Visiting village dogs

I am horribly envious. I am speaking of the Village Dog Project, some current research going on that looks very cool.

Understanding the evolution and domestication in dogs requires genetic analysis of a global and diverse panel of non-breed-affiliated village dogs. With a network of worldwide and Cornell-affiliated collaborators, we plan to gather dog samples from remote villages, establish a genetic archive containing DNA and phenotypic information from these dogs, carry out genetic analyses on these samples, and develop computational methods for analyzing this dataset. In particular, we are interested in understanding the location, timing, and demographic conditions underlying domestication; the genetic changes involved in the transition of wolf to dog; the relationship between these village dogs and the breed dogs; and the effect that historical forces have shaped village dog diversity.

That looks informative and useful, and I’ll be looking forward to the publication of the research. That’s not what’s got me envious, though: for that, you have to look at their field work. The researchers are spending the summer traveling to exotic, remote locations (admittedly, to the kinds of places rife with scavenging village dogs, but still…) to collect blood samples. They have a travel blog that will be recounting their adventures, and also explains the science a little more.

After initial domestication, dogs probably lived “breed-less” lives as human commensals (hanging around humans, not really helping or harming them but living off their trash) for many thousands of years. During this time, dog populations quickly expanded and spread across the globe. In the last few hundreds of years, several hundred dog breeds were formed from local dogs in many parts of the world; these breed dogs have entirely replaced the non-breed “indigenous” dogs in some parts of the world, notably in Western Europe and the USA. However, most dogs throughout the world still live their lives as non-breed, indigenous, commensal dogs. We refer to these dogs as “pariah” or “village” dogs. They tend to be smallish (25-40 pounds), often tan, short-haired dogs, though the type varies a bit according to the region you’re in. The important point is that these dogs have not undergone the intense genetic bottleneck associated with breed formation. Thus, while breed dogs have only a small subset of the total genetic diversity of all dogs, it is likely that village dogs have a much greater range of the total diversity. Thus, they are very useful for looking at the original domestication event. They are informative of the original genetic bottleneck that led to the formation of domestic dogs many thousands of years ago.

Hmmm. We don’t seem to have many dogs running loose around exotic, remote Morris, Minnesota, but there are a few feral cats living off the dumpsters near the grocery store.

I probably wouldn’t try to read about visiting small midwestern towns to collect cats, though.

For dedicated bibliophiles only

What a deal. For only 99¢, you can get an abridged version of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life; you can tell it’s been abridged because the title has been reduced to Origin of Species. It’s also special because it contains a 50 page introduction by Ray Comfort, which tells you everything that the creationists are sure is wrong about the rest of the book. It’s like a book with multiple personality disorder — two parts that absolutely hate each other, an intro that is the inane product of one of the most stupid minds of our century, and a science text that is the product of one of the greatest minds of the author’s century.

But wait! For only $3.99, you can also get a copy of The Charles Darwin Bible, which is the only Bible in existence to mention DNA, the Cambrian, mutations, peppered moths, etc. And it includes “In-text study notes written specifically for atheists”! Unfortunately, Charles Darwin had nothing at all to do with this Bible; it’s actually the product of Answers in Genesis.

I’m tempted to get copies of each. They look like beautiful examples of creationist “thought”.

Cheesy pablum for Jebus

Oh, dog. Discussion of the conflict between science and religion. Francis Collins comes up first. Atheists are shrill. Human genome. Morality is a pointer to god. C.S. Lewis. Fine tuning. Atheists are arrogant. Atheists are fundamentalists. Atheism is irrational. Read my BioLogos website. The usual appalling Collins drivel.

Next up…you’d think anything would be a relief after that tepid, tired inanity, wouldn’t you? But no. Who is the complement to the pious, gullible, nice Dr Collins? Someone who might offer a different point of view? Someone who might spark some real discussion? Someone who might, you know, disagree?

It’s Barbara Bradley Hagerty.

Jebus. What a pile of brainless, self-congratulatory pudding pretending to be a discussion of substance. And then the reporters in attendance dish it up with a spoon, and they gum it over with their soft, toothless questions, and everyone dies of sugar poisoning.

No, I lied. The ending is even worse.

Francis Collins picks up his guitar and sings.

Praise the source of faith and learning that has sparked and stoked the mind
With a passion for discerning how the world has been designed.
Let the sense of wonder flowing from the wonders we survey
Keep our faith forever growing and renew our need to pray.

That’s where I began projectile vomiting. Horked up my spleen right on my keyboard, blood squirted out of my eyeballs, and my howls set the small vermin lurking in the walls of my house scuttling to throw themselves beneath the wheels of passing vehicles in a massive and merciful act of suicide.

The god mob

Speak the name “Templeton” and the prim, dutiful servants of the foundation will appear. If you look at the recent articles from Coyne, Dawkins, and me, you’ll discover the same comment, shown below, from a representative of the Templeton Foundation. I’ve seen these guys in action before. They are very serious, somber fellows in their nice suits, with the dignitas of boodles of cash behind them, who will calmly state their position with an air of dispassionate certitude.

They remind me of Mafia lawyers.

A.C. Grayling and Daniel Dennett have refused to talk to a serious
journalist (Edwin Cartlidge of Physics World) about a serious subject
(philosophical materialism) because the journalism fellowship under
which he is pursuing this subject is sponsored by the Templeton
Foundation. They will have nothing to do with the Templeton Foundation,
they say, because our aim is somehow to “muddy the waters” about the
relationship between science and religion.

That’s not how we see it at all. First-rate, peer-reviewed science is
essential to our work at the Foundation and to the progressive vision
of the late Sir John Templeton, who was deeply committed to scientific
discovery. Many of our largest grants go to pure scientific research
(like our support for the Foundational Questions Institute in Physics
and Cosmology, the Godel Centenary Research Prize Fellowships, and the
Program for Evolutionary Dynamics at Harvard).

But, yes, we do like to include philosophers and theologians in many of
our projects. Excellent science is crucial to what we do, but it is not
all that we do. We are a “Big Questions” foundation, not a science
foundation, and we believe that the world’s philosophical and religious
traditions have much to contribute to understanding human experience
and our place in the universe. For Grayling and Dennett to compare this
rich, expansive discussion to a dialogue with astrologers is silly.
They know better.

Gary Rosen
Chief External Affairs Officer
John Templeton Foundation

Materialism, philosophical or otherwise, is a serious and useful subject. The bit he left off, though, is that the Templeton Foundation opposes it. For instance, they give a series of prizes, many of which reward people for making the best excuses for inserting superstition into research: the Templeton Prize, for “affirming life’s spiritual dimension”; the Award for Theological Promise, for the best thesis on “God and spirituality”; the Religion Reporter of the Year; the European Religion Writer of the Year; the Religion Story of the Year; the Epiphany Prize, for shows that “increase man’s understanding and love of God”; the Kairos Prize, for movies that “result in a greater increase in either man’s understanding or love of God”; you get the idea. Let’s have no illusions. First and foremost, the Templeton Foundation’s purpose is the promotion of religion…they have simply chosen to pursue that goal by dressing up as philanthropists supporting a certain kind of science. They are what the Discovery Institute wishes they could be, if they were staffed with grown-ups and had $1.5 billion to play with.

They do aim to muddy the waters. They want to blur the boundaries between legitimate science, which questions traditional dogma, and religion, which is traditional dogma, by playing favorites with religion in a game that apes scientific institutions. Yes, they certainly do spend money on real science projects; it’s part of their aim to entangle valid, secular science in the financial webs of a religiously motivated agency. Again, look at the Mafia for a model. Diversify and get your hands in real businesses like trucking or garbage collection or construction, and when someone asks difficult questions, just say “Hey, look — fleet of garbage trucks!” And meanwhile, build up a network of obligations — do a little, perfectly legal favor for some little guy, and when the time comes, you can ask him to return the favor, to your advantage.

Now of course, the Templeton Foundation is doing nothing illegal, and the comparison to a criminal organization does not extend to actual criminality. The only place it holds up is in the way they maintain a pretext of doing one thing, while actually profiting most off another activity altogether. Look at Mr Rosen’s comment. Nowhere does he admit outright that what they fund is the introduction of a religious perspective in science. Instead, we get euphemisms. They are a “Big Questions” foundation, whatever that means. He will not come right out and state plainly that what they think is a “Big Question” is the role of a god in creating and maintaining the universe and humankind.

That’s not a big question. It’s a bad question.

I have never found a discussion with a theologian about their favorite deities to be “rich, expansive” — just saying it is so doesn’t make it so, but is actually the crux of the argument. They are trying to buy their way into the debate, rather than earning it. I don’t think they know Grayling and Dennett very well at all, either, because they do know better, and the comparison with a dialog with astrologers is spot on — they won’t be disavowing it any time soon.

I’ll stand by my Mafia comparison, too. It’s an organization that gets a lot of mileage out of making offers people can’t refuse.

Put your affairs in order, biologists. Your time is nigh!

We only have a month or two left. I have been reminded of a prediction made in the July/August 2004 issue of Touchstone magazine. Brace yourselves.

Where is the ID movement going in the next ten years? What new issues will it be exploring, and what new challenges will it be offering Darwinism?

Dembski: In the next five years, molecular Darwinism—the idea that Darwinian processes can produce complex molecular structures at the subcellular level—will be dead. When that happens, evolutionary biology will experience a crisis of confidence because evolutionary biology hinges on the evolution of the right molecules. I therefore foresee a Taliban-style collapse of Darwinism in the next ten years. Intelligent design will of course profit greatly from this. For ID to win the day, however, will require talented new researchers able to move this research program forward, showing how intelligent design provides better insights into biological systems than the dying Darwinian paradigm.

Man, I’m glad I’ll be on sabbatical. It’ll give me a year to patch up the radical changes I’ll have to make in all of my courses after the ID revolution comes. The rest of you are going to be coming back to rubble in September.

Although, I should also mention that the very next paragraph in that article is the one credible paragraph Paul Nelson ever wrote.

Nelson: Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a real problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as “irreducible complexity” and “specified complexity”–but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.

Almost five years on, still no theory.

The Complaints Department is open

You little scamps in the comments have been acerbic and rude and loud again, haven’t you? I’ve received a little threat in the mail about your activities, and you know how threats get me all trembly and weak in the knees.

Dear PZ Myers.

My name is Petter XXXX and I am a graduate student in biology at University of XXXX, as well as active as an ecology consultant in XXXX.

I would be grateful for the removal of slanderous comments directed personally at me on your blog Pharyngula.
I have nothing but admiration for your work with not allowing creationism or ID be a part of education, although fortunately that is not a big problem in Europe.

I commented on your blog that I thought it was unnecessary to riddicule people of faith.
I think it hurts the reputation of scientists frankly.
But that is my opinion, and I fully respect if you do not agree.

However, on your blog I am called

comment 131. Petter the ignorant rude jerk troll:

comment 187: Petter the lying christofascist troll.You are not a scientist. Stop lying. Your grammar, spelling, logic, and word usage are at the level of a highly religious moron. I’ll pray for you to leave your cave of darkness, mental fog, lies, and hate. Petter, time to pull out the xian default.

comment 189: “This comment accuses me of sponsoring terrorism”, it is likely to fall under “slander per se”

comment 191: Comments referring to sexual actions.

comment 192: Accuses me of impending human rights, would have a pretty good chance to fall under “slander per se” to.

I fully understand that it is hard as a blogger to keep up with editing posts that go over the line, and I am aware of that you did not write the comments.
However, you being the author of the blog I kindly ask you to remove all comments above.

A copy of this mail has been sent to my legal representative, in case further actions would be necessary.
I however hope that we can stop here, by you removing the comments.

Best regards,

Petter XXXX

Uh-oh. He’s quite right, you know. You’ve been saying unkind things about people, like for instance calling them ignorant, rude, and a jerk. We can’t have that kind of thing going on in a blog, now can we?

Oh, wait. Yes, we can. I rather like plainspoken responses.

And look, he’s asking me nicely, with only the slyest of implications of legal action, to delete your comments, but doesn’t seem to think his own warrant censure. I’ll have to think about whether I should do that.

OK, done. No.

Just a general suggestion to the thin-skinned who think about commenting here: don’t do that. No one gets treated gently here; even I sometimes hesitate at dipping a toe into the bacon-chummed shark-, piranha-, and candiru-infested waters here. You will get abused. And if you do get abused, don’t come crying to me to protect you, because I’ll just do something even ruder, like taking your plea and tossing it back into the deepest, murkiest, roiling whirlpool I can, and if you didn’t like getting a few boo-boos before, you’ll really hate the public flensing that will ensue.

And please, please, never write to tell me that your favorite authority figure, whether it is your lawyer or your mommy, will come after me if I don’t do your bidding. It makes me cranky.

By the way, I’ve done the complainer the favor of removing the bits from his letter that would reveal details of his identity. What makes this complaint especially stupid is that all any of the cruel, cruel commenters know about him is his very common first name; unless he thinks he is the only Petter in the world, he has not yet been exposed to any public or professional ridicule.

Of course, if someone starts harrassing me with futile legal documents, I can fill in those blanks.

St Petersburg Times takes on Scientology

Juicy stuff from a mainstream newspaper coming out and hitting Scientology hard: this week and over the next few days, they’re publishing a special report on Scientology. If you’ve followed the cult at all, there’s nothing too surprising — it’s a scam run by abusive psychotics — but it does have some personal accounts by high-ranking defectors.

I’m sure there are meetings going on in Clearwater right now where they’re plotting revenge.

The name “Templeton Foundation” needs to become a mark of failure

There exists a “Templeton Cambridge journalism fellowship programme in science and religion”. I’ve complained often enough about the state of science journalism nowadays; I would think the last thing it needs is a further infusion of soft-headedness and religious thinking sponsored by the devious dogmatists of the Templeton Foundation, but that’s what we’re getting. They’ve got the money, and they aren’t hesitant about using it to go straight to future information sources and pollute them at the wellhead. Anyway, one of these journalists in training wrote to a number of people requesting an interview on the subject of materialism, and made the mistake of mentioning his Templeton affiliation. You can guess what kind of response that elicited from those who do not trust the Templeton.

Daniel Dennett:

Many years ago I made the mistake of participating, with some very good scientists, in a conference that pitted us against astrologers and other new age fakes. I learned to my dismay that even though we thoroughly dismantled the opposition, many in the audience ended up, paradoxically, with an increased esteem for astrologers! As one person explained to me “I figured that if you scientists were willing to work this hard to refute it, there must be something to it!”

A.C. Grayling:

I cannot agree with the Templeton Foundation’s project of trying to make
religion respectable by conflating it with science; this is like mixing
astrology with astronomy or voodoo with medical research, and I disapprove of
Templeton’s use of its great wealth to bribe compliance with this project.
Templeton is to all intents and purposes a propaganda organisation for religious
outlooks; it should honestly say so and equally honestly devote its money to
prop up the antique superstitions it favours, and not pretend that questions of
religion are of the same kind and on the same level as those of science – by
which means it persistently seeks to muddy the waters and keep religion credible
in lay eyes.

Those are good responses. That’s both how and why scientists need to dissociate themselves from the lucratively tempting compromises of the Templeton Foundation.