Archbishop of Canterbury, anti-creationist

Lots of people have been emailing me the story that the Archbishop of Canterbury backs evolution. I have to confess to mixed feelings.

On the one hand, it’s good to have a religious authority figure coming down on the side of sense. I applaud the sentiment of his statements, and hope they have some positive influence.

On the other hand, I don’t give a flying firkin what the Archbishop of Canterbury thinks, and would question his authority to even make such a pronouncement. If people are going to accept things because someone who wears a funny hat on Sunday says so, where are they going to learn the critical thinking to question when said funny-hat wearer announces that crackers magically turn into meat or that an omnipotent invisible super-being is very fussy about where you put your penis? I simply do not recognize the foundation for his authority.

To be honest, I much prefer stories where religious people in ornate garments say crazy stupid things, because I want to see their authority diminished. I will be very worried when the Mormon elders, Desmond Tutu, the president of American Atheists, the Pope, a voudoun priestess, the Dalai Lama, JZ Knight, the Archbishop of Canterbury, some dessicated ascetic hermit from North Africa, the Raelians, Pat Robertson, the Unitarians, etc., all get together and announce that they are going to simply acknowledge and accept the scientific and natural explanations for the origin and evolution of life and stop meddling in the materialist issues to focus exclusively on the purely ‘spiritual’ life of their flocks. If that day comes, I won’t have any looney religious ideas to complain about, and there goes half the outrage that drives me to write. And I will also fear that the kooks and frauds are simply consolidating their power in claims beyond anyone’s power to test.

I have those suspicions of the Archbishop of Canterbury, too—I think he’s just trying to make sure his authority is based on ideas not subject to empirical testing.

Taxonomy of Biologists

As an exercise in futility, The Daily Transcript tries to categorize disciplines of the life sciences. Although there is a general air of truth to what he’s saying, the problem is that, unlike the members of the Tree of Life, academic disciplines are free to hybridize and accumulate and change, so instead of blurry but recognizable terminal branches, you end up with an anastomosing rete, and no one can sort out precisely who is what.

For instance, I’ve got training as a neurophysiologist (electrodes everywhere!), a cell biologist (painting organelles different colors and watching the glowing cells move), and a developmental biologist (which, contrary to Palazzo’s description, is actually the Most Important Discipline in Biology; he’s also wrong about killing fetuses, sometimes we just like to muck ’em up so they’re horribly deformed.) Oh, and I’ve had a smattering of genetics, but it was all developmental—real geneticists are kind of the mathematicians of biology, all very abstract and peculiar and mostly incomprehensible.

I also notice the bench biologist’s bias in his classification scheme. No ecologists? An article on taxonomy with no taxonomists?

That revolting article about earwax and smegma

i-ccbc028bf567ec6e49f3b515a2c4c149-old_pharyngula.gif

Not all the email I get is from cranks and creationist loons. Sometimes I get sincere questions. In today’s edition of “Ask Mr Science Guy!”, Hank Fox asks,

I was thinking recently about the fact that wax collects in one’s ears, and suddenly thought to be amazed that some part of the HUMAN body produces actual WAX. Weird. Like having something like honeybee cells in your ear.

And then I started to think about what sorts of other … exudates the human exterior produces. Mucus, possibly several different types (does the nose itself produce more than one type?). Oils, possibly several different types. That something-or-other that hardens into your fingernails. Saliva, if you wanted to count our frequently-open mouth as sort-of exterior. What else?

Of course I know something about this subject, having taught physiology for a few years. My years of experience have also led me to notice that it is always the guys who ask about disgusting secretions. Why is that?

[Read more…]

Hovind in Dover

Kent Hovind has been giving his creation “science” seminars in Dover, and it’s a fairly revolting situation. He’s glib, he’s amusing, he’s popular, and he’s lying constantly. David Neiwert discusses his roots as a “right-wing extremist with a penchant for promoting anti-Semitic conspiracy theories”.

The sad thing about the accounts are the little kids who are getting suckered by this shameless fraud.

Chance and regularity in the development of the fly eye

i-0e07d2dac40da0479d214c5d709acbfa-fly_eye_tease.jpg

What has always attracted me to developmental biology is the ability to see the unfolding of pattern—simplicity becomes complexity in a process made up of small steps, comprehensible physical and chemical interactions that build a series of states leading to a mostly robust conclusion. It’s a bit like Conway’s Game of Life in reverse, where we see the patterns and can manipulate them to some degree, but we don’t know the underlying rules, and that’s our job—to puzzle out how it all works.

i-9dfa81a4b62204efdc220d4ca09add57-compoundeye.jpg

Another fascinating aspect of development is that all the intricate, precise steps are carried out without agency: everything is explained and explainable in terms of local, autonomous interactions. Genes are switched on in response to activation by proteins not conscious action, domains of expression are refined without an interfering hand nudging them along towards a defined goal. It’s teleonomy, not teleology. We see gorgeously regular structures like the insect compound eye to the right arise out of a smear of cells, and there is no magic involved—it’s wonderfully empowering. We don’t throw up our hands and declare a miracle, but instead science gives us the tools to look deeper and work out (with much effort, admittedly) how seeming miracles occur.

One more compelling aspect of development: it’s reliable, but not rigid. Rather than being simply deterministic, development is built up on stochastic processes—ultimately, it’s all chemistry, and cells changing their states are simply ping-ponging through a field of potential interactions to arrive at an equilibrium state probabilistically. When I’d peel open a grasshopper embryo and look at its ganglia, I’d have an excellent idea of what cells I’d find there, and what they’d be doing…but the fine details would vary every time. I can watch a string of neural crest cells in a zebrafish crawl out of the dorsal midline and stream over generally predictable paths to their destinations, but the actions of an individual melanocyte, for instance, are variable and beautiful to see. We developmental biologists get the best of all situations, a generally predictable pattern coupled to and generated by diversity and variation.

One of the best known examples of chance and regularity in development is the compound eye of insects, shown above, which is as lovely and crystalline as a snowflake, yet is visibly assembled from an apparently homogenous field of cells in the embryo. And looking closer, we discover a combination of very tight precision sprinkled with random variation.

[Read more…]

Watch out for the mudghah on the sidewalk

Weirder. This is quite possibly the most stupid thing I have read yet on development from a creationist, from The Quran on Human Embryonic Development.

The next stage mentioned in the verse is the mudghah stage. The Arabic word mudghah means “chewed substance.” If one were to take a piece of gum and chew it in his or her mouth and then compare it with an embryo at the mudghah stage, we would conclude that the embryo at the mudghah stage acquires the appearance of a chewed substance. This is because of the somites at the back of the embryo that “somewhat resemble teethmarks in a chewed substance.”

Prepare to laugh or weep…here is the figure accompanying this pseudoscientific absurdity. I’ve tucked it below the fold to prevent fatalities; click through only if you are well-prepared and braced, aren’t elderly, infirm, or an infant, and have had all your vaccinations.

[Read more…]