are dodging about instead of sticking to the point. You claim Dawkins believes that "religious believers are either unintelligent, deluded, or dishonest". I was pointing out that there is also a category of believers who lack the knowledge to realise they are wrong about the existence of god. So, religious believers are not neccessarily unintelligent deluded, or dishonest.

Regarding McGrath, John Polkinghorne, Kenneth Brown, John Lennox, if they do fully understand the critical scientific discoveries of the past 300 years, then I would say yes, they are one of "unintelligent, deluded, dishonest". Because you have just excluded lack of knowledge.

But in this example you switched from statements that people are one of those three, to singling out dishonest for those particular people you named. Why? Is this a debating trick? Can we so easily exclude deluded in their case?

Also please be more careful to distinguish between OR and AND.

If I say someone is either unintelligent, or mistaken, I have not asserted that person is unintelligent. I have left open the possibility that they are misinformed, or have been misled, or have misjudged something.

27. Fleabytes

Comment #132400 by Donald on February 24, 2008 at 5:50 pm

Was the title The God lack crucial relevant knowledge already taken or just nixed by the publisher then? - Radesq

Sigh. I was taking "delusion" to be only an appropriate description when placed alongside knowledge which contradicts it. Otherwise "ignorance" or "speculation" seem to me to be more appropriate terms.

Were scientists before Einstein deluded to believe that time ran at the same rate everywhere, or just ignorant of Einsteinian relativity?

Were people before Darwin deluded to believe that living things must have been created as separate species, or just ignorant of evolution by natural selection?

Is a 4-year-old child deluded to believe in Santa Claus, or just ignorant (for now) about how the presents got there.

Perhaps different people might make different decisions about whether the word "delusion" is applicable.

On the other hand, a person who believes that he can fly, despite the evidence from his senses after numerous failed attempts is definitely deluded. Ditto someone who thinks they are Napoleon.

I took Dawkins to mean: "delusion" when applied to an individual who was in a possession of information that could reveal the contradiction, and
"delusion" when applied to whole communities within which scientific knowledge and religion belief manage to coexist.
But I assumed Dawkins would not apply "delusion" to badly-educated believers who are ignorant of the modern knowledge that conflicts with religious beliefs.

Maybe I'm the one who is wrong on this point. I don't know.

But I'm certainly out of place here, amongst the last few hundred or so comments. Bye.

28. Revealed: Secrets of the Camouflage Masters

Comment #132335 by Donald on February 24, 2008 at 3:51 pm

From Carl Zimmer's article:

Dr. Hanlon and his colleagues are also puzzled by the many camouflage colors of the cuttlefish, which have a single type of pigment in their eyes. Humans have three.
Experiments in Dr. Hanlon's lab have shown that they are color blind. They see a world without color, but their skin changes rapidly to any hue in the rainbow. How is that possible?
"That's a vexing question," he said. "We don't know how it works."

It's still not clear to me how the animal 'sees behind itself' in order to present, to my line of sight, a pattern on its skin similar to the background. - Azven

Our bodies sense heat (which is also EM radiation) all over the skin. Also UV light is absorbed by skin cells to create vitamin D all over the skin.
Perhaps those creatures have evolved skin cells that sense visible light, and can distinguish colours. If the whole of the skin is light sensitive, there would be no ability to focus the light, in the manner of an eye, so no way to detect the direction of the light impinging on the skin, so the skin would not be an alternative to an eye. But if there was also a capability to signal what the skin on one side was "seeing" to the skin on the other side, the creature could reproduce the light patterns impinging on one side, on the other side, thus become almost invisible against any background.
This would only work if the creaure is very close to the scene, terrain, or plant that is to be mimicked, so that no focussing is neccessary. But that seems to be a characteristic of this ability - the creatures mimic the scene when they are very close to it, or even in contact.

It would not be an "eye", but never mind, if it works, and is useful, evolution could select it!

29. Fleabytes

Comment #132313 by Donald on February 24, 2008 at 3:25 pm

Donald (465) Thanks for this. I am inclined to agree with you. Perhaps after all Dawkins does believe that whether you are religious or not has nothing to do with your level of intelligence or honesty. Perhaps he is prepared to grant that a religious person can be just as rational, intelligent and undeluded as an atheist. I was writing about the impression that TGD gives because of the language, tone and arguments used. If Dawkins really believes that what I have said is wrong and that he is not claiming that religious believers are either unintelligent, deluded or dishonest, then all he has to do is say so. - clearthinker(aka David Robertson)

Dawkins is not claiming that "religious believers are either unintelligent, deluded or dishonest". As I indicated in my comment, Dawkins undoubtedly believes that knowledge of certain scientific discoveries contradicts some vital elements of (theistic) religious belief.

Because an intelligent, undeluded, honest person could lack crucial relevant knowledge and then hold traditional theistic religious belief, not knowing it contradicts some of the critical scientific discoveries of the last three hundred years, your statement that Dawkins claims that "religious believers are either unintelligent, deluded or dishonest" is not true.

So, yes, if Dawkins gets to notice this particular issue within this enormous thread, and takes the time to respond to your challenge, I am sure he will say yes, you were wrong on that point.

30. Fleabytes

Comment #131227 by Donald on February 22, 2008 at 4:54 am

From comment #131217 (~456) by clearthinker:

Letter 1: The myth of the higher consciousness

According to Robertson, Dawkins claims that those who share his views have attained a higher consciousness and are therefore "de facto more intelligent, rational and honest than other human beings". Does Dawkins actually make that claim anywhere in TGD?

This is all about perception. Dawkins does talk about his aim being to raise consiousness - one assumes that having had your consciousness raised you have attained a higher consiousness. He also talks about religius mania among todays less educated classes(p.41) ; "more highly educated people are less likely to be religious" (p. 102. My perception is that Dawkins believes that religion is a delusion and that the more intelligent and rational you are then the less religious you will be, if you are honest and have had your consiousness raised.

Apologies for repeating an earlier post, but I posted this two days ago:
From comment #130611 (~217) by Donald:

In the first, introductory, letter he refers a couple of times to Dawkins' phrase "raising consciousness". He does not seem to realise that Dawkins meant "raising awareness", i.e. bringing the matter [of problems due to religion] to the conscious attention of people. Robertson has interpreted "raising consciousness" to mean a higher level of consciousness, i.e. a claim of superiority. Having failed to understand Dawkins on this point, Robertson goes on to criticise Dawkins for, in effect, insulting people with religious belief.

I realise you are responding to Paula, and are not obliged to respond to all and sundry, but perhaps you could consider whether you might have misunderstood the phrase "consciousness raising"?

I went on say:

Robertson accuses Dawkins of "seeming to think that anyone who is religious is actually at a lower level of consciousness and needs to be set free by becoming an atheist". At this stage, I think Robertson has a good point in mind. Robertson is using the wrong word. He is using the word consciousness, echoed out of context from Dawkins. But I think that what Robertson really has in mind is that Dawkins "seems to think that anyone who is religious is actually at a lower level of knowledge". Although this is still wrong [Dawkins does not think that all people who are religious lack knowledge], this is getting to a valid point. Dawkins does indeed think that religious beliefs are associated with lack of knowledge, and that much religious belief would fade away if people were better educated about some of the things that the last three hundred years of scientific endeavour have discovered.

So I agree with you that Dawkins suggests elsewhere (elsewhere from the consciousness-raising remarks) that lack of knowledge is a factor in the prevalence of religious belief, but you go too far if you suggest that Dawkins is accusing believers of being less intelligent. Lack of knowledge is very different from lack of intelligence.

31. Fleabytes

Comment #131005 by Donald on February 21, 2008 at 5:09 pm

BTW, I notice that in your comment #130988 (~354) you present two blockquotes in succession. The first is an rude poem, presumably sent to you by email. The second is an extract from a comment on this site by me. There is nothing in your comment #130988 to indicate that the quotes are from separate people. I would just like to make it clear to casual readers that the rude poem has nothing to do with me.

32. Fleabytes

Comment #130997 by Donald on February 21, 2008 at 4:58 pm

this site is actually outstandingly open, liberal, and transparent in allowing posters the freedom to directly post a wide variety of opinions without filtering by moderators. Your own website "www.freechurch.org" only presents comments that have been inspected individually by moderators - effectively "banning" every post they don't approve of. t

Donald, you know that this is not fair. Firstly our own website puts on plenty posts we do not approve of. Most of the recent ones have been by atheists. The only reason we have a moderated board is to prevent the kind of language and nonsense that our good friend Billy delights in. And you also know that this site does not allow a wide variety of opinions without filtering etc. The proof of that is seen simply in the fact that my opinions are banned and in the missing 300 posts from the original thread. Whether you have filtering before or filtering after does not make much difference. - clearthinker(aka David Robertson)

No, I do not "know this is not fair". I think it is perfectly fair. You pre-select only those posts you approve of. Yes, you let some comments by atheists through, and they include some opinions you disagree with, but you have a mechanism to prevent anything that too troubling to you ever getting onto the site. That is very different from this site, where everything gets posted, and then, in rare circumstances, it sometimes gets moved into an "alternative thread", and very rarely, and with great reluctance, posts get removed. Very different.

33. Fleabytes

Comment #130990 by Donald on February 21, 2008 at 4:46 pm

Thanks for the "Jonathan Edwards" reference, Corylus.

I had in one post, suggested that it might be good if David Robertson could "do a Jonathan Edwards". I had in mind the living athlete Jonathan Edwards, who has recovered from his religious belief and announced his atheism. I now realise my comment could have been misunderstood! Thanks for making me aware of the 18th century Jonathan Edwards.

34. Revealed: Secrets of the Camouflage Masters

Comment #130880 by Donald on February 21, 2008 at 12:27 pm

Experiments in Dr. Hanlon's lab have shown that they are color blind. They see a world without color, but their skin changes rapidly to any hue in the rainbow. How is that possible?

Excellent example for future textbooks when discussing the "blind watchmaker" concept. Genes are blind too. They don't know they are creating an eye, for instance. If it works, it gets selected. Great example.

35. Don't blame Islam for terrorism, expert says

Comment #130868 by Donald on February 21, 2008 at 12:13 pm

Todd does not say whether Fuller addresses the issue of the specifically territorial claims of Judaism and Islam in their religious texts. Could that have anything to do with the above-average intensity and duration of the Middle East conflicts?

36. Fleabytes

Comment #130859 by Donald on February 21, 2008 at 12:03 pm

Comment #130781 by clearthinker:

...as has happened with other threads, I am likely to be banned and posts removed...

The site gave you a platform to post your "dawkins delusion" as a featured article, which has not been removed:
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,300,Dawkins-Delusion-3rd-article-Same-Stupid-Title,David-Robertson,page1#comments

There are a large number of your comments currently on view, including a few diverted to the alternative threads.
Had you noticed the site now gives links to all comments by given users?

David A Robertson (43 comments): http://richarddawkins.net/userComments,page1,2572
stpetes (15 comments): http://richarddawkins.net/userComments,page1,5721
The Wee Flea (107 comments): http://richarddawkins.net/userComments,page1,8260
clearthinker (13 comments): http://richarddawkins.net/userComments,page1,25843

You also had an alias "weefree".
That one didn't show up when I did an article search just now using the site's search facility.
Perhaps Josh removed that one in its entirety. If so, I suggest it might be because you used that alias to make allegations about Josh and the website which I think were false and perhaps slanderous, for example:

"Once again the incompetance, intolerance and ignorance of this site is being demonstrated."
"It is incompetant because despite being contacted by myself and my publishers you manage once again to give my book the wrong title and the wrong cover."
"I have to wonder why Josh does not correct this and continues to post information which is false."
"If the website manager wishes to perpetuate myth and falsehood then I guess it is in keeping with the rest of the site."

When I saw that post of yours, I responded.

Out of curiosity, and because I believe that all errors and misinformation should be corrected when identified, I sent an email to the contact address on the contact page of this site. It was a short polite email, pointing out your complaint above.
One day later your draft cover (with typo) had been replaced with the current cover as in your link above, as you can now see.

You continued to make allegations about Josh and the site management. It's one thing to insult other posters. It's a bit more serious to make allegations of deliberate malpractice against the site management. That might have been a factor in getting some of your comments removed, but I don't know the full story, and I didn't see all your posts.

Currently you are posting as "clearthinker" and "clearthinker"s posts have not been removed, or diverted to the alternative thread, at the time of this post.

If you are bothered about some commenters here being rude to you, I suggest you ignore them (instead of using them as propaganda) and give calm, sensible replies to calm, sensible points put to you (which would generate respect for you).

This site is actually outstandingly open, liberal, and transparent in allowing posters the freedom to directly post a wide variety of opinions without filtering by moderators. Your own website "www.freechurch.org" only presents comments that have been inspected individually by moderators - effectively "banning" every post they don't approve of.

37. Fleabytes

Comment #130702 by Donald on February 21, 2008 at 7:14 am

David,

The posting guidelines, and troll policy, have been slightly changed since the board was set up. Did you notice? They now say:

Please keep your comments clean and on-topic. Comments posted with the intent of instigating a negative response will be marked as troll comments and moved to the troll thread for that article. Repeat offenders may be permanently relegated to the troll threads.

In other words, posters are not necessarily diverted to the alternative thread. If they post appropriately on one thread, those posts can remain, even if posts on another thread have been diverted. And note, posts are not deleted - they are still there for all to see, and respond to, when they get placed in the alternative thread.
Your "clearthinker" alias has not been marked as troll, despite Josh being notified months ago that clearthinker seemed to be you. So, I think it would be possible for clean, on-topic, non-trolling posts by clearthinker to remain on this thread.

Your demand to be "unbanned" seems to me to be an excuse for not responding to Paula, rather than a real reason.

P.S. If you want to make sure a response to Paula by you appears on this thread, sent it to me by private message, and I'll post it. (And, if you don't fancy using me as your postman, I'm sure there are plenty of reliable others here who will be willing to do it instead.) You can get a reply posted here, seen by everyone, in the main thread, if you want to.

38. Fleabytes

Comment #130611 by Donald on February 21, 2008 at 1:49 am

Excellent reviews, Paula.

While I'm posting, here are a couple of couple of additional comments on David Robertson's letters.

In the first, introductory, letter he refers a couple of times to Dawkins' phrase "raising consciousness". He does not seem to realise that Dawkins meant "raising awareness", i.e. bringing the matter [of problems due to religion] to the conscious attention of people. Robertson has interpreted "raising conciousness" to mean a higher level of consciousness, i.e. a claim of superiority. Having failed to understand Dawkins on this point, Robertson goes on to criticise Dawkins for, in effect, insulting people with religious belief.

Robertson accuses Dawkins of "seeming to think that anyone who is religious is actually at a lower level of consciousness and needs to be set free by becoming an atheist". At this stage, I think Robertson has a good point in mind. Robertson is using the wrong word. He is using the word consciousness, echoed out of context from Dawkins. But I think that what Robertson really has in mind is that Dawkins "seems to think that anyone who is religious is actually at a lower level of knowledge". Although this is still wrong [Dawkins does not think that all people who are religious lack knowledge], this is getting to a valid point. Dawkins does indeed think that religious beliefs are associated with lack of knowledge, and that much religious belief would fade away if people were better educated about some of the things that the last three hundred years of scientific endeavour have discovered.


Robertson also seems to have failed to understand Dawkins on another matter and writes "you tell us that although when it comes to biology you are a strict Darwinianist, when it comes to politics, society etc you cannot go that route. Social Darwinianism would bring Hell on earth." It is clear from this writing, that Robertson has failed to understand Dawkins, and, if he read "The Selfish Gene", did not understand a crucial section. Yes, genes are selfish. BUT, the creatures they specify, and in particular humans, need not be. Genes can, and do, specify creatures that behave altruistically. Societies of such creatures can be, and are, very sucessful in evolutionary terms, i.e. sucessful in creating more and more creatures containing those genes. "Social Darwinism" is another straw man thrown up by Robertson. Dawkins does not advocate it, it is NOT a consequence of atheism, and it is wrong to smear Dawkins by placing a mention of "Social Darwinism" in connection with Dawkins' books.


Clearthinker writes:

Why is the Wee Flea not allowed to respond? If the official Dawkins website sees fit to post a whole article which deconstructs his book, then why ban him from responding to it? It only provides ammunition to the accusation that this is a closed minded site only for the true believers. And it allows the Wee flea (aka David Robertson) to tell people that the Dawkins website has banned him. And I am still unclear as to why he was banned. Invite him to return and respond. I'm sure Josh and others know how to get hold of him.

David, your "clearthinker" alias has not been marked as a troll, even though Josh was informed that "clearthinker" seems to be you. So Respond away - just put your real name at the foot of your postings as you did before with the previous aliases....and follow the posting guidelines

Please keep your comments clean and on-topic. Comments posted with the intent of instigating a negative response will be marked as troll comments and moved to the troll thread for that article.

[Edit]: I accidentally submitted a partial version of this post, and immediately deleted it, to give me time to repost it, but such is the speed of this board that Roland_F had already seen the partial version and responded! So that is why post #130602 is missing, yet post #130609 refers to it!

39. Happy Birthday Josh Timonen!

Comment #118935 by Donald on January 31, 2008 at 7:36 am

Happy Birthday Josh.
You've done a fantastic job on this site, and all without any help from god.
No reward from god either, so you'll just have to make do with the thanks and support of thousands of fellow humans.
Happy birthday.

40. New Findings Confirm Darwin's Theory: Evolution Not Random

Comment #113455 by Donald on January 19, 2008 at 3:28 pm

Ok, I've read the paper now. http://www.current-biology.com/content/article/fulltext?uid=PIIS0960982207021938

Cancel my inappropriate speculations.

It's an interesting paper, but it's not about whether variations tend to be favourable or not.

It's about alternative ways to get a successful result in the adult organism. The question was: do the different developmental steps found in different worms (for "development" read "growth from egg to adult via embryo") arise from neutral variation in the genes (neutral = giving neither advantage nor disadvantage to the individual) or from natural selection pressure.

They found that the gene evolution (as inferred from gene similarities) was largely due to natural selection pressure, not drift amongst equally satisfactory alternatives.

Apologies for the earlier post.

41. New Findings Confirm Darwin's Theory: Evolution Not Random

Comment #113433 by Donald on January 19, 2008 at 3:00 pm

Steve:
I haven't read the paper. All my speculations in the previous post should be taken as just that - speculations.

Plus, the ScienceDaily article confuses development with evolution. I thought I could read though that to a reasonable interpretation of what the paper said. But on reflection I'm much more doubtful. Thanks for the sentence from the abstract Vinelectric - do you have the whole abstract?

As far as genes controlling direction of variations goes - I didn't have in mind direct control of mutations. I rather had in mind that things like size might be the result of promoter genes or other forms of control gene that might be switchable up or down from generation to generation.

42. New Findings Confirm Darwin's Theory: Evolution Not Random

Comment #113403 by Donald on January 19, 2008 at 1:59 pm

[ Edit: This post was made before I read the paper, and turned out to be irrelevant and inaccurate speculation. I have left it here because later comments referred to it. ]

I think what is being claimed is that observed variation is not random in respect of whether it is advantageous or disadvantageous to the organism. Rather, that advantageous variation is much more common than disadvantageous variation.

This implies that there is well-developed layer of genes that control variation (I nearly wrote "control mutations", but it might be necessary to distinguish the two).

How could that possibly be?

Well, one obvious suggestion is that species on earth have gone through numerous repetitive cycles of the environment. Evolving for a warmer climate, then evolving back to a cooler climate, evolving for wetter conditions, then drier, etc. (Perhaps on a faster scale, for much simpler organisms that reproduce in days rather than years, evolving for longer days, then for shorter days, etc.)

In such an evolutionary history, if any genes existed that could control the direction of evolution of certain other genes which themselves directed such things as size, weight, bodily proportions, etc, then genomes with that extra layer of elaboration would evolve/adapt faster than simpler organisms. For example, imagine a master gene that could be switched to "mutate to larger size more often than smaller", or "mutate to smaller size more often". An organism with such a master gene would adapt to changes in environment that favoured a change in size, faster than random mutations. Those organisms with the master switch set to larger would tend to die out in environments that favoured smaller organisms until the organisms were about the right size, than the allele frquency of the master switch would again approach 50-50 until the next change in the environment.

To go back to the nematodes, perhaps the nematodes being studied did not come from an environment in which they had achieved evolutionary equilibrium, and evolution control genes were biased in a favourable evolutionary direction.

In general, of course, environments are continually changing due to evolution itself. The environment of orgainsisms is partly non-biological and partly the presence of the other species, all continually evolving too, and providing competitive pressure along the way. Master genes, controlling the mutation/evolution of other genes might themselves be subject to natural selection. I suspect there is a whole complex layer of master genes in higher animals.

43. The Group Delusion

Comment #112430 by Donald on January 17, 2008 at 5:04 am

Clicking the troll button only generates a message for the attention of the admins.
You have to directly email "design@richarddawkins.net" to get Josh's attention.
However, solving the wooter problem may not be simple, because the database(s) behind the site have accumulated minor inconsistencies - wooter was showing as "does not exist" long before your comment #111944 ~168.
I suspect the database anomaly has prevented a simple diverson to the ACT.
I emailed Josh a couple of days ago to draw his attention to the database anomaly. It may not be a priority, given all he has to do. If more users email about it though, it may raise the priority.

44. The Group Delusion

Comment #112413 by Donald on January 17, 2008 at 3:55 am

Wooter, you are right. Elementary reason does indeed tell us that there is a god that created everything, and it makes me sad to see insults posted on this site.

Found on the internet: 'Diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggie" while looking around for a rock email to Josh.'

45. Science, Evolution, and Creationism

Comment #112402 by Donald on January 17, 2008 at 3:35 am

Re: NOMA in the NAS publication

Here is the text from the summary:

Science and Religion Offer Different Ways of Understanding the World
Science and religion address separate aspects of human experience.
Many scientists have written eloquently about how their scientific studies of biological
evolution have enhanced rather than lessened their religious faith. And many religious
people and denominations accept the scientific evidence for evolution.
Our education system and our society as a whole are best served when we teach science,
not religious faith, in science classrooms.

I think sentences 1 and 2 are ambiguous, but I think the other statements are clearly true, and I especially like the final sentence. The NAS is relecting the reality that at the present time, significant numbers of scientists accept NOMA. It is a report by committee (which will include some god-believers) addressed to a vast and diverse community containing large numbers of people who will reject (without rational consideration) anything which does not give room for them to maintain their belief in god.

I'm for what works, and dislike appeasement policies, which so often allow bad situations to grow, but trying for too much at once is also unwise. The NAS is not aiming to get religious belief out of society, it's limiting its objective to get religion out of science teaching. Seems appropriate for an organisation called NAS, in the present circumstances in the USA.

46. The Group Delusion

Comment #111391 by Donald on January 14, 2008 at 1:56 pm

tribalypredisposed:

It's a colourful metaphor - selfish mutants as infecting agents in altruistic groups (an alternative would be the cancer cell metaphor). But I very much doubt that interference between selfish mutants could be sufficient to hold them in check in any realistic model.

Your metaphor suggests reduced "virulence", due to simple-selfishness being too lethal to the group. I assume you have in mind that altruism/selfishness would be a variable (like height) rather than an on/off switch. I suppose there might be some reason why the effect of variable degrees of selfishness in individuals could be different from the effect on the group of varying numbers of selfish individuals, but I can't immediately see any clear reason.

In any case the hoped-for model would have to exhibit co-evolution of the altruism/selfishness attribute together with between-group evolution to sustain low levels of selfishness in the population. It is perhaps possible given suitable assumptions about the groups (which would have to be held together by more than altruism I think).


Here is how I see the main issues of group selection:

I think the key to a theory of group selection is not to involve altruism initially. If group selection really is a significant factor in evolution, I think that genes for group formation would have evolved first, and non-kin-altruism (& selfishness) would be follow-ons.

I would think that genes for group formation would generate behaviours such as: discrimination between in-group (familiar individuals) and out-group (unfamiliar individuals); avoidance or hostility to outgroup individuals; cooperation in food finding, food sharing, within group members; reciprocity, tit for tat; obedience to dominant leaders; division of labour (eg lookouts, scouts, food and territory defence, hunting) etc. At the very earliest stages of group evolution, groups would be family. In later stages, communities of cooperating families could be groups. Group selection pressure would come from (a) success in cooperation (b) fighting for territory or other resources.

In humans, language would have exploded the possibilities available to groups by transmission of skills and knowledge, e.g.: fire and cooking (perhaps the biggest single skill that separated humans from other primates); farming with the key skills of gathering and planting seeds, plus storage of food between seasons; clothes; boats; etc (not to mention weapons and warfare, of course). Such transmissible skills could have provided huge survival differentials between groups.

The group selection sceptic might say, " but all those things could happen without group selection". Indeed they could. But the question is whether, if genes promoting group formation exist, the evolution might proceed faster with groups than without. If genes for group formation exist, and credible mathematical models were to show that evolution would proceed faster with the aid of groups, then there would have to be a very strong reason indeed to disbelieve in group selection.

Is the argument "free-loaders would wreck group cooperation" that strong reason? No, because I am postulating that cooperation and tit for tat would be the principal drivers for group success - no altruism required.

So, could groups speed up evolution? Speed up = explore a larger fraction of the genome space in a given time. Two things assist here. One, a larger diversity of genomes, and two, a larger difference in survival rates between phenotype vehicles. Can it be shown that groups enhance these two things? I don't know, but it seems quite possible to me.

If it could be established that groups could speed up evolution, and it could also be shown that altruism could subsequently be ESS against selfishness in a group-oriented population, then DS Wilson could eventually be a happy man. (And RD would of course willingly accept group selection if it were based on credible mathematical models and sound biological evidence - his past objection has been mainly to faulty arguments.)

47. George Scales, War Hero and Generous Friend of RDFRS

Comment #111382 by Donald on January 14, 2008 at 1:41 pm

What a heart-warming story!

Best wishes to you George, and congratulations.

I am glad to see such inspirational stories coming from atheists - it is such a welcome change from the "praise be to god" variety.

48. The Group Delusion

Comment #111225 by Donald on January 14, 2008 at 4:46 am

SZ: I agree that people use the word troll somewhat differently. I react to what I perceive as the ratio of disruption to useful stimulus, and to what I perceive as the possibilities for education and enlightenment (in either direction). Wooter scores so low on those measures that I flagged him as a troll (in the hope that he would be sidelined into the alternate comment thread - we agree about that). I regarded DR and DG as scoring much more favourably on those measures.

49. The Group Delusion

Comment #111219 by Donald on January 14, 2008 at 4:11 am

Comment #111210 by wooter:

I will go on asking my questions. Actually the answers lie in the questions;

Wooter is right. It is clear from his questions that the answer wooter seeks is: "you are right wooter".

This post is not to answer wooter though, it is a request to everyone else. Please, please, do not reply to wooter any more on this site. (Do not feed this troll.)
I rarely make this kind of comment. Heck, I even requested Josh to untroll David Robertson back before he sprouted aliases (Josh replied courteously to me, but he had already made up his mind.) But wooter is polluting this site. He has already been given lots of opportunity to post freely, and has been answered politely and informatively many times. Enough. Troll.

50. The Group Delusion

Comment #110772 by Donald on January 12, 2008 at 11:20 am

Thanks for that spiderdancer. You are right that we should distinguish kin altruism from group altruism.
And you are right that "pure" group altruism is subject to subversion from within, and so the relative timescales (in terms of number of generations) within group and of entire groups would require particular conditions.

However, altruism does not have to be all or nothing. It can be about taking risk. If risk-takers within the group receive mating preferences within the group, the risky-and-altruistic behaviour could be ESS.

The group-selection question is really about whether these familiar evolutionary processes are enhanced if the species forms competitive groups, or whether they would proceed at the same rate without. The groups have to have certain properties. They must have genetic variance (the more numerous they are, the stronger the effect), and compete/thrive/wither/splinter sufficiently rapidly to achieve significant natural selection effect. I'm not sure if there are sufficiently detailed models of the right kind yet.