Breast beginnings

i-5bab2253d4469402201480b7d7e1dd09-breast.jpg

Four of my favorite things are development, evolution, and breasts, and now I have an article that ties them all together in one pretty package. It’s a speculative story at this point, but the weight of the evidence marshaled in support of the premise is impressive: the mammalian breast first evolved as an immunoprotective gland that produced bacteriocidal secretions to protect the skin and secondarily eggs and infants, and that lactation is a highly derived kind of inflammation response. That mammary glands may have had their origin as inflamed glands suppurating mucus may not be the most romantic image to arise in a scientific study, but really—they got better and better over the years.

[Read more…]

Mother’s Milk

i-ccbc028bf567ec6e49f3b515a2c4c149-old_pharyngula.gif

Human milk is potent stuff. The Greek for milk was gala, and as you might be able to see if I hadn’t had to reduce this Tintoretto so much, the galaxies were created from the spray of milk from Hera’s breasts. Modern astronomers might quibble with that explanation of the origins of the extrasolar universe, but what do I know…I’m a biologist. I’ll stick to biology now, and with that, here’s a short summary of the biology behind mother’s milk.

i-890609a591b247f189af34c39c789a05-tintoretto_origin_of_milky_.jpg

[Read more…]

Who wants to argue with Gandalf?

The hype machine for that drecky novel and movie, The DaVinci Code, is rather appalling: I simply don’t see what the appeal is in a poorly written and unbelievable conspiracy theory about Jesus, and the protestations from Catholics are accomplishing nothing other than to fuel further interest in a very silly story. All I can imagine is that it’s feeding the same hunger for religious fables that drove the sales of those ghastly Left Behind books. Anyway, the only good thing I’ve seen emerge from the schlockfest yet is Ian McKellen and his comments on the Today show, written up in US magazine.

“I’ve often thought the Bible should have a disclaimer at the front saying ‘This is fiction.'” McKellen responded. “I mean walking on water? I mean, it takes an act of faith.”

That’s cutting to the heart of the issue. The Catholic church has no grounds for complaining about a badly written, ridiculously improbable, mass-market driven work of popular fiction…unless it’s because they see it as in competition with their similarly atrocious foundation document.

The comments over there are rather interesting, too. US magazine is a bit closer to the popular zeitgeist than something like Pharyngula, so the comments are a better peep into what the general public is thinking than comment threads here, and while there are a few people there who express dismay and act as if they’ve never imagined anyone could say something so shocking, they’re very much in the minority. Most of them are cheering Ian on!

I may have to change my mind about seeing this movie, as dreadful as the reviews are. Michael Medved thinks poor box office for this movie will demonstrate the depth of Christian sympathy in the US.

One of the things you see with this movie, Tucker, as I have been writing about this for 20 years literally, that Hollywood keeps attacking religion again and again and again. Films that have anti-religious themes and particularly anti-Catholic themes and they never make a dime. They tend to do very, very badly at the box office.

Now this film has a guaranteed box office return because of the tremendous success of the novel. But the idea that, by refusing to soften some of the anti-Christian, some of the–what people would consider to be heretical themes in the movie, that they could have, by softening it, I think ensured a much greater financial indication.

Rather, people who have no interest in the religious issues judge the book and movie on its merits, and aren’t inclined to waste time on it.

Department of cluelessness

Clear off a space on the floor near you, because soon you’ll be rolling around laughing on it.

You may recall that John A. Davison, infamous advocate of Intelligent Design, started a blog of his own, titled Prescribed Evolution, back in November of 2005. It generated a lot of hilarity because it consisted of one post. This is it.

I have my own blog now, only because I have been banned from just about all the others. Since I am computer illiterate, don’t expect very much from me. I welcome any comments about my published papers including my unpublished “An Evolutionary Manifesto: A New Hypothesis For Organic Change.” I will tend to ignore any denigrations either of myself or my distinguished sources. I will also not take seriously comments from anonymous posters although I will respond provided they are civil.

There follows a comment thread. It’s up to 847 comments now; it consists of Davison wondering where all the commenters are, lots of bickering, Davison threatening to ban DaveScot, DaveScot threatening to ban Davison from his blog, waa waa waaa, on and on. If I were trying to parody the inanity of the Designists, I couldn’t have topped this.

But Davison could.

He has started a new blog, New Prescribed Evolution. Again, it consists of one post.

The original Prescribed Evolution blog got pretty cluttered so I am starting a new one. Hopefully I will be able to better manage this one than the original.

<snort>

That post has 157 comments right now. Almost all of them are by…John A. Davison.

This is hilarious.

I can quote scripture too, you know

Jer 14:14 Then the LORD said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them: they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart.

Jer 14:14 Then the LORD said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them: they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart.
Jer 14:15 Therefore thus saith the LORD concerning the prophets that prophesy in my name, and I sent them not, yet they say, Sword and famine shall not be in this land; By sword and famine shall those prophets be consumed.
Jer 14:16 And the people to whom they prophesy shall be cast out in the streets of Jerusalem because of the famine and the sword; and they shall have none to bury them, them, their wives, nor their sons, nor their daughters: for I will pour their wickedness upon them.

Deu 13:1 If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder,
Deu 13:2 and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,”
Deu 13:3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul.
Deu 13:4 It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him.
Deu 13:5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.

Pat Robertson If I heard the Lord right about 2006, the coasts of America will be lashed by storms. There well may be something as bad as a tsunami in the Pacific Northwest.

God has told you what to do.

You can actually watch Satan flap Robertson’s lips at Media Matters.