Botanical Wednesday: A rugged old tree
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
The Vampire Squid, Vampyroteuthis infernalis has the most bad-ass name and has the coolest, creepiest appearance of all the cephalopods — who doesn’t see it and think Halloween? But it’s a little known fact that it actually drifts in deep and nearly anoxic layers of the ocean, surviving by maintaining a very low metabolism, and from what I’ve heard has a soft, flaccid, jelly-like texture (which actually fits with a vampire: have you ever noticed how people in the movies can easily punch crude wooden stakes right into their hearts?)
But now, further disillusionment from an analysis of their diet. It turns out that the vampire squid literally eats shit to live.
Vampyroteuthis infernalis – literally the "vampire squid from hell" – has a pair of thin, retractable filaments. It uses them like a fishing line, letting them drift and collect bits of waste. Wiping the filaments across its arms, the squid combines the waste with mucus secreted from its suckers to form balls of food, which it gobbles up.
Next they’re going to tell me it doesn’t even sparkle. <throws self on bed, weeps into pillow>
A while back, I read Hamza Tzortzis’ “paper”, Embryology in the Qur’an: A scientific-linguistic analysis of chapter 23: With responses to historical, scientific & popular contentions. It was terrible and painful: a 58 page treatise (with big print and lots of white space) expanding obsessively on two sentences from the Quran, claiming that it revealed deep insights about embryology that could not have been known without magical, supernatural insight. It was total bullshit.
Now, get ready for this: a couple of scholars have ripped into the Tzortzis paper at length. Embryology in the Quran: Much Ado about Nothing: A Refutation of Hamza Tzortzis’ Embryology in the Qur’an: A Scientific-Linguistic Analysis of Chapter 23.
It’s 149 pages long.
I haven’t read the whole thing, but did a few spot checks, and it looks solid so far. I’m just worried that now we’re in an escalation spiral, and Tzortzis will reply with a badly researched refutation of the refutation that will be 500 pages long.
The letter I was sent about the paper points out that it’s an important perspective, though: it’s not just Western scientists dismissing an Islamic perspective, but the authors are ex-Muslims who grew up steeped in Islamic culture, so it’s an internal criticism.
While it most probably is the case that you are thoroughly bored with Hamza Tzortzis and his fraudulent claims about Embryology in the Quran, there is a new document recently uploaded that does serious damage to the image of Hamza Tzortzis and at the same time, provides a definitive debunking of the unfortunately popular Islamic Embryology claim that has been touted for the last 30 years; spouted and spread so well, that children growing up in Islamic families take it as just another accepted fact and treat it just the same way they treat the fact that the Earth is round. As an Ex-Muslim, I can attest to this as I too for several years took it for granted that the Quran contained modern embryological facts (even when I knew nothing of the subject as a kid).
The embryology claim is one that has been unfortunately drilled deep into the psyche of most Muslims. The name “Keith Moore” is pretty much a house hold name for many Muslims. It is for this very reason that ex-Muslims like myself consider this new document titled “Embryology in the Quran: Much Ado about Nothing” very very important.
While yourself and many others have refuted Hamza’s hogwash, it is also true that the refutations so far were quite generalized . They very well do appeal to Skeptics (esp. those from the Christian background), however they were never enough to convince most of the Muslims and even ex-Muslims as they grew up knowing every detail of apologetics regarding this claim like the back of their hand.
This is where the new paper stands different. It takes a somewhat “James Randian” approach and uses the exact sources and methodologies used by Muslims to disprove definitively the embryology claim. The arguments in there have such a depth that even Muslims won’t be able to ignore them (or at least not without maintaining a cognitive dissonance).
Good. More voices and more perspectives are always helpful.
A blogger recently posed this question.
If I had to vote for one of two hypothetical candidates, would I be more likely to vote for a liberal Christian or a conservative atheist?
My first, immediate response was to just answer the question: yes, of course I’d vote for the liberal Christian. All you have to do is realize that Karl Rove is an atheist to know that the label “atheist” is not an automatic marker for a good person (just as we know “Christian” isn’t either, with more examples than I can count.)
But then I thought about it a moment more, and realized it is a goddamned stupid question.
I have never, in my entire life, been given an opportunity to vote for an openly atheist candidate for any office. Not once. This is a radically hypothetical question postulating an unthinkable world (to an American, at least) in which atheists can run for office without the bigoted Christian majority making it an exercise in futility, where we actually get a choice. In that reality, I think actually I might seriously consider voting for a non-odious conservative atheist (not Karl Rove, not a Randian asshole) just for the novelty of it all and to see someone, anyone representing my irreligious views in office.
Because isn’t that really the issue, that atheists are virtually locked out of most offices?
Then there are some weird assumptions in the question itself. What if a conservative atheist were answering it? There’d be no conflict of values at all. Notice how it simply assumes that nearly all atheist readers would be politically liberal — which I think is mostly true, despite the strong strain of Libertarianism within atheism.
But doesn’t that imply that if we had an atheist candidate representative of most atheists’ political leanings, the question ought to be:
If I had to vote for one of two hypothetical candidates, would I be more likely to vote for a liberal Christian or a liberal atheist?
O Glorious Imaginary Universe of Delightful Choices! Can you imagine going into the voting booth and finding yourself confronted with a decision between two reasonable, intelligent, thoughtful candidates, rather than Dumb Thug vs. the person the other party decided to run against it? Or, as I often find when voting for local offices, Dumb Thug vs. Dumb Thug.
But of course what reality tells us is that the candidate who clothes himself in religious garb and makes their faith an issue in a political campaign is almost always conservative — religion tends to side with stupid, archaic, and authoritarian on social issues. What that means is that if we ever did get an opportunity to make that choice at the ballot box, it would look like this:
If I had to vote for one of two hypothetical candidates, would I be more likely to vote for a conservative Christian or a liberal atheist?
And now it’s no question at all.
Since I’m utterly useless these days, you’ll have to get your jollies by browsing elsewhere on the network.
Ed Brayton really doesn’t like SE Cupp. Neither do I. He fails to mention one awful moment in that clip: she cites Ayn Rand. Positively.
Zinnia Jones suggests that we shouldn’t use religious arguments even in favor of causes we support.
Brianne Bilyeu thinks we can acquire a Minnesooota accent just by living here. That settles it, I’ve got to mööve, fer sure.
Would you believe that the loons on AVoiceForMen are arguing that middle-class white men are the new “nigger”? “NO WAY,” says Ian Cromwell.
Dana Hunter sees birds.
Stephanie Zvan announces another Mock The Movie night on Thursday. I have to miss this one, I’m working late and then traveling late. Mock on!
Justin Griffith has a love story. Also a tragedy: so many young people are getting maimed in our wars.
This is the lounge. You can discuss anything you want, but you will do it kindly. Man, it’s hard to find an insect picture tagged with “cute” and “baby”.
Status: Heavily Moderated; Previous thread
Mohave ground squirrels at a camera trap bait pile. Not shown: “Free Skwirl Fud” sign. Photo by U.S. Army Engineer Research & Development Center
It’s a year old, but I just read a paper on one of those species that pops up pretty frequently in environmental impact reports — the Mohave ground squirrel, Xerospermophilus mohavensis — whose conclusions add a little bit more depth to the Deep Time perspective of the desert around here. And by “depth” I mean “epic stories.”
Ben Goldacre has a new book coming out, Bad Pharma: How Drug Companies Mislead Doctors and Harm Patients
In any sensible world, when researchers are conducting trials on a new tablet for a drug company, for example, we’d expect universal contracts, making it clear that all researchers are obliged to publish their results, and that industry sponsors – which have a huge interest in positive results – must have no control over the data. But, despite everything we know about industry-funded research being systematically biased, this does not happen. In fact, the opposite is true: it is entirely normal for researchers and academics conducting industry-funded trials to sign contracts subjecting them to gagging clauses that forbid them to publish, discuss or analyse data from their trials without the permission of the funder.
This is such a secretive and shameful situation that even trying to document it in public can be a fraught business. In 2006, a paper was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (Jama), one of the biggest medical journals in the world, describing how common it was for researchers doing industry-funded trials to have these kinds of constraints placed on their right to publish the results. The study was conducted by the Nordic Cochrane Centre and it looked at all the trials given approval to go ahead in Copenhagen and Frederiksberg. (If you’re wondering why these two cities were chosen, it was simply a matter of practicality: the researchers applied elsewhere without success, and were specifically refused access to data in the UK.) These trials were overwhelmingly sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry (98%) and the rules governing the management of the results tell a story that walks the now familiar line between frightening and absurd.
Drugs that don’t work, dangerous side-effects concealed by legalistic loopholes, blatant biases in drug testing…and the data are hidden away from the conscientious doctors who try to give informed recommendations. It’s all scary stuff.
Another state with an archaic blasphemy law on the books is Greece, and they recently cracked down and arrested a 27 year old FaceBook user for using a mocking pseudonym, “Gerontas Pastitsios”, for some famous Greek Orthodox monk. He faces up to two years in prison for “malicious blasphemy”.
There is a petition to have him released and most importantly, abolish pointless laws against free speech.
