Very peculiar

I’ve read Steve Jones’ books and enjoyed them — so I’m really baffled by this bizarre report of a talk he gave. It’s either a massive example of misreporting, or Jones has a solid grip on everyone’s ankles and he’s straining to pull our legs right off.

He claims human evolution is over. The reason? Because not enough fathers over 35 are having children. That’s bad because mutations are the source of evolutionary novelty, and older fathers are more likely to have accumulated errors in the replication of sperm, and therefore pass on more mutations.

This is because cell divisions in males increase with age. “Every time there is a cell division, there is a chance of a mistake, a mutation, an error,” he said. “For a 29-year old father [the mean age of reproduction in the West] there are around 300 divisions between the sperm that made him and the one he passes on – each one with an opportunity to make mistakes.

“For a 50-year-old father, the figure is well over a thousand. A drop in the number of older fathers will thus have a major effect on the rate of mutation.”

This is true, but it makes no sense. It’s not as if younger fathers produce no mutations — they generate plenty. It’s a difference in degree, nothing more, so we still have plenty of new mutations percolating into the population. And of course, over most of human history parents have been relatively young, since you couldn’t count on living to the age of 35.

And then there’s this odd argument.

Another factor is the weakening of natural selection. “In ancient times half our children would have died by the age of 20. Now, in the Western world, 98 per cent of them are surviving to 21.”

That makes even less sense. Natural selection is going to eliminate variants; by reducing its effects, we permit more mutations to persist in the population. One moment he’s complaining that fewer mutations are being produced, the next he’s complaining that the mutants are thriving. Which is it?

I’m thinking Jones must be making some colossal joke here, or maybe he’s testing his audience to see how much illogic and absurdity they will accept. That’s the only way I can explain these strange claims.


I see that Larry Moran has just thrown up his hands in exasperation at all the errors.

Grrrr

My email was just beginning to calm down, and now Bill Donohue rants again. He names me and fsmdude, and since people can’t find a mailing address for a guy named “fsmdude”, all these cranky little old Catholic ladies are sending me their shrill denunciations of youtube videos, instead.

Oh, and Bully Billy has conveniently forgotten the history already: “It was a professor from the University of Minnesota, Morris campus, Paul Z. Myers, who started the war on the Eucharist this past summer by intentionally desecrating a consecrated Host.” I guess he never ever called for the expulsion and arrest of a student for violating a Catholic sacrament now.

Here comes the bride

Remember Rachel Bird and Gideon Codding, the spoiled, petulant little whiners who wanted their state issued marriage license to call them “bride and groom”? The ones who were being used as a wingnut cause celebre to argue that gender neutrality really does hurt heterosexual marriages?

Bad news. They won. California caved and changed the wording on the licenses.

Now gay couples getting married in California will have to get their revenge: they should cheerfully appropriate the terms bride and groom, too. Rachel Bird can call herself a bride (she could all along, of course), but so can the biggest, butchest, bristly-bearded gay leatherman with a biker mustache…and he should be able to get state recognition of his status as a bride.

It’s only fair, after all.

A comprehensive plan for the enhancement of sexual morality among the people

The Reverend Peter Mullin doesn’t like those darn pushy homosexuals — they must make him feel uncomfortable and all squirmy deep down inside. He wrote some amazingly stupid things about gays.

The Rev Dr Peter Mullen said in an blog that homosexuality was “clearly unnatural, a perversion and corruption of natural instincts and affections” and “a cause of fatal disease”.

He recommended that homosexual practices be discouraged “after the style of warnings on cigarette packets”.

He wrote: “Let us make it obligatory for homosexuals to have their backsides tattooed with the slogan SODOMY CAN SERIOUSLY DAMAGE YOUR HEALTH and their chins with FELLATIO KILLS.”

What about the heterosexual women? Everyone forgets the loving ladies in these arguments. Do they also get chin tattoos? That would be a real shame. And then there are those heterosexual couples that engage in all of the same activities that homosexuals do — why do they get a free pass from the Rev. Mullen?

He also didn’t say a thing about cunnilingus, but they never do. Lesbians also always get a free pass, and it’s just not fair. I’m beginning to think they are god’s favored people.

Let’s just simplify everything. At birth, everyone, male and female, gender preference as yet undetermined, gets two tattoos. One on their backside that says “EXIT ONLY”, with big bold pointy arrows, and one on their tongue that says “FOOD ONLY”. Since human beings are naturally obedient and incurious, these injunctions will of course be followed to the letter, and no one will ever be so rebellious as to try and see what else these body parts can do. They especially won’t be tempted by the instructions to the contrary so boldly written on their bodies.

I suppose that if people insist on being obedient, but start getting creative, we can extend the tattooing program to nostrils, armpits, earholes, hair, the bendy elbow bits, the back of the knee, toes, fingers and palms (Of course! Palms are very naughty), that very sexy curve at the nape of the neck, household pets, underwear, soles of the feet, washing machines, noses, eyelashes, feather dusters, shoes, athletic socks, belly buttons, nipples, lips, beards, showerheads, the Bible, pommel horses, horses, my little ponies, anything vaguely phallic, anything with a hole in it, skin, oh heck, everything except Tab A and Slot B. They’re all dangerous, except for the aforementioned Tab A and Slot B, which never get anyone into trouble and never cause any risk or danger when used properly, errm, I mean, naturally. And of course, when everything is labeled, and someone sees a nice silk tie prominently marked “NOT FOR SEXUAL PURPOSES”, no one will get any crazy ideas.

We should also begin a pattern of early childhood education in which the little tykes are instructed in exactly what is “natural”, and informed that they can’t do anything “unnatural”. As a textbook, I recommend Dr. Tatiana’s Sex Advice to All Creation(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll), which takes a very ecumenical approach to the subject. Remember, kiddies, don’t do anything a sponge louse or a duck or Acarophenax mahunkai wouldn’t do!

Rev. Mullin lacks the courage of his convictions, however; now he plays the “my best friends are gay” and “I was only joking” cards very unconvincingly.

But the rector insisted that he meant to harm: “I wrote some satirical things on my blog and anybody with an ounce of sense of humour or any understanding of the tradition of English satire would immediately assume that they’re light-hearted jokes. I certainly have nothing against homosexuals. Many of my dear friends have been and are of that persuasion. What I have got against them is the militant preaching of homosexuality.”

Here’s a hint, Rev. Mullin: it’s only satire if you say the cruel things about some people with he intent of mocking the cruelty, not to promote the continued discrimination against the people.


Besides, some of the practices Rev Mullin derides may actually have some health benefits.

i-280152e894936c4d226377b772e21c1a-fpa.jpg

Pregnancy poll

Since you all whomped that last poll with a ruthless savagery that does a godless brute proud, how about a new one? Should abstinence-only sex ed continue?. So far, “Yes” is winning 53% to 47%, despite the fact that abstinence-only sex ed does not work, and has been demonstrated to be an abject failure time and time again.

It’s sad to see such a close vote in a poll that really should be a slam dunk. How about making one of those bars swell like Bristol Palin’s fecund little belly?