How Mormons will conquer the world

There’s a documentary coming out about how the Mormons influenced California’s Proposition 8, and Salon has an interview with the director, Reed Cowan. He makes the point that it wasn’t just that they raised buckets of money, but that they had willing volunteers.

Nobody does it better than the Mormons. Money is one thing. What outsiders don’t understand is the volunteer aspect: the “means and time” trigger language that comes from the temple, and how it literally played to their obedience.

Their greatest asset is the obedience of their people. They had people signed up to go street by street and house by house. They knew who to take with them and were extremely organized.


What is it about those two words, “time and means,” that triggers obedience?

You’re told in the temple that what you are about to do, your eternal salvation hinges on it. God will not be mocked. Then you see a character named Satan who basically threatens to take away your eternal salvation if you don’t live up to covenants you’re making. When they used the trigger language of the temple, most of the Mormon faithful got it. Your salvation and the salvation of humanity depends on it. It’s inferred that you will lose everything if you don’t obey.

If there’s one thing religion is good at, it’s using fear to make people conform and obey. The question is whether uniformity and mass action at the behest of a few authoritarians is good for humanity…and I think not. At least not the kind of humanity I want to live among.

Great Beards: Darwin!

The Great Beard debate is still going strong, and this ought to clinch it for the beard side: how can you deny the puissance of a majestic beard when you look on Darwin’s nobly hirsute face?

i-262df7ecba3a59005f6c1f322fac094a-darwin_beard.jpeg

Case closed! Boo-yah!

Now I am a fair-minded and magnanimous person, so I thought I would give the naked-cheeked ones a chance to rebut. I was sent this video:

Hmmm, fascinating…so beardless men compare their lack to sexual inadequacy, and find it amusing? It is not surprising that they’re being crushed in the vote.

Octopuses do not have psychic powers

A “psychic” octopus named Paul is predicting the outcome of World Cup games, some Germans claim. I don’t believe it. Why would an octopus be at all interested in a game where you can’t use your arms?

i-08f48dc443ef7e78068b2fd9f8c53b13-psychic_octopus.jpeg

I don’t believe in precognition, but I do think octopuses are smart. It’s more likely that Paul is sneaking out of his tank at night to read the sports magazines, and then makes informed decisions about likely results of the matches.

Bravo, Belgium!

The Belgian police have raided offices of the Catholic church in search of evidence of the usual Catholic crime — raping children. (It’s funny: ask someone to name a Catholic crime, and what’s the first thing they think of? It’s the worst PR in the world.)

I’m hoping that they’re just warming up for the big one — I’d like to see a UN raid of the Vatican, with a whole line of shame-faced old men in dresses led out to the paddy wagons like a transvestite Mafia mob.

That’s not a shoehorn, it’s a sledgehammer

The apologetic gang at BioLogos is complaining again — Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins and I didn’t understand their recent piece by Daniel Harrell on Adam and Eve, and oh, it is so hard to be the ones in the middle of all those atheist and creationist extremists.

Note to BioLogos: squatting in between those on the side of reason and evidence and those worshipping superstition and myth is not a better place. It just means you’re halfway to crazy town.

The core of Falk’s article consists of complaining that we didn’t understand what they were talking about, and took their article out of context. Unfortunately, as Falk attempts to restate the original bogus argument, it becomes apparent that the only ones who were clueless and confused were the theistic evolutionists. What they were doing in the original article was distinguishing between two alternatives: #1, Adam and Eve were created literally as the Bible says, and #2, that Adam and Eve were historical figures who were chosen by God out of existing populations that had evolved as science explains. #1 is patently ridiculous, as they admit, and comically, they argue that #2 is eminently reasonable and supportable by science, and assume that therefore all our criticisms must have been made under the misapprehension that we thought BioLogos was endorsing #1. No! We can read, and we could see exactly what they were saying with their goofy dichotomy, and we’re saying the whole effort to reconcile science with the book of Genesis is a misbegotten waste of time — we were addressing #2, not #1. (Although Harrell also argues that #1 could be true, since his god can do anything).

#1 and #2 are both wrong, and there is also a #3. There was no Adam and Eve. There is no reason to believe there was; the authors of the book of Genesis had no source of information about prehistory, no authority to outline anything but their own recent history, which they were only able to do rather poorly and inaccurately, and the whole story was simply made up. Furthermore, this fable of a few unique individuals founding the whole human race is contradicted by the evidence: we are descended from populations with a pattern of continuous variation, grading over long ages from species to species to species. Not only is it irreconcilable with the Genesis myth, but there is no reason to expect it would be.

What they are attempting to do is shoehorn the evidence into their theological preconceptions. They need to face up to facts: it’s not a shoehorn in this case. When you’re reduced to using a hatchet and a sledgehammer to wedge the divine foot in, the shoe simply doesn’t fit.

How insects and crustaceans molt

I was mildly surprised at the reaction to this cool timelapse video of a molting crab — some people didn’t understand how arthropods work. The only thing to do, of course, is to explain the molting process of insects and crustaceans, called ecdysis.

Let’s go back to the basics first. In the beginning was the epithelium, a continuous sheet of linked cells that envelops multicellular organisms. These are living, dividing, dynamic cells that are flexible, can repair damage to themselves, and represent the boundary between the carefully maintained internal environment of the organism, and the more variable and often hostile external environment. And that’s where the problem lies: living cells are relatively fragile and sensitive, and in particular don’t cope well with drying out. Cells like it wet, yet if you look at insects and people, we live under horrible conditions for living cells, surrounded by dryness and heat and cold.

Our external epithelia have evolved different solutions to this problem of the basic inhospitability of terrestrial life. In us, our bounding epithelia divide frequently, pushing new cells outward. As these cells move, they commit suicide, producing a fibrous protein called keratin which forms dense, matted tangles inside the cells; these cells also build tight protein connections between their neighbors. It is these dead, protein-packed cells that face the outside world, protecting the delicate interior. These cells are steadily worn away and cast off — dandruff flakes, for instance, are sheets of these dead epithelial cells — and new protective cells produced by cell division and pushed up from the inside out to replace them. It’s a good solution that allows for constant growth and flexibility.

Arthropods, on the other hand, start with a similar sheet of living epithelial cells, but do something completely different. Instead of pushing out a continuous column of dying cells, they secrete dense layers of complex chemical compounds that harden into a tough cuticle. The exoskeleton of an insect or crustacean is acellular — the living cells have protected themselves by secreting an initially fluid set of chemicals that harden like epoxy to form a tough protective armor around themselves. We protect ourselves with sheets of leather; arthropods make plates like fiberglass on their outsides.

And there’s the rub. The cuticles of insects do not gradually slough away, replaced steadily by the addition of new material from the inside. They’re mostly fixed and rigid and static. This does have the advantage of providing a solid protective armor and a rigid framework for muscles, but isn’t so great for accommodating growth. Fiberglass isn’t stretchy and flexible!

Here’s a closer look at the structure of the arthropod cuticle.

i-a88f42ffb262a0197ecc68e2a68e00f9-molting-thumb-450x148-51727.jpg

In the diagram on the left, the living epithelium is at the bottom, labeled “epidermis”. Above it are multiple acellular layers called the cuticle made up of substances like chitin and waxes (notice that it is also perforated by pores containing ducts of the glands that secrete the chemical substances, and also places where hairs called setae can dangle into the exterior.

In order to grow, the animal must discard the old cuticle and build a new one from the inside out. In (b), this process begins by peeling away the living epidermal cells from the dead cuticle, creating a gap called the exuvial space, which is filled with a fluid called molting fluid. The cells then begin secreting a new cuticle from underneath, which is initially flexible.

What is poorly shown in these diagrams is that the new cuticle can be larger than the old. What that means is that epithelium inside the old cuticle is wrinkled and convoluted to have a larger surface area. Again, it is soft, not hard, so it can wrinkle up freely to fit. Also, to make room, the molting fluid in (c) is busily digesting the old cuticle from underneath, and the protein components are absorbed and reused to build the new cuticle.

In (d), the new cuticle is nearly fully formed, the old cuticle has been reduced to a thinner rind, and the two are separated by a thin fluid-filled space. Ecdysis, the actual molt, then occurs, and the old cuticle is discarded. Free of its confining shell, the animal inflates itself to extend the wrinkled new cuticle into larger smoothness, and the process of sclerotization, or hardening of the cuticle, begins from the outside in. Tanning agents, like polyphenols are secreted through ducts onto the surface, where they are oxidized into quinones, which trigger chemical reactions that cross-link the various substances of the cuticle into a rigid structure.

If you’ve ever eaten soft-shell crabs, you’ve caught the poor creature just after a molt and before its cuticle has hardened — in large arthropods, it can take several days for the post-molt cuticle to be fully cured. The hardening is also regional. Next time you’re eating a crab leg, notice that the shaft of the limb is rigid and strong and a bit brittle, but it grades into softer, less thickly sclerotized material at the joints called arthrodial membranes, which retains the flexibility of the pre-molt cuticle.

Now go watch the video again, and it should make more sense. What you’re seeing near the end is the crab pulling soft and rubbery limbs out of the shell of its old legs, and then resting as the new cuticle slowly hardens.

Congratulations, Australia!

Australia has a non-religious woman as prime minister! This is nominally promising, but we’ll have to wait and see if she actually follows through with some kind of commitment to secularism (the former PM, Kevin Rudd, was known for recruiting god to his party’s side).

Also, unfortunately, in all the hullabaloo about having two X chromosomes, red hair, no husband or children, and making a secular affirmation instead of a religious oath of office, I’m not hearing much about her politics, other than that she’s more or less expected to continue current Labor Party policies. Is that good or bad? I don’t know. Maybe some Australians can explain in the comments.

I wouldn’t care if she were a red-haired Hindu if she were doing good work, but the last thing we need is a godless prime minister who is also incompetent — and yes, that could happen!