(via National Geographic)
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
I knew it would come to this. There’s been long-running contention over the government-sponsored chaplaincy programs in Australia — those crazy mad independent godless Aussies actually pay good money to have these goofy Christian wankers sit in their public schools and provide…heck, I don’t know what. But now it has suddenly and justifiable led to public outrage because the chief executive for one of the cults that provides chaplains has openly stated that Christians from other countries envy the access their proselytizers have to public school kids, and has bragged about converting kids.
In Australia, we have a God-given open door to children and young people with the Gospel, our federal and state governments allow us to take the Christian faith into our schools and share it. We need to go and make disciples.
Australians, what did you think this whole chaplaincy business was about? Of course it’s been about converting children.
And now The Age is running a poll on the subject, and although the results are going in the right direction, they clearly need some help from the international community. Go forth and adjust the poll to be more realistic.
Do you support religion in schools programs?
Yes
42%
No58%
The Kamloops News has obligingly published a couple of reactions to my appearance in their fair city. There is a very abbreviated summary of what I discussed on Friday: Prof shoots holes in creationism. Yes, that’s about right. I specifically addressed the fallacies of Intelligent Design creationism.
Now, though, the editor of the newspaper, Mel Rothenburger, has responded: Name callers are just stupid. He begins with this:
I didn’t take in the presentation by American associate professor Paul “PZ” Myers, and I’m glad.
Gosh, I’m chastened already. He objects to the fact that I said creationists were “ignorant and stupid and don’t know anything about history,” facts which I backed up in the talk. Also, facts which were then confirmed in his very own paper, by publishing a letter from David Buckna, the same ignorant, ahistorical creationist I mentioned in a previous post. He showed up with a double-sided list in small print of his objections to evolution; his letter is titled Some questions for Prof. Myers, and it is nothing but the first couple of points from his list.
On May 6 professor of biology P.Z. Myers (University of Minnesota Morris) gave a public lecture (Evolution is True; Intelligent Design Isn’t) in Kamloops.
Questions for Prof. Myers:
Edward Blyth, English chemist/zoologist (and creationist), wrote his first of three major articles on natural selection in The Magazine of Natural History, 24 years before Darwin’s “Origin of Species” was published. Why then, do evolutionists think of natural selection as Darwin’s idea?
Why do textbooks claim the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how the cell’s building blocks may have formed on the early Earth, when repeated experimentation has never demonstrated this claim? Efforts to replicate the supposed origin-of-life events have produced embarrassingly small amounts of cell building blocks (eg. trace amounts of amino acids, sugars) with the majority of the mixture being a toxic tar.
On page one of Richard Dawkins’ 1986 book, The Blind Watchmaker, he writes: “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” If living things look designed, then how do evolutionists know they weren’t designed? What is the criterion for “apparent” design?
How does geology explain dinosaur bones with soft tissue, supposedly dated at “80 million years”? (Schweitzer et al, Science 324:626). Bones with red blood cells, including hemoglobin, and blood vessels, which are still elastic.
Most geologists believe diamonds formed deep below the earth’s surface, one to three billion years ago. How do these geologists explain the presence of carbon-14 in a number of diamond samples?
How does evolution explain non-winged pterosaurs gradually developing fully functional wings, with its long bony fourth finger?
These are the very same questions I answered to his face in a two-hour session after my talk. The Schweitzer reference is the same one he has been haranguing me about in email ever since. I already answered him, and here he is simply disingenously repeating the same questions as if I’d never heard of them before. He’s dishonest and contemptible; he’s fairly typical of creationists.
There are answers to his questions in the comments in the paper. I’m not going to bother, since Buckna has amply demonstrated that he’s not going to accept any answer, but will continue to parrot the same oft-answered objections over and over again.
YAAAAAAAAAAAY!
Maybe I should show my students this video on the first day of classes next fall, though.
Now I just need to grade this big stack of papers sitting next to me.
(Last edition of TET; Current totals: 12,351 entries with 1,369,566 comments.)
Faces are weird. They really are largely accidents of development — all the fine features that we consider lovely sculpted signifiers of beauty are really just products of developmental processes, and what we recognize as pretty is actually just a good job of assembly. I’ve been talking about this bizarre way the human face is built for many years, especially since my interest in teratology means I spend a fair bit of time looking at cases where the assembly goes drastically wrong (in fish, not people; I can make things go wrong in fish embryos in ways that would send the mob after me with torches and pitchforks if I did them to human babies). Here’s what your face looked like, once upon a time.
See what I mean by weird? Embryonically, much of your face was constructed from these plastic bars of tissue called pharyngeal arches, which extend to meet at the midline and then fuse and shift in complicated ways to form the familiar face we see in the mirror.
Now, even better, the BBC has created a simulated time-lapse video of face assembly. There are patent rules to how these tissues move, and common birth defects, like cleft palate, are a consequence of simply understood errors in how these tissues come together in the midline.
The article makes the point that the characteristics of facial development are also relics of our fishy ancestors. I guess it’s a good thing I study these phenomena in fish, after all, in addition to benefit of not enraging the local peasantry.
When I fly off to give talks, I’ve got three basic categories that I choose from: there’s the “science is godless, and here’s why” talk for atheist audiences, there’s the “development and evolution go together like peanut butter and chocolate” talk for atheists or scientists, and finally, there’s the “you better pay attention to the online world, and here’s why” talk for scientists, who often don’t have a clue about blogs and twitter and facebook. Now Nature gets in on the latter act, with a feature on managing your online reputation. It turns out that most scientists, especially younger scientists, are already fully aware of how important it is to have an identity on the web.
I was interviewed for the article and podcast, but one thing I didn’t really pick up on was one focus of the article, on professional companies that manage online reputations. They give the example of a cancer researcher who has been purportedly lying about his background, is currently under investigation for research misconduct, and who commissioned a company to patch up his reputation (or more likely, bury the ugly rumors under a mountain of inanities).
Online Reputation Manager, headquartered near Rochester, New York, is a company that uses search-engine optimization strategies to repair the online image of clients who have been besieged with unfavourable press. These include flooding the Internet with positive messages to drown out the negative. A company representative confirmed ownership of the e-mail address, but could not say whether Potti is a client.
Ugh. This doesn’t work. Anyone searching for information on Dr Anil Potti who discovers blithering press releases like “Dr. Anil Potti Likes Spending Quality Time With His Wife And Three Daughters” is going to sniff out the scent of a stinker. Not to mention that Dr Anil Potti, his misconduct investigation, and his pathetic attempts to cover it up, have now achieved prominent mention in both Nature and Pharyngula.
You want a good online reputation as a scientist? First rule: be honest and forthright.
Chris Mooney was on Point of Inquiry recently. I know, he’s always on PoI anymore, which was the big reason I’ve tuned that podcast out, but in this case, he’s in the hot seat with Ron Lindsay interviewing him on accommodationism. Lindsay is excellent, just calmly and quietly asking killer questions that Mooney flounders over. Ophelia Benson has a short summary of the highlights, if you’d rather not sit through it all.
Once again, the problem revolves around a central argument for the Mooneyites: that harsh criticism of cherished beliefs, like religion, leads to an immediate, emotion-based shutdown of critical faculties by the target, and makes them refractory to rational evaluation of their ideas. To which I say, yeah, so? I agree with that. I know that happens. It’s what I expect to happen.
But that’s all short-term thinking, and I don’t care what happens in the mind of a believer five minutes or a day after I make an argument (the usual domain of the psychology experiments accommodations love to cite in defense of their position; there’s an awful lot of psychology done in our universities with horizons no longer than the next publication deadline). What I’m interested in seeing happen is the development of a strong cadre of vocal atheists who will make a sustained argument, over the course of years or generations, who will keep pressing on the foolishness of faith. I also don’t mind seeing believers get angry and stomping off determined to prove I’m a colossal jackhole — that means they’re thinking, even if they’re disagreeing with me. At the very least, I hope that a few of them will realize, even if they don’t change their mind about the god nonsense, that quoting the Bible at me has no effect, and maybe some years down the road I won’t be hearing as many idiots telling me “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God'” as if they’ve made a profound point.
I’ll also cop to the obvious fact that, knowing that reason will not get through their skills, I’m happy to use emotional arguments as well. Passion is persuasive. Look at all those assertive Gnu/New Atheists — they are not making Spock-like dispassionate arguments only, although there is a strong rational core — we are hitting people in the gut and telling them to open their eyes. It gives us that unseemly aggressive reputation, but at the same time it’s a very effective way to let people know we think they are dead wrong.
And that’s the other flaw in the accommodationist position: they are so concerned with being nurturing and sensitive to beliefs — no gut-punching for them! — that they end up being really, really boring to read, and they also end up affirming religious idiocy through neglect. Somebody has to set up the conflict so that someone, maybe even the accommodationists, have leverage to set up the resolution. But someone must voice the objections with clarity and without wooly excuses.
Inbreeding is bad. It increases the frequency of homozygosity for deleterious traits.
There’s this little thing called pleiotropy. Selection is a powerful tool, but traits can have multiple effects, and extreme selection for peculiarities can have unpleasant side effects — you may think a pug’s curly tail is adorable, but it comes with all kinds of spinal ailments. And cute little doggies with cute little heads may have skulls too small for their brains, leading to syringomyelia.
If you’ve got an hour, this video is worth watching. Add pedigree dog shows to puppy mills as examples of animal abuse. Warning: there are scenes of dogs in extreme pain and distress here; not because anyone is directly harming them, but entirely because they’ve inherited a suite of damaging genetic characters that make their lives a misery.
The most appalling parts of the documentary are the responsible people behind the dog shows and the kennel club breeding programs that arbitrarily set ludicrous standards for show dogs. There’s a judge declaring that the German Shepherds with the weakened, ataxic hindquarters of their ideal is genetically superior, for instance. And then there are the photos of what dachshunds, beagles, and boxers looked like in the 19th century compared to the show dog ideal of the 20th — in just a little over a hundred years, we’ve bred this poor animals into a monstrous state.
So…the Washington Post asks Richard Dawkins about the goofy Harold Camping/End of the World nonsense, and he gives the perfect answer:
Why is a serious newspaper like the Washington Post giving space to a raving loon? I suppose the answer must be that, unlike the average loon, this one has managed to raise enough money to launch a radio station and pay for billboards. I don’t know where he gets the money, but it would be no surprise to discover that it is contributed by gullible followers — gullible enough, we may guess, to go along with him when he will inevitably explain, on May 22nd, that there must have been some error in the calculation, the rapture is postponed to . . . and please send more money to pay for updated billboards.
So, the question becomes, why are there so many well-heeled, gullible idiots out there? Why is it that an idea can be as nuts as you like and still con enough backers to finance its advertising to acquire yet more backers . . . until eventually a national newspaper notices and makes it into a silly season filler?
It’s not just Camping. Any Christian eschatology is so much bullshit.
