Euprymna tasmanica
Figure from Cephalopods: A World Guide (amzn/b&n/abe/pwll), by Mark Norman.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
A new squid has been caught near Hawaii — much is being made of the fact that it has eight arms instead of ten, but that doesn’t seem like such a big deal to me, since we have the example of Taningia danae with a similar arrangement. It’s more interesting that there is a preliminary assignment to the genus Mastigoteuthis, a curious and poorly understood group of cephalopods.
Here’s a curious poll: “If marriage is a sacred institution authored by God, should atheists be barred from marrying?”
One answer is sweeping the vote (and I don’t think sending the Pharynguloid horde over there will change the trend), but Austin is making an interesting point. If gay people can’t marry because their union violates some religious requirement, then shouldn’t atheist marriages also be invalid? It seems to me that if you are arguing that marriage is a divine sacrament — and obviously, I don’t think it is — then a consistent fundamentalist ought to be arguing for the denial of married status to unbelievers.
Thank God fundamentalists aren’t consistent.
Poor Kent seems to be popular today.
We’re scatter-brained touristas on vacation, so pinning us down to specific times and places is hard. However, we are going to be puttering about in downtown Seattle on Friday, and I think we can commit to one thing: lunch! We’re going to pop into the Food Court at Seattle Center House around noon, and since it promises to be a gorgeous sunny day, we’ll then hang out around the International Fountain, where I will practice calling spirits from the vasty deep.
I still have to get the family to agree to evening plans, and some of my party absolutely refuse to have anything to do with heaping platters of marine invertebrates, which complicates matters. If we can agree on something ahead of time (feel free to make suggestions), I’ll mention our Friday evening plans here, too.
Be careful, Nathan Zamprogno. The background research behind compiling a list of all the insane things Kent Hovind believes can be very hazardous to your mental health.
Reading the list can be very entertaining, though, so thank you for the sacrifice of some of your psychological stability.
Say…I think I know this guy:
That fellow on the right has made the move to Scienceblogs and is now
writing away at Neurophilosophy. Say howdy, everyone.
Hmmm…maybe we should also bring that fellow on the left into the stable, too.
Since I brought up the hype for this Diesel fashion show, Phil has revealed that you can now watch it on the web.
It’s some kind of holographic light show on a fashion runway. I don’t know what the point of all the skinny people wandering around in clothes might have been, though. It didn’t make me want to buy any clothes, but a battery of lasers is looking more and more attractive.
Eamon Knight finds an irritating debate (you can listen to the podcast) between a real evolutionary biologist, Jerry Coyne, and a theologian and a philosopher, and … Paul Nelson of the Discovery Institute. The first three are all pro-evolution (although I found the theologian to be annoyingly apologetic for religion, naturally enough; Denis Lamoureux is a weird and obnoxious kind of Christian who seems to use science as a tool to proselytize) and Nelson fulfills the stereotype: he opens the debate with a quotemine and gross misrepresentation. He claims that W. Ford Doolittle rejects common descent. He claims that this notion that “all living things share a common ancestor” is being challenged; unfortunately and misleadingly, he puts the emphasis in the wrong place. Doolittle would say that “all living things share a common ancestor”. Doolittle argues that there was a large pool of organisms down near the root of the tree of life that liberally swapped genes among one another, so that you can’t trace life back to a single common ancestor — you can trace it back to a large population where species distinctions were greatly blurred.
Misrepresentation of legitimate scientists it’s about all Nelson brings to the debate. It’s an excellent example of why it’s a waste of time to treat these kooks as fair and equal and trustworthy.
For another example, Nelson claims that one justification for pushing ID is that our past understanding of biology was flawed (not that he says anything that ID contributes to our current understanding). He claims that when he was in school he was taught that “cells are just bags of enzymes”, and that ID has revealed all these amazing, unexplainable “molecular machines.” Nelson is about my age or younger; when I was taught cell biology back in those same dark ages, I certainly was not taught any such nonsense. Compartments and transport, for instance, were major parts of the curriculum.
It’s not just that these creationists don’t understand biology — it’s that they actively lie about biology. Don’t trust them.
Mike Dunford has another recent example of Nelson mangling a scientific conclusion.
