Look at the extravagantly pulvinate abdomen of this female fly — it’s very sexy to the male fly. But it’s all a FAKE. Misandry! Conniving, scheming female!
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
Look at the extravagantly pulvinate abdomen of this female fly — it’s very sexy to the male fly. But it’s all a FAKE. Misandry! Conniving, scheming female!
I’m taking a shortcut in my talks at CFI LA: I’m going to flash a slide with a partial list of my sources for the ideas in the talk, and knowing that there is no way anyone will be able to scribble them all down even if intensely interested, I’m posting them here ahead of time. Your carpal tunnel will thank me.
Earlier this week I was asked to write something for This View of Life and Darwin Day: what would surprise, delight, and possibly disturb Darwin about modern evolutionary biology? I did, but I guess it didn’t make the cut: you can find the better ones at What Would Darwin Think About Modern Darwinism?
It’s OK that they didn’t print mine, because now on this busy day I can just reuse it as blog fodder.
Good morning, everyone! I’m in Fargo, and I need to go home, so I’m looking at a few hours on cold roads next. But I was in a debate with Dr Fazale Rana of Reasons to Believe last night, and I said I’d post my opening statement, so here it is.
In general, my strategy last night was to go meta on him. He’s trained as a biochemist, so I expected he’d try to slug it out toe-to-toe with lots of facts about biology, but I didn’t want to lose sight of the fact that he would be trying to use mundane, material evidence obtained by scientists who did not accept his creationist interpretations, and that his job was to provide evidence of the miracles that he would insist must have occurred in the history of life on earth. So I hammered him to give specifics about any divine intervention — to not just say we don’t know what happened in the Cambrian or at the beginning — and to explain how he knew it was definitely a supernatural transition rather than a natural one, like all the other examples he used. I think it worked and wrecked his rhythm and got him to stagger off of his planned script, which was enough.
I can’t declare victory though — as I predicted in the opening, the Christians didn’t abandon their beliefs, the atheists (there was a pretty good contingent of them there) weren’t going to join the church, and all we could hope to do is to get people to think.
I’d wear it on my lapel, with the nice pocket watch on my vest and my jeweled monocle.
Bill Maher is getting whomped on everywhere now. Enjoy Orac’s demolition of the crank’s recent episode.
As long as we’re talking about brains this morning, here’s another topic that irritates me: the abuse of the term neuroplasticity.
Way, way back in the late 1970s, my first textbook in neuroscience was this one: Marcus Jacobson’s Developmental Neurobiology
Steven Novella makes an important point: memories are fluid. There’s no VCR in your head, and no tape recorder either, and memories are constructs. You remember the framework (sometimes very poorly) of a past event, and your brain builds a plausible set of details around it. When you picture Christmas at your grandmother’s house when you were 12, you don’t have a record in your head of how many logs were in the fireplace or a second by second recording of the flickering of the fire. You remember that Grandma had a fireplace, and sometimes she had logs burning in it, and maybe there was a fire that year, and your brain obligingly assembles an image for you.
