"We have the metaphors" LOL

One Barbara Hollingsworth got to write a piece about something she doesn't know anything about. I am aware that that's the function of most journalists, but they could at least take a neutral stand (or, rather, I'd prefer they would consider that "both sides of the argument" doesn't always make sense when one side are lunatics - for example).

Hollingsworth has seen Expelled, I gather, because she buys into the claim that proponents of Intelligent Design are being silenced. They aren't; they are being ridiculed. Loudly. Because they keep saying the same thing over and over, and they never get around to doing any science to gather any evidence for their claims.

More than 800 Ph.D.-level scientists around the world are seriously considering ID to explain the origin of life, but you'd never know it. Most do so clandestinely for fear of being ostracized by their peers or even forced out of their academic positions.

Yeah, 800 Ph.D.s in dentistry, engineering, physics, and other fields with no expertise in biology (and, yes, a handful of biologists). Compare that to the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of Ph.D.s all over the world that either understand that ID isn't science or at least realize that they shouldn't let their religious views cloud their scientific ones. 800 Ph.D.s is like 20σ.

When former Cambridge biochemist Douglas Axe computed the chances that the four amino acids that form DNA could self-arrange themselves into just one functional protein, he found it was 1:10164 -- or less than the odds of finding one marked subatomic particle in the entire observable universe.

But but but, no one thinks that the proteins around today were the functional ones that first appeared. The function was vastly different, so the comparison doesn't hold. As usual, probability exercises like this one rests on straw-man arguments about how biologists and chemists think the first self-replicating molecules appeared.

Ironically, attempts to discredit ID have turned it into forbidden fruit on college campuses. Many recruits are grad students who understand the complex nanotechnology of the cell and the dead ends in Darwinian evolution much better than their professors. "It looks like engineering," Meyer says. "Replication. Digital code. We own the metaphors. They know the future is with us."

Forbidden fruits? Look, the professors likely know that ID is fruitless. A professor will do right by kindly explaining why ID isn't science, and that the very few predictions Id has made has been invalidated. "We own the metaphors" !?! *chortle* In which class do we learn that science progrersses by the use of metaphors? Biometaphors 101? Biology for poets? If the future is with the IDers, then why is all this an issue? Why don't they show us the science, something we can test that isn't immediately refuted? [Answer: because they don't have anything.]

"The actual evidence shows that major features of the fossil record are an embarrassment to Darwinian evolution; that early development in vertebrate embryos is more consistent with separate origins than with common ancestry; that non-coding DNA is fully functional, contrary to neo-Darwinian predictions; and that natural selection can accomplish nothing more than artificial selection -- which is to say, minor changes within existing species," writes Discovery Institute senior fellow Jonathan Wells, who has two Ph.D.s from the University of California at Berkeley in molecular and cell biology. "Faced with such evidence, any other scientific theory would probably have been abandoned long ago. Judged by the normal criteria of empirical science, Darwinism is false."

The fossil record supports evolution. Vertebrate embryos confirm that vertebrates share a common ancestor. There is plenty of DNA that is non-functional, despite the discovery (by real scientists) that some of it serves a function. ("Non-coding DNA" is how we refer to the DNA that doesn't code for proteins, but control gene expression, i.e. when the coding regions are transcribed and translate into proteins - which is a very important function.) Natural selection - without the influence of humans - has been shown time and again to occur in nature (e.g. my all-time favorite paper on Croatian lizards evolving to use a new dietary resource in 30 years - not minor changes). Two Ph.D.s, eh? Why? I'll tell you why, so he can say that he is smart. Don't believe me? Look it up. Wells was told by his Moonie leader to go get a Ph.D. to refute Darwinism.

In the end, Hollingsworth gives away where her allegiance lies when she says

Amen to that.

Again, if your religious views take precedence in your interpretation of data, then you'll be doing science that can't be used for anything. Try it. Do ID science and let's compare notes. I promise I won't ridicule you before the, say, 5th time you come back with the same claim, having ignored all the evidence that refutes it.

OpenLab 2009 submission deadline approaching

The Open Laboratory: The Best Writing on Science Blogs 2009.

What is it? It's a book full of blog posts. What could be a better read than that?

Deadline for submissions is December 1st at midnight EST!, so submit your own favorite posts right away.

Check out some submissions at A blog Around the Clock.

SciCurious and a large gang of judges will be judging them until only 50 essays, one poem and one cartoon remain.

Please use the submission form to add more of your and other people's posts (remember that we are looking for original poems, art, cartoons and comics, as well as essays). Realize that nobody knows your archives as well as you do - there is nothing wrong about submitting your own (about half of the entries, each year, are submitted by authors, and that is just fine).

My favorite cartoon is PartiallyClips.

Can Afghanistan be won?

After reading this article with very anti-troop surge views, I started looking for other views on the subject. Obama will give a speech on Tuesday wherein he is anticipated to order more troops and civilians to Afghanistan, though not as many as requested by General McChrystal, who's the head of the NATO troops in Afghanistan. Still, it's expected to result in an increase of 50% over the number of troops already there (68,000).

Also interesting is this article about how helicopters are crucial in the fight in Afghanistan. Without them, troops can't get around, more roadside bombs will be planted, and fewer wounded troops will get to medics in time. Only recently has more/enough choppers been provided. Only recently...

Still, it would be nice to hear exactly what the goal in Afghanistan is. How will we recognize victory? What will a win look like? The enemy is the Taleban and other insurgents. Ultimately, the enemy is terrorism, right? bin Laden was the point for going there, as I recall. Now he is not there, and so to what end is NATO there? 'To stop the terrorist breeding ground' seems the only credible answer to that question. But evidence suggests that international terror isn't planned in Afghanistan at all any more. Europe, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia are where that's at. But sure, if NATO pulled out of Afghanistan, Al Qaeda might move back in. So the only answer is to stay forever? Because it's not like there are any prospects of Al Qaeda and bin Laden being smoked out, despite documented cowboy tactics. On the other hand, now, again since the Taleban is not ruling the farmers, Afghanistan is the world's largest producer of heroin, which kills about ~100,000 people every year. "Covert terrorism"?

If Iraq is a difficult enough war, there are reasons why Afghanistan is much worse.

"The sheer terrain of Afghanistan is much more challenging: the mountains, the altitudes, severity of weather, the distances. That wears on an army," says Maj. Joseph Matthews, a battalion operations officer in the 10th Mountain Division. "You can flood Baghdad with soldiers but if you want to flood the mountains you are going to need huge numbers and logistics."

(...)

In Afghanistan, troops routinely cross passes 10,000 feet (3,000 meters) and higher, descending into valleys where they say villagers "hibernate like bears" for up to five winter months, cut off from the outside world by the snows.

This almost medieval isolation makes it far more difficult for the Afghan government and coalition forces to spread the aid and information needed to counter the Taliban push while the villagers — mostly illiterate and with little access to radios, never mind television — rely on religious leaders at Friday mosque prayers, or the insurgents, to shape their world view.

In late January next year, British PM Brown will host a conference on an Afghanistan exit strategy. The plan is to require (intensely corrupt) Afghan President Karzai to provide 50,000 troops for training in the next year, as well as improving the police force, and then pull out NATO troops. 50k troops?! I want to say that I suspect that will prove difficult, but I don't really know. Does anyone think this is going to be possible?

A San Francisco Chronicle editorial suggests building more schools is the real way to win the war, and I largely concur, even though I would worry that NATO would need to keep troops in Afghanistan for a very long time for that strategy to be effective. It could be that it would have a more immediate effect on people than the wait for children to be educated, but I wonder if.

"In Afghanistan, success stories are difficult to find," said Lex Kassenberg, CARE's top official in the country. The delicate, painstaking work of bringing a community school to life offers clear rewards such as education, an end to violence and a way to contain the Taliban, he believes. The cost so far: $25 million over five years for CARE. Compare that to the $200 billion-plus spent by the United States over eight years in a stumbling, inconclusive conflict.

But what's to stop the Taleban from closing schools if the troops leave? The answer would be the local communities themselves... and hopefully that would work.

Earn top dollar with Google Home income

Why would Google hire people not through their own website? Why would they pay $25 per link select employees working from at home post... somewhere?

Why is the news listed on a site called News 3 Insider Weekly News? Why is this breaking news-item not dated? Why were commenting closed due to spam on October 15, 2009, with a note that it would reopen soon, but it never did? Why does that news site not have any other news? Why does http://www.news3insider.com say 'Hello, World!'?

If you follow the link to sign up to get a starter kit from Google (paying only $2 in shipping - and "allows Google to screen for serious people") you get to a site called www.internetrichgurus.com. Why?

The real question is why isn't Google doing something about this scam?

Dumbfuckers in Afghanistan quagmire

In a 4198 word essay on the dumbfuckedness of the war in Afghanistan, Evert Cilliers manages to express his dumbfounderment by using the word dumbfuck and derivatives twelve times.

IS OBAMA ABOUT TO BECOME JUST ANOTHER WAR CRIMINAL?

And the sad answer seems to be that he is. If I was dictator of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, I would have awarded the prize to Obama only after he signed a statement promising to end the war in Afghanistan by this year.

Cilliers' article is mesmerizing. I'd quote the whole thing here, but that seems a bit excessive. Just a few nuggets, then:

1. AFGHANISTAN IS NOT A COUNTRY, IT'S A CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE
Afghanistan produces 93% of the world's opium, and this drug kills a 100,000 users a year. Like Burma, Afghanistan is basically a criminal enterprise.

2. HOW WE FUND THE DRUGLORDS AND THE TALIBAN
This is the situation in Afghanistan. No government. A fight between gangster-warlords and the Taliban for control of the opium, and us in the middle, backing the losers.

3. TWO OR THREE REASONS WE'RE IN AFGHANISTAN
There is a third reason we continue fighting in Afghanistan, the most important reason, and that is simply this: we're fighting there because we've been fighting there. It's much easier to start a war than to end a war. We're in Afghanistan because we're in Afghanistan -- the law of inertia.

4. THE WAR SERVES OUR POLITICS, NOT OUR INTERESTS
Here is the point: there is less justification for our war in Afghanistan now than there were ever was for our war in Iraq. The Afghanistan war is as necessary to our security as an indoor flush toilet is necessary to an elephant. There is nothing for us to win there, even if we achieve the impossible and put the gangster-warlords back in charge of Afghanistan, instead of the religious nuts.

5. OUR REAL ENEMIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST AREN'T THE TALIBAN OR IRAN, BUT ISRAEL AND SAUDI-ARABIA
But hey, we're dumbfucks, so we regard the two countries who screw us the most in the Middle East as our friends. Our foreign policy works AGAINST our interests. We MUST be a nation of consummate dumbfuckeronskis if we can't even get basic things like that right.

6. FROM MESSIAH TO WAR CRIMINAL IN LESS THAN A YEAR
Obama has already made one big mistake in his first year -- coddling Wall Street, because he is being advised by two economic war criminals, Summers and Geithner. Now, if he lets himself be swayed by the actual war criminals among his advisers, he will be nothing but a war criminal himself.

7. WE COULD WIN SOMETHING WITH MORE SCHOOLS INSTEAD OF MORE TROOPS
That would be money well spent -- educating the country's kids instead of killing their parents. But no, Obama is not thinking about building more schools there, but debating with his advisers and himself about whether he should send more troops there. A debate of dumbfucks by dumbfucks for dumbfucks.

8. THE ANNOYING ENDURANCE OF OUR DUMBFUCKERY
Imagine the irony if Barack goes and collects his Nobel Peace Prize after having sent more troops to their deaths in Afghanistan. From hopeful Messiah to war criminal in less than a year.

[Formatted to fit this screen, to run in the time allotted, and edited for content.]

Makes me wanna puke, really.

Our hero

Apparently, someone finally got the credit they deserve.


Watch the whole movie.

(And to pre-empt: No, I am Danish.)

Critical thinking in Cairo (a first)

I am anti-creationism, and I am also anti-religion. But those are different issues that, while interrelated, aren't identical. I do wish everybody would accept evolution, and discard creationism. I do also wish people would stop being religious, because a) I think the truth is that there isn't anything supernatural out there (I am an atheist), and b) religion is the cause, directly or indirectly, of a lot (but not all) of the things that are wrong with the world. I don't think religion is only bad, but it seems to me that it is on average. Those are hard statements, I know, and if you don't like them, please show yourself the way out of here at your own leisure.

Obviously, if religion disappeared tomorrow, nobody (sane) would believe in creationism any more either. But if creationism disappeared, that would not totally do away with religion; there are many religious people who accept evolution. There are no (sane) people who aren't religious but believe in creationism.

But what is the best strategy for achieving the goal of ridding the world of religion? (Yes, I do say that because I think it would benefit mankind (and the rest of us) tremendously - I am talking about the religions that matter in that context, so if you are of the religious sort that just privately believes in something supernatural, but you also accept science and don't push your unsupported beliefs on others, then I don't really mean you.) It is more effective to make a big push against religion, and then be happy that it implies the end of creationism too? Or, is it the better way to educate widely about the science, and then see creationism disappear first on its own? Richard Dawkins writes that he doesn't want to compromise and say that science and evolution can accommodate religion, because to him the real battle is against religion. I agree with that in principle, but I wonder if - given that we all know it is going to be a very long and tiresome battle - it isn't more effective to do everything we can to first show everyone how ridiculous creationism is, and then worry about religion after that. I imagine that understanding evolution, and being convinced by the ample evidence there is in its favor, will lead a lot of religious people, and especially a lot of children of religious people, to question their religious views.

At this point it may sound to the reader like I am aiming at "beautifying the level of the discourse," such as other faitheists have proposed. But I am not.

1. faitheist
An atheist who is "soft" on religious belief, and tolerant of even the worst intellectual and moral excesses of religion: atheist accommodationist.

A lot of leftist faitheists say, "I'm not religious, but we shouldn't criticize the Muslim oppression of women because it's a sincere religious belief.

Perhaps it is true that even saying that [the bigger battle can be won eventually by focusing on showing the evidence for the science that is in conflict with creationism] will turn some people off evolution and science, and yet I am not proposing not to do so anyway, because I believe in saying what I think, telling it like it is, and because I believe that many religious people will respond to the message that science have for them.

I mention this because of a conference on evolution held in Cairo, where education is dismal and Islam is ubiquitous. Work to improve their education, have the students learn to think for themselves (apparently, they don't learn that there), show them the evidence for evolution, and explain what the theory says.

Darwin, of course, did not say man came from monkeys. He said the two share a common ancestor. But to discuss Darwin anywhere is not just to explore the origin of man. It is inevitably to engage in a debate between religion and science. That is why, 150 years after Darwin published “On the Origin of Species,” the British Council, the cultural arm of the British government, decided to hold an international conference on Darwin in this conservative, Sunni Muslim nation.

It was a first.

Apparently, Egyptian students aren't taught about evolution.

Education here is based on rote memorization, with virtually no emphasis on creative thinking. Few schools here even teach the theory of evolution.

The testimonies from students at the conference is what makes me think that this is going to be a long and painful process, but that we will eventually prevail.

“I am not against the idea of evolution completely,” said Amr Zeydah, 23, a zoology major at Alexandria University. “I accept the idea partially.”

Despite his major, Mr. Zeydah has never studied Darwin, and before the conference knew little about the theory of evolution. He accepted the Islamic account of creation, that God formed Adam from dirt and infused him with a soul.

But after taking in the discussion, he said he had worked out a way to reconcile the two: that God created life, which then evolved to suit its environment. “God created Adam at 15 meters tall,” he said, quoting what he said was a Hadith, or saying, of the Prophet Muhammad. “So evolution comes in because we are obviously not that height now.”

While some people may chuckle at the notion that man was once of enormous height, the point, some of the speakers here said, was that local sensitivities and beliefs must be understood, too, not dismissed out of hand, if dialogue is to work.

As always, understanding is not accepting - I don't have to accept religious beliefs in order to understand how they influence a person's way of thinking about science. And without understanding I don't think we will get anywhere. Dialogue is crucial, so let's accept that advancement will come in tiny increments, such as in the case of Mr. Zeydah who now at least got to learn anything at all about evolution, like all zoology majors should, even though it lead him to bend over backwards father than a contortionist to accommodate his religious beliefs.

Contest on Pharyngula: refute-a-creationist

PZ Myers has a little contest on Pharyngula. Answer one of these two questions and you might win a book drawn at random from PZ's pile:

1. Was evolution a significant and essential factor in guiding Nazi thought?
2. Can natural processes produce an increase in complexity?

These questions are his response to an email from some creationist, Ross Olson, who does not think Hitler would have come up with his ideas had it not been for Darwin's influence in him. He also requested that PZ provide him with evidence for evolution increasing complexity.

I have an answer in for the second question, and tonnes of people have given answers to the first consisting mostly of quotes from Mein Kampf.

Just two reasons not to eat Turkey

Industrial slaughterhouses treat livestock very badly. That's not news. But, a reminder now and then is welcomed, lest we forget because it's more convenient to ignore it.

The PETA lists ten reasons not to eat Turkey, some of which I don't give a damn about. What mattes to me is how cruelly the animals are treated.

6. Factory-farmed turkeys have nothing to be thankful for
On factory farms, turkeys live for months in sheds where they are packed so tightly that flapping a wing or stretching a leg is nearly impossible. They stand mired in waste, and urine and ammonia fumes burn their eyes and lungs. To keep the birds from killing one another in such crowded conditions, parts of the turkeys’ toes and beaks are cut off, as are the males’ snoods (the flap of skin under the chin). All this is done without any pain relievers.

Last fall, a PETA investigator went undercover at Aviagen Turkeys in West Virginia and documented workers stomping on turkeys, punching them, beating them with pipes and boards, and twisting their necks repeatedly. One worker even bragged about shoving a broomstick down a turkey’s throat because the bird had pecked at him. Our previous investigations show that such gratuitous abuse is the norm on turkey farms.

7. Turkeys die bloody, painful deaths
When the time comes for slaughter, turkeys are thrown into transport trucks, and at the slaughterhouse, they are hung upside-down and their heads are dragged through an electrified “stunning tank,” which immobilizes them but does not kill them. Many birds dodge the tank and are still conscious when their throats are slit. If the knife fails to properly slit the birds’ throats, the birds are scalded to death in the defeathering tanks.

That's enough reasons. Makes me sick to my stomach. It costs money to treat animals decent, so they don't. There is an alternative for consumers (organic and free-range turkeys), but during Thanksgiving I doubt they alone can live up to the demand.

I can assure everyone that soy-beans are treated very humanely. Eat tofu instead. Healthier, too.

Evolution highlights VIII

Olivia Judson in the New York Times on the ability to evolve in response to environmental change. Species can't always cope with changing environments, because they lack the standing genetic variation to enables them to adapt, They mostly go extinct before they can evolve in response.

Oren Hassan is an evolutionary psychologist, and those have a reputation for making up hypotheses to explain why this or that human trait is an adaptation. Hassan is no exception. Phrasing his hypothesis as a certainty, and not proposing a way to test it, or even mentioning that it should be tested to be science, he is telling just-so stories.

Hasson argues that crying enables human beings to create a semblance of helplessness while under attack and to convey a credible message of defenselessness. The Israeli zoologist explains that this state of being is created because tears obscure vision and prevent a person from fighting while he or she is crying. Tears prevent someone who is crying, Hasson contends, from effectively acting aggressively and sends the signal that someone who is crying has lowered his or her defenses.

Ask yourself how he knows. It's not that I couldn't imagine that his guess might be at least partly right - I have myself thought that crying is a signal (having children makes this rather clear, I think) - but merely saying so is not enough. It must be investigated to be science.

Nosson Slifkin is a Jewish Rabbi who had some books on science and the Torah banned by a group of ultra-orthodox Rabbis. Slifkin is totally pro-evolution, but the 29 Rabbis (good name for a rock-band) aren't. Read his story and learn about the views on evolution of that third Abrahamic religion that no one ever mentions when talking about creationism.

Christians win the war on Christmas

Another email from the AFA on Gap's war on Christmas. Gap has given in a is airing a commercial with the words 'Merry Christmas' in it. That way we know that Christmas is all about spiritual matters and not just another random materialistic holiday. They say.

According to Bill Chandler, vice-president of Gap corporate communications, Gap's Old Navy division will launch a new television commercial this weekend which "has a very strong Christmas theme."

Chandler responded to AFA last Friday, after a poll showed 90% of AFA supporters wanted to continue the boycott as a result of Gap's initial "holiday" ad that mingled Christmas with the pagan "Winter Solstice" holiday [which was celebrated many years before Christ was born, but no, no, no, we mustn't acknowledge that, because this is a CHRISTIAN country, and pagans use witchcraft (which is very real and very dangerous)].

Gap says the new ad will include the popular Supermodelquins proudly cheering “Merry Christmas", and features Christmas trees [I can't recall the book and chapter of the Bible where the Christmas tree is mentioned...], lights and ornaments as well.

In good faith, AFA is suspending the Gap boycott until it has an opportunity to view the new commercial this weekend.

As a result of your dedicated actions, we believe Gap is beginning to realize that Christmas is not just another “holiday” and will begin to advertise in a way that is respectful to Christians and Christmas shoppers.

Here is the last call to stand with us and proclaim to our communities that Christmas is not just a winter holiday focused on materialism, but a “holy day” when we celebrate the birth of our Savior [who was not born around that time at all, by the way]. We can do it in a gentle and effective way by wearing the “God's Gift - Merry Christmas” button. Don’t wait! Place your order by December 1 to receive it before Christmas. [Emphasis and my comments in red added for a nice Christmassy effect.]

Here's a question: Do you know why Santa Clause is dressed in red and white?

Answer in the comments....

---

Update 11/25:
Thanks to Mitch, I now present the true story of Santa:

Origins: Among the pantheon of characters commonly associated with the Christmas season (both the religious holiday and the secular wintertime celebrations), the beloved persona of Santa Claus is somewhat distinctive in that his appearance is neither one that has been solidified through centuries of religious tradition nor one that sprang fully-formed from the imagination of a modern-day writer or artist. Santa Claus is instead a hybrid, a character descended from a religious figure (St. Nicholas) whose physical appearance and backstory were created and shaped by many different hands over the course of years until he finally coalesced into the now familiar (secular) character of a jolly, rotund, red-and-white garbed father figure who oversees a North Pole workshop manned by elves and travels in a sleigh pulled by eight reindeer to deliver toys to children all around the world every Christmas Eve. (Among the many persons who had a hand in creating the modern Santa Claus figure, some of the most influential were writers Washington Irving and Clement Clarke Moore, historian John Pintard, and illustrator Thomas Nast.)

There is clear evidence that Coca-Cola did not invent the present image of Santa, and there is also a good reason why this is a myth:

However, we as human beings prefer definitive answers: We want details about time, place, and source and tend to eschew ambiguous, indefinite, open-ended explanations. We don't find satisfying the notion that Santa Claus is an evolutionary figure with no single, identifiable point of origin, so we instead have created and clung to a more satisfying, pat explanation: The modern appearance of Santa Claus was a commercial creation of the Coca-Cola company, who cannily promoted a version of Santa garbed in their red-and-white corporate colors.

Sound familiar? People don't like explanations they don't understand, and evolutionary mechanisms are hard to understand. Many people like instant creation better, and perhaps this is not only so because it says so in the Bible (or does it?).

The question remains what the AFA thinks of Santa, and if they don't think he is Satan misspelled, then how do they explain him without any secular references?

A team of creationists wank around in Galapagos

The AFA sent me a link to this trailer of a movie they are pushing.

200 YEARS AFTER THE BIRTH OF CHARLES DARWIN
AND 150 YEARS AFTER "ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES"
A TEAM WILL TRAVEL BACK IN TIME
TO PROVE HIM WRONG

"If the Earth was millions of years old as the evolutionist say, life would be impossible."

Why?

"I think the observations we make are consistent with the idea that the Earth was created not very long ago."

And I think you didn't look closely enough.

"There is no hope in evolution. Evolution is a defeatist, scientifically unsupportable philosophy, which is fundamentally at war with God."

Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory, not a philosophy. It explains natural phenomena, and is not expected to bring hope (and yet I am hopeful). There is a plethora of support for evolution. Yes, evolution is fundamentally at war with a literal reading of the Bible (and a literal reading of the Bible is inconsistent with itself).

(Face to face with a giant tortoise) "Just stunning creatures that God has created."

Or not.

"Evolution is all about the origin of new species. But in this case, those that we thought were different species, are really the same species. It's the opposite of evolution."

Evolution is in part about the origin of species. Galapagos species have sister species in other places, but the crucial observation is that they are morphological distinct (what we choose to call different species is irrelevant). WTF does "the opposite" of evolution even mean?

"What evolution does, it forces people to believe in evolution. It forces you not to believe in the Bible."

It's a a theory!!! It doesn't force anyone to do anything. You are forcing people to choose between science and the Bible.

"Evolution is survival of the fittest. In Christianity, the most fit of all, Jesus Christ, died for the unfit. That's you and me. That's the way God thinks."

This has got to be the best of all. I have rarely heard such nonsense even on their side of the fence. It is clear as day that this man doesn't understand the very first thing about evolution. How exactly was Jesus the most fit of all? In evolutionary theory he would have zero fitness, because he didn't have any children. And we are unfit? I have children, but I hope you don't. (Please see my GLOSSARY OF EVOLUTION if you are unsure what fitness is.) And fancy that arrogance, claiming to know the way their imaginary God thinks.

It would have been awfully nice if they had included the proof that Darwin was wrong.

Evolution highlights VII

Interjections! This crazy article 'pothesizing that depression is adaptive in humans has resurfaced in an Irish newspaper (scroll down ten paragraphs to see it). I dealt with it in August, and I don't think the idea sounds any better in November (but then again, the weather in Southern California is fantastic).

Jubilations! Researchers have discovered an anti-kuru gene that makes humans resistant to prion disease. The mutation that causes the variant gene is thus beneficial, and I am looking forward to see how the creationists, who don't believe in beneficial mutations, will respond this time ("but these are Hell-spawn cannibals"?). Much better. Also, did you know that it is not known what prions do, apart from causing disease when they misfold? Humans have genes for coding them, and they are expressed all over in the body, but the function of them is still a mystery.
Thanks to Jasper the triathlete for the link to this one.

Peter and Rosemary Grant have been studying Darwin's Finches in the Galapagos Islands for decades. Most recently they have a great paper out in PNAS about secondary contact after allopatric speciation. I have some problems accepting the view that the case they studied is an example of 'incipient' speciation (meaning in progress), but a fascinating account is in indeed.

Here's a report in National Geographic from earlier this year where they found that the very same birds described in the PNAS paper diverged further from each other in beak size when they came into contact, specializing on different resources. Such character displacement "paradoxically may often occur so rapidly that we may actually miss the process taking place."

Detroit fudged data to sell more SUVs

Words aren't enough to express the disdain I have for people who lie like Walter McManus.

When he worked for GM, he said the data showed that people didn't prioritize fuel efficiency very highly. Now, as a professor, he comes clean and admits he fudged the data because it suited his purpose at the time.

Detroit routinely insisted throughout the past few decades that their consumer studies proved the American buying public wasn't interested in fuel efficient vehicles, and preferred big, profitable SUVs and pickups, as reason for Detroit's truck-heavy product lineups.

Now former GM economist Walter McManus, now a professor and chief of the Automotive Analysis division of the Transportation Research Institute at the University of Michigan, said that the opposite was true--and he, along with others, helped fudge all the data.

Again, words fail me. This hurt people and the environment, and they did it for profit.

As Edmunds's Green Car Advisor reports, GM often received outside data during the 1990s showing that consumers were interested in fuel economy, but that McManus routinely dismissed it. "The survey would estimate that people would estimate fuel economy fairly highly," said McManus in the report. "Being a good economist, I said, 'No, they don't,' and I changed the results," because it wasn't in line with auto industry beliefs.

In fact, "there was a systematic bias against such results," he continued in the article. "Our job was not to seek the truth, but to justify decisions that had already been made. [Those decisions are] being made by upper-middle-class white males, by and large. They don't understand that the customers are not the same as they are."

A thousand curses!

Fuck those basterds in Detroit, and fuck those idiots who hired him as a professor. No one should ever hire anyone as a professor that deliberately fudged data. Piss.

Email from the hacked CRU server

Recently, emails were stolen from a server at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the UK. These include private correspondence about climate research and related matters. Some consider the content of the emails revealing, and cast doubt on the veracity of the conclusion that climate change is caused by human activity.

Story on New York Times and on RealClimate: Climate science from climate scientists (the latter is a better report).

More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.

What was found among the hundreds of emails reveals something that everyone should be made aware of. You will have no way to verify that this email is genuine, but you can take my word that it is. I promise. (And that goes for all the other emails, too, of course.)

The following email was sent from one scientist at CRU to a colleague at the University of Wisconsin on August 17th, 2009:

[Name withheld], I just wanted to let you know how much help and inspiration I have received from Bjørn through the years. The numerous phone conversations we have had over the years on the topic of climate change has helped me tremendously. I am simply not sure I could have made any progress without his advice, and I am certain that his influence on the field is so great that neither Kyoto nor Copenhagen would ever have taken place if it hadn't been for his expertise. And yet, despite his contributions, he refuses to take any credit. You may ask me why, and the answer is that he let me know that he would prefer to remain anonymous and let others take the credit, so that he can focus on his true passion of evolutionary biology. Let's agree to respect his wish.

Yours,
[Name withheld]

Again, I personally have no interest in revealing this email, but in order to avoid any potential accusations of hiding who the true experts are, I have decided to make the email public. Again, I swear that it is not a fake (like many others we will see published in the days to come will no doubt turn out to be).

You know what they say about the elephant's trunk...

Wulffmorgenthaler.

If?

Sometimes it totally does work like that. Blue-footed and red-footed boobies (again, always a fun google). Sexual selection need not be all about choosing sexual partners of the opposite sex based on how costly some trait is (e.g. elephant trunks). It can also just be fad-driven.

I recall an experiment I read about years ago. A female duck showed zero interest in an unpopular male, but when the experimenters artificially increased the male's popularity, the female was hooked. I suspect it often works that way among people who get their fifteen minutes of fame (but no opportunity to cash out on it).

Comfort's book distributed at UCSB

Here's a story on Evolutionary Novelties about the distribution of Ray Comfort's mauling of On The Origin of Species (see story on Christian Science Monitor) at UC Santa Barbara. Here's the shocker:

[Graduate student] Chris thinks that, in the end, all this was just a cheap scam perpetrated by Ray Comfort. We found out that [book distributor] Mike put up money to buy these books. Comfort wrote a bunch of crap, tagged it to the beginning of Darwin's classic, published cheap copies, and then used his propaganda machine to get gullible buyers to spend their money.

Whaaat? These people paid Comfort money for this? Why that low-down dirty piece of filth! I can't believe he, with all the money he have made from his best-sellers, went ahead and asked the loons who handed them out on his behalf also to pay for them! What a god-damn awful disgrace. Ptui!

Apparently Ray Comfort himself showed up at UCLA to distribute books. Anyone got the word from there?

---

Update: Yes, someone wrote an account of Comfort's appearance at UCLA.

Bill O'Reilly on being a patriot

Bill O'Reilly is such a fucking dork. Read this:

In Portland, Oregon, a father and son were about to get off mass transit when disaster struck. Somehow the 3-year-old boy got out of the train, but his father did not and rolled away. You can imagine the boy's fear.

Well, a kind woman comforted Aiden Bailey until his dad Aaron could make his way back. The lady is still unidentified, but she is quite a patriot.

So, now comforting a three-year old makes you a... patriot? WTF?!

pa⋅tri⋅ot
- noun

a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion.

Is it known exactly when O'Reilly's brain fell out? Is "patriot" just his favorite endearing term? Like, "Thanks for bringing me more bread. You're a patriot." Or, "He scored a touch-down in the very last second. What a patriot!"

Hm?

Clergy accepting evolution

The Clergy Letter Project is a list of American Christian clergy that accept evolution.

Their statement on the Bible:

Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts. [Emphasis added.]

And their statement on science:

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth. [Emphasis added.]

Beautiful. Thanks.

The letter is signed by a large number of American clergy (here's the list by state) - far larger than the list of (any kind of) Ph.D.s who doubt evolution. In California alone there are more Clergy on this list than there were on the list of evolution deniers in August 2008. Also, see Project Steve.

Google NoSense

The money I make from the advertisements that I have allowed Google AdSense to place here on the left and below puzzle me. Very few people click them, but when they do the earnings vary a lot. Look below here. One click on Tuesday and Thursday was worth about 15 cents and 8 cents respectively, but one click on Wednesday got me $2.57. That much for a single click? Why? I feel certain that it really wasn't worth that much to the advertiser. What sort of strange formula does Google have for calculating earnings? All I know is that it's a secret - when you sign up they explain that they will not reveal it. Does anyone have a clue?

Date  Page impressions Clicks Earnings
Sat, Nov 14, 2009 136 0 $0.01
Sun, Nov 15, 2009 242 0 $0.01
Mon, Nov 16, 2009 271 0 $0.02
Tue, Nov 17, 2009 289 1 $0.15
Wed, Nov 18, 2009 418 1 $2.57
Thu, Nov 19, 2009 332 1 $0.08
Fri, Nov 20, 2009 205 0 $0.01

P.S. Since I signed up in March I have earned $16.63, so it really isn't much. And they don't pay out until that number reaches $100. Gonna be a few years. I wonder how much PZ Myers can cash in every month...