51. Comment #148165 by Fire1974 on March 22, 2008 at 8:24 am

tgibbs: You beat me to it.

I should've known my tawdry understanding of cellular function would be trumped here.

I think the main point is that these cellular functions, although amazing in the sense that they actually occur, do not go about in the efficient and streamlined way they are depicted in the videos. In reality, evolution has jerry-rigged these processes from 'spare-parts'. They are very clumsy and could do with some more evolving if it be advantageous to the organism.

While I still think the films are a great teaching tool. They also can be easily misconstrued and anthropomorphized by the ignorant to propagate this idea that, "It's so brilliant, it must be designed". Which is absurd in itself but, as we see all too often, the DUMBino effect clamors on.

Other Comments by Fire1974

52. Comment #148167 by Lionel A on March 22, 2008 at 8:27 am

45. Comment #148140 by Beth on March 22, 2008 at 7:13 am

The boys at the Discovery Institute have weighed in, and to no surprise mis-represents the Expelling of PZ.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/03/richard_dawkins_worlds_most_fa.html

Well there is dissembling and downright lying, that Discovery article is replete with examples of both and starting with the title:

Richard Dawkins, World's Most Famous Darwinist, Stoops to Gate-crashing Expelled

'Stoops', indeed!

Dawkins apparently acknowledged that he had not been invited and did not have a ticket. A sophomoric side to his ideological campaign is thus revealed.

This is surely does not reflect how PZ went about showing up with Richard.

Dawkins, understandably is nervous about this film, among other reasons because Ben Stein has him on camera acknowledging that life on Earth may, indeed, have been intelligently designed, but that it had to have been accomplished by space aliens! This is hilarious, of course, because Dawkins is death on intelligent design [Huh! What does this mean?]. But it turns out that that view applies only if it includes the possibility that the designer might be God.

What utter misrepresenting nonsense.

Too bad the film doesn't show (and I wish it had), his promotion of advice to attack teachers and professors who dare question Darwin's theory. The whole point of Myers is that he is a take-no-prisoners, crusading atheist scientist who has made it his purpose in life to harass people who disagree with him. Dawkins turns out to be his buddy and mutual admirer.

So PZ promotes attacks on teachers who question Darwin's theory. This is either sloppy language, which could be said to be a characteristic of the whole sorry article, or tantamount to libel.

…I suspect I'll wish that the film was twice as long and had twice as much from Dawkins, P.Z. Myers, et al. From what I already have seen, they really expose themselves as the anti-intellectual, bullying poseurs they are -- small men who above all are afraid of a fair contest.

Dawkins and PZ 'anti-itellectual, bullying poseurs' , this guy really knows how to lay it on with a trowel.

That appalling article plumbs new depths.

Other Comments by Lionel A

53. Comment #148184 by Lionel A on March 22, 2008 at 9:09 am

Having revisited:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/03/richard_dawkins_worlds_most_fa.html

so as to click on the 'Click here to read more', at the foot of that page I became astonished at how lacking in self awareness these people are, e.g.

"The legacy media seem to have rediscovered the evolution controversy with the recent lawsuits in Pennsylvania and Georgia," says Rob Crowther, CSC director of communications. "The problem is that many reporters are sadly uninformed about the issue which has resulted in much of the news coverage being sloppy, inaccurate, and often overtly biased.

Have they no sense of how uninformed they are?

Note missing final quote marks on a page difficult to read because of its small type which does not respond to changes in VIEWed text size.

"For too many reporters, the controversy over evolution is simply a rehash of the old movie, "Inherit the Wind," said John West, associate director of the CSC. "They continue to simplify this as a battle between stick-figure fundamentalists on one side and the enlightened champions of science on the other, when in reality there are serious debates amongst scientists. This isn't the old trope of religion vs. science; this is science vs. science."

What BS. Repeating BS does not make it true. The debate is still very much religion v science and any statement to the contrary is being economical with the truth.

Joseph Goebbels himself would be proud of the way in which the Discovery Institute presents this issue.

Other Comments by Lionel A

54. Comment #148190 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 22, 2008 at 9:45 am

This is a short clip from an upcoming 90-minute discussion between PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins.

How soon? You've whet my appetite.

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

55. Comment #148193 by RC Metcalf on March 22, 2008 at 10:00 am

FYI - I saw the Expelled! film and I just viewed the Harvard computer simulations of the cell (thanks to the link provided by sent2null). They are not the same. The cell simulation footage used in Expelled! came from Illustra Media's "Unlocking the Mystery of Life."

All the best, RC

Other Comments by RC Metcalf

56. Comment #148221 by dlanier on March 22, 2008 at 11:24 am

In keeping with the theme of expulsion and the limitation of viwership, I propose that the following be noted:

Have a look near the bottom of the expelled "playground" page (which, by the way is a fitting analogy for the level of intellect being displayed here) and pay attenion to the section wher eyou can buy tickets in advance.

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playground.php

Does anyone else find it particularly amusing that there is the option that Expelled will "help you coordinate buying out and entire theater for your group"? Talk about excluding the presence of anyone who is not of like mind form being mixed in and (Darwin forbid) causing a rucus of sparking thought...

DL

Other Comments by dlanier

57. Comment #148222 by Blake C. Stacey on March 22, 2008 at 11:27 am

According to PZ, clips from the Harvard/XVIVO animation are on the DVD the Expelled people were distributing. See the footnote here:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/still_straining_to_find_an_exc.php

Other Comments by Blake C. Stacey

58. Comment #148223 by brad2 on March 22, 2008 at 11:27 am

There's a clip of Richard and PZ from the movie up on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JX2HORTRm4I

I really enjoyed their message -- it wasn't too badly munged by the creationists!

Will you please make a shirt that says "I won't take away your knitting needles"?

Other Comments by brad2

59. Comment #148224 by wagnerfilm on March 22, 2008 at 11:31 am

#47: The Austin appearance was also extensively blogged over at http://atheistexperience.blogspot.com/

Other Comments by wagnerfilm

60. Comment #148225 by Steve Zara on March 22, 2008 at 11:35 am

Comment #148165 by Fire1974

I think the main point is that these cellular functions, although amazing in the sense that they actually occur, do not go about in the efficient and streamlined way they are depicted in the videos. In reality, evolution has jerry-rigged these processes from 'spare-parts'. They are very clumsy and could do with some more evolving if it be advantageous to the organism.

They are certainly "jerry-rigged", but they aren't clumsy. Many of the processes are amazingly efficient, as would be expected after billions of years of evolution.

The way things are shown in the video isn't really efficient or streamlined, as that is just not what happens on the scale of atoms. We really can't imagine what it is like, with molecules rushing around and spinning at incredible speeds. At room temperature, sound in water travels at around 1.5 km per second. That gives a guide as to how fast molecules are moving, and cells aren't kilometers in size, they are on a scale around 100 million times smaller.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

61. Comment #148228 by Jiten on March 22, 2008 at 11:55 am

RC Metcalf Have you got a link for that?

Other Comments by Jiten

62. Comment #148235 by markg on March 22, 2008 at 12:21 pm

Here are some suggestions for titles for a Dawkins/Myers rebuttal film:

Disspelled: The Evolution of Creationism to Intelligent Design Contriversy

or

On the Origin Of Specious Ideas by Means of Unnaturally Selective Thinking: Why Intelligent Design is Wrong

I hearby relinquish all claims of ownership to those titles.

Other Comments by markg

63. Comment #148243 by Jiten on March 22, 2008 at 12:52 pm

Why o why do these cretins feel the need to attack Darwinian Natural Selection?After all scientists like Francis Collins manage to blithely carry on believing in Jesus whilst accepting the overwhelming evidence for Natural Selection.Francis Collins and other Christian scientists must be seriously embarrassed by having these half-brained cretinous IDiots on the same side as themselves.

Other Comments by Jiten

64. Comment #148247 by RC Metcalf on March 22, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Sure Jiten,

Look at this YouTube trailer for the movie. Most of it is devoted to the computer simulation of RNA transcription into proteins. While this looks similar to the Harvard video, the Harvard one never addressed protien formation that closely (at least from what I saw)... If there is a Harvard one that duplicates the Illustra Media one, please post both links side by side.

I can attest to the fact that what I saw in the Expelled! video (and I saw the whole thing during a pre-release screening) was identical to the Illustra video. I had just watched the Illustra video a week before in preparation for a debate I'm involved in next week.

Here's the YouTube link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4Ot0YKHoTk

I also have the DVD alluded to by PZ Myers. I've reviewed it and found the same Illustra footage as in the film... nothing from Harvard.

In fact, on the DVD, at the end of each segment that includes such animation the screen fades to black and in white, bold letters it reads:

Film segments excerpted from
Unlocking the Mystery of Life
Illustra Media, 2002

So, if Harvard footage was actually used in the film, let's see specifically what that footage was... please provide a link.

Thanks,
RC Metcalf
Author:
Letter to a Christian Nation: Counter Point
Colliding with Christ: The Science of the Resurrection
http://www.thinkagain.us

Other Comments by RC Metcalf

65. Comment #148258 by Ian H Spedding FCD on March 22, 2008 at 1:30 pm

ObNitpick: Isn't it jerry-built and jury-rigged?

Other Comments by Ian H Spedding FCD

66. Comment #148261 by Quine on March 22, 2008 at 1:38 pm

MC Metcalf, what are your views on the ID v. evolution subject and debate of the subject?

Other Comments by Quine

67. Comment #148263 by ficklefiend on March 22, 2008 at 1:40 pm

That really is a lovely video, but I get the feeling it is meant for people who already know some molecular biology- it's not exactly in layman's terms! Anyone who has done some molecular biology will know that it's a simplified version made to look pretty and make you go "wow", so I guess that's why it's not explained that much. :)

Other Comments by ficklefiend

68. Comment #148266 by Gertrude on March 22, 2008 at 1:46 pm

Rocks? God did it! Water? God did it! Plants? God did it! Humans? God did it! Stillbirth? Erm.. Aids? eeh hmm.. vestigial anatomy? err.. War, Famine, Tourture and Rape? ahh well.. ill give up while im a ahead.

Other Comments by Gertrude

69. Comment #148267 by agg on March 22, 2008 at 1:48 pm

Hmm, I think Richard and PZ should have waited to get some confirmation first that the clip they were talking about was really the one from Harvard. As it is right now, they seem to have engaged in speculation that may turn out to be incorrect --- especially if what RC Metcalf says is true. This may be turned against them by the creationists who I am sure would be quite happy to switch the topic from the embarrassing own goal they scored yesterday.

Other Comments by agg

70. Comment #148289 by RC Metcalf on March 22, 2008 at 3:08 pm

Hi agg,

At least for me, an apology and video/online correction would suffice. No sense turning this against Richard and PZ. My goal is the continued free flow of ideas, not bashing the other side.

In fact, the free exchange of knowledge is pretty much what Expelled! is all about, so when it does come out, those who haven't seen it... should.

And Quine, I'm struggling with the flu now, so as much as I'd like to respond to your question, right now, I need to get back to bed.

Short answer... I don't spend a lot of time following ID. My new book takes this debate in a different direction. I agree with Francis Collins on quite a bit, except that I see no concrete evidence for speciation arising from evolution. Change... yes, speciation... no.

I also agree with Richard that the questions of God's existence, of Jesus' resurrection, etc. are scientific questions. But I disagree with my neighbor, Vic Stenger, who has branded God a "failed hypothesis" before even administering the test.

Gotta crash... bye all.

RC

Other Comments by RC Metcalf

71. Comment #148291 by Steve Zara on March 22, 2008 at 3:14 pm

Comment #148289 by RC Metcalf

My goal is the continued free flow of ideas, not bashing the other side.

Speaking purely for myself, I don't believe in bashing the other side either.

I see no concrete evidence for speciation arising from evolution. Change... yes, speciation... no.

Please do come back to this thread. I have a lot to show you regarding this.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

72. Comment #148320 by agg on March 22, 2008 at 4:09 pm

Damn, I lost my comment. I don't have the time to write it again, so I'll try a short one:

RC Metcalf

At least for me, an apology and video/online correction would suffice. No sense turning this against Richard and PZ.

Perhaps I wasn't very clear. My objection was not about Richard and PZ speculating about the animated video clip. In fact, I think they were perfectly justified and they gave good reasons for doing so in this video.

My problem is that they put this in the open without having anything more concrete in terms of evidence. They weren't even sure if they were talking about the same video clip. At least they should have made it absolutely clear they were speculating that the clip in Expelled was related to Xvivo's clip. Instead they moved on to wondering if the producers have got the necessary rights from the Harvard group.

As I said, they were right to speculate. And I am sure it was just a speculation, but in this video, it came out as if they jumped to conclusions.

In fact, the free exchange of knowledge is pretty much what Expelled! is all about

Sorry but I can't see how you could have come to this conclusion. I haven't seen the movie, but from what I've seen and read from people who have, I am under the impression that this movie has nothing to do with discussing knowledge and everything to do with pushing someone's religious and political agenda.

Other Comments by agg

73. Comment #148322 by Roman Swiatkowski on March 22, 2008 at 4:18 pm

Thus far, from what I've read here and there, it sounds like a variation of the old reductio ad Hitlerum .

Other Comments by Roman Swiatkowski

74. Comment #148327 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 22, 2008 at 4:29 pm

When is the whole discussion being uploaded. I'm in a frenzy of anticipation

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

75. Comment #148328 by sent2null on March 22, 2008 at 4:31 pm

Steve Zara wrote: 63. Comment #148225 by Steve Zara on March 22, 2008 at 11:35

They are certainly "jerry-rigged", but they aren't clumsy. Many of the processes are amazingly efficient, as would be expected after billions of years of evolution.

The way things are shown in the video isn't really efficient or streamlined, as that is just not what happens on the scale of atoms. We really can't imagine what it is like, with molecules rushing around and spinning at incredible speeds. At room temperature, sound in water travels at around 1.5 km per second. That gives a guide as to how fast molecules are moving, and cells aren't kilometers in size, they are on a scale around 100 million times smaller.

Steve,

Which parts of the animation in particular do you think are dangerously inaccurate? I doubt that there is much inaccuracy in the process of transcription, or of protein synthesis. The shape of the generated polypepide chains constrain how they interact with other molecules in the system.

Sure, there isn't as much space in the real cell as shown in the animation and the creators admitted this, sure atoms are more like little magnets in sense, interacting through their fields (the electron clouds) than anything else and that is difficult to quantify with the ball like entities shown in the animation but how much abstraction of the imagery to get the gist of the process across to the viewer, is too much abstraction ?

The animators had to get a balance between trying to illustrate interactions and trying to show the probabilistic nature of the constituent molecules. It is difficult to do this, especially if you consider that to the laymen , the idea of little particles as atoms is still very popular. Sure you and I, and others who have studied areas of the fields in question realize it is a bit more complex but the facts remain that the processes do happen more often than not as illustrated, even if what is doing them are vibrating and oscillating entities of electron clouds and atomic nuclei that we can't hope to visualize. ;)

Maybe they should do another video where they try to be a bit more abstract in their presentation, it would look a lot more crazy (read: surreal) but at least it would give laymen a more accurate view of the chaos of energy and interaction that gives rise to cellular processes than this first video shows.

What do you think?

Other Comments by sent2null

76. Comment #148338 by Steve Zara on March 22, 2008 at 4:53 pm

Which parts of the animation in particular do you think are dangerously inaccurate?

I will admit that "dangerous" depends on the context. Regarding innacuracy - almost all of it, when it dealt with things at the molecular level.

They got the thermal chaos of the lipid membranes right, and some of the wobbling of the proteins, but they got almost everything else wrong.

I doubt that there is much inaccuracy in the process of transcription, or of protein synthesis.

That was all nonsense; for example the way those RNA molecules all happily wriggled their way out of the nuclear pores, and the ribosomes (just waiting around) pounced on them.

The shape of the generated polypepide chains constrain how they interact with other molecules in the system.

Yes, I am afraid that was pretty much wrong too.

I think this was a very beautiful but profoundly misleading animation.

It reminds me of animations of atoms I used to see as a teenager studying chemistry, with electrons as red billiard balls flying around nucleii of blue protons and (I think) green neutrons. Then, I learnt about quantum theory and that this was all wrong, and electrons were not red.

This animation is, at best, a cartoon of what is going on.

I was disappointed. It is seriously weird at the molecular scale; it is certainly not mechanical, with myosin walking along actin fibres like Charlie Chaplin.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

77. Comment #148340 by Mark Smith on March 22, 2008 at 4:56 pm

RC Metcalf
I see from your site you have a 'new model that explains the events of the first Easter scientifically'. Care to give us an outline?

Other Comments by Mark Smith

78. Comment #148341 by Dr Benway on March 22, 2008 at 4:57 pm

At least for me, an apology and video/online correction would suffice

WTF? They didn't let PZ in. Of course he's guessing about that cell animation.

If don't want people guessing, let them see the movie.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

79. Comment #148342 by Quine on March 22, 2008 at 5:05 pm

Comment #148289 by RC Metcalf

And Quine, I'm struggling with the flu now, so as much as I'd like to respond to your question, right now, I need to get back to bed.

Short answer... I don't spend a lot of time following ID. My new book takes this debate in a different direction. I agree with Francis Collins on quite a bit, except that I see no concrete evidence for speciation arising from evolution. Change... yes, speciation... no.

I do hope you have read Francis Collins' book (and looked up its references) so you can see how the data trail through the DNA backs up the speciation evidence from the fossil record. I understand you will be debating in public soon, so you really need to know what the other side has on you before you say something that will be shot down as factually incorrect. We, here, are very interested in any scientific evidence, so when you are better (which I hope is soon) please come back and share with us.

Again, best wishes for your speedy recovery and continued good health,

-Q

Other Comments by Quine

80. Comment #148343 by sent2null on March 22, 2008 at 5:13 pm

Steve Zara wrote:

I was disappointed. It is seriously weird at the molecular scale; it is certainly not mechanical, with myosin walking along actin fibres like Charlie Chaplin.

Wow you are hard to please! As I said the reality is certainly a lot more surreal than the animation but they need to get these ideas across in baby steps. How would it have looked had it been a mass of jiggling cloud like entities, it would have looked more like a painting by someone tripping off acid than an animation of cell interactions. ;)

In a world were most people are certain that some invisible sky God is controlling these things it is important to try and quantify these interactions in some physical way that can be absorbed before it is thrown out as rubbish, then we can refine the view to the more astonishing truth in time. Change by the inch, don't you agree?

Other Comments by sent2null

81. Comment #148345 by Steve Zara on March 22, 2008 at 5:21 pm

Wow you are hard to please!

Yes, about science :)

I simply hate simplifications. People need to know how seriously wierd it all is. You may appreciate my dislike of the portrayal of black holes as 2D whirlpools in so many documentaries.

How would it have looked had it been a mass of jiggling cloud like entities, it would have looked more like a painting by someone tripping off acid than an animation of cell interactions. ;)

Realistic :) ?

And also, at the velocities molecules move at, it would not have been jiggling - more like some confusing 3D hailstorm!

Change by the inch, don't you agree?

I don't think such animations are changing by the inch. I think they are misleading by a mile. Far better to just say "myosin moves along actin" with some vague diagrams than go into wonderful 3D animated detail that is absolutely nothing like what really happens.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

82. Comment #148350 by Quine on March 22, 2008 at 5:31 pm

sent2null, I have to go with Steve on this. A very large part of the action is in the polar water molecules and roving ions that aren't even shown. Yes, if you did show all the random motion and transitory hydrogen bonding/unbonding it would just be a snow storm, and you could not see the low percentage (but persistent) bonding that gives the results in the longer time frame. However, seeing molecules "magically" flow to where they "are supposed go" robs people of the understanding of the power of massive undirected random events when coupled to a means of selection for persistence (pattern integrity).

Other Comments by Quine

83. Comment #148354 by alovrin on March 22, 2008 at 5:46 pm

This from the DI page:

...Dawkins, P.Z. Myers, et al. From what I already have seen, they really expose themselves as the anti-intellectual, bullying poseurs they are -- small men who above all are afraid of a fair contest.

Sounds to me exactly like "the pot calling the kettle black".
To use yet another old saying. Sayings which just readily leap to mind whenever one of these chumps commits anything to the record, or just open their mouths.

Other Comments by alovrin

84. Comment #148360 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 22, 2008 at 6:09 pm

I agree with Steve. Animations like this promote the idea of design in a lay audience.

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

85. Comment #148378 by Kubenzi on March 22, 2008 at 8:05 pm

I think this could turn out to be one of those "succeses they never recover from" that hitch likes to talk about

Other Comments by Kubenzi

86. Comment #148379 by Wosret on March 22, 2008 at 8:12 pm

Short answer... I don't spend a lot of time following ID. My new book takes this debate in a different direction. I agree with Francis Collins on quite a bit, except that I see no concrete evidence for speciation arising from evolution. Change... yes, speciation... no.

I think this comes from a quite common misunderstanding of what species is, and believing that it is a clear cut seperation of one group of animals from another. Like cats and dogs. There isn't much at all that seperates species. I think that the existence of "ring species" best illustrates what little seperates species.

Other Comments by Wosret

87. Comment #148380 by dikkon on March 22, 2008 at 8:13 pm

sent2null, Steve Zara, Quine,

I agree with you all that the Harvard animation is a cartoon, but to someone who is an engineer rather than a biologist, the cartoon clarified the principles of what goes on in a cell and helped me understand the complexity. I know that reality is far more messy, but haven't you all tried to simplify a complex problem with a sketch or two? I know that is why I have several whiteboards in my office.

If we didn't try to simplify things in order to understand them, we would still be cowering in caves and saying that [insert your deity of choice here] caused everything that confused us.

Thank you all for pointing out that there is still much to learn, but I would have been far more confused without the animation.

dikkon

Other Comments by dikkon

88. Comment #148389 by Richard Morgan on March 22, 2008 at 9:11 pm

Excuse me for interrupting this thread.


MUSIC UPDATE

For PZMyers : "EXPELLED : another hole in the sock."






The Myspace dedicated player :

1. We saw the comet.
In "Climbing Mount Improbable", Richard Dawkins mentioned taking his baby daughter out one night to see a comet. He explained that she was probably too young to know what was going on, but since she would live to see it again (and he would not) he wanted her to be able to say, later in her life, that she'd seen it twice. I was very touched by this idea, and so composed this piece of music for Richard and his daughter.

2. Paula Kirby : TNT Truth, not Tales.
Well, it all started with Paula KIRBY, didn't it, this "Fleabytes" business!
3. MPhil : Emfill Rox!
An amazing young philosophical mind. (I asked my son Anthony to compose this piece, being a little unwell myself at the time.)
4. Past Fleas.
RD asked this question :

What would music inspired by the fleas sound like?
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2303,Add-another-flea-to-the-list,RichardDawkinsnet

Something to make them seem ridiculous, pathetic, desperate?

This composition is my answer.

5. Cartomancer : Gunshots and a Wobbly.

I'm chronically tone-deaf to the point where I didn't know what all the fuss was about when Jemini were the UK entry to the Eurovision Song Contest. My beloved teases me mercilessly about it. I tried to come up with some praise beyond "That sounds nice", or "I liked the wobbly bit with all those notes in it" but my abilities fail me utterly when it comes to describing my appreciation of music..

But Cartomancer is one of our most remarkable contributors, and deserved an, er, shall we say, appropriate musical portrait, with recognisable sounds.

6. Steve Zara : Simply SteveZ.
Enough said. Steve has a fine mind, and is totally lovable.


Standalone player (right column)
1. EXPELLED, another hole in the sock.
For PZ Myers
2. Sock on the Stair Reel �" Bullshit!
3. Past Fleas.
4. Fleabytes �" a thredley.
This is a medley of themes which expresses my impression of this everlasting thread.
5. Fingerprints, past time. (from The Lava Lizard's Tale.) (Voice : Richard Dawkins)
6. Broken Rings (from The Salamander's Tale) (Voice : Lalla Ward)
7. DIACANU.
(Mike told me himself that he felt that this portrait was pretty accurate. If you don't believe, read his comments!)
8. Bryan English : Bryan of OZ.
One of Australia's finest rock musicians.
9. Hitchindebate.
I composed a spontaneous impression of Christopher Hitches in debate with, well, just about anybody really.
10. The Quote Miner's lament.
11. Weeflea's always right.
Guess who this is?
12. Call me "Richard".
And guess who this is?


Standalone player (left column)
Sound track : Fingerprints, past time. (without the voice)


http://www.myspace.com/fleabytes

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

89. Comment #148393 by dragonfirematrix on March 22, 2008 at 9:18 pm

Great discussion!

I think the names of those who violated the rights of the non-religious should be posted on the Internet for all to see.

It is also past time for we non-believers to flood the media and government with the truth. There has to be a way for we non-believers to get the intelligence of people like PZ, Sam, Richard, and others out to the people in the daily main-stream media. THERE HAS TO BE A WAY.

Other Comments by dragonfirematrix

90. Comment #148396 by Quine on March 22, 2008 at 10:24 pm

dikkon, of course it can be useful in the proper context. In this context it seem one of those cases in which a little knowledge can be a bad thing. There should be ways to indicate the level of simplification, and get across the picture that a truly mind numbing number of very fast events are happening, in parallel, in a tiny bag packed with chemicals. Perhaps the snow/hale/sand storm can be shown for a couple of seconds, and then all but the center of attention "ghosted" out, but somehow, without loosing the background contribution. It is a very hard simulation data representation problem, and will be interesting to watch in the coming years as processing power becomes greater, 3D displays become more prevalent, and software techniques move ahead.

Part of the sensitivity of the issue comes because as careful (and laborious) scientific research gives us more and more information about the truly complex machinery of the cell, the ID folks want to hijack that into their "if it is not simple to understand it must have been designed" argument. We now know that this is exactly backwards. When we use genetic algorithms to "evolve" designs and software techniques, we generally end up with something that is difficult to understand by reverse engineering.

The other problem is that we do not a spectrum of cells from the early days of life on the planet, or any precursors to cells. Sometime in the future we expect nanotech to provide the capability to analyze old rocks atom by atom. Perhaps we will find the fossilized atoms of these. We suspect that early cells were much simpler, but took very long times to grow and divide because complex enzyme systems were not there. That was not a problem while no other cells have these systems, but of course, it became an arms race for which cells could grow and divide (thus outnumber and overwhelm) faster than others.

It's a tricky path to walk. Simplify too much and it looks like a designed machine; try to convey the actual complexity, and become open to a portrayal that it must have been designed by a mind beyond our understanding. It is what it is.

Other Comments by Quine

91. Comment #148403 by eccles on March 22, 2008 at 11:36 pm

This message is for Americans. The sooner the United Christian States of America gives up this bullshit of people thinking there is a "god" and those dickheads making life a misery for sensible Scientists the better. The United Christian States of America is becoming a backward 3rd world nation because these bible thumpers get to those in power and cause a chaos in education, especially science education.

Other Comments by eccles

92. Comment #148408 by drba on March 23, 2008 at 12:52 am

I'm new to this, but just a quick comment. I was surprised that RD didn't recognize the Harvard animation since it sounds like the one that was presented at one of the TED talks in 2007 by David Bolinsky.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/147

Other Comments by drba

93. Comment #148409 by drba on March 23, 2008 at 1:06 am

Ups, I just read the posts by RC Metcalf. It makes more sense that they would have used a clip from film for ID with the auther of the notorious "Of Pandas and People" than a Harvard animation.

Other Comments by drba

94. Comment #148477 by Steve Zara on March 23, 2008 at 6:53 am

Comment #148473 by coretemprising

Steve, can I call THIS one a clueless idiot without further investigation? Thank you.

Unfortunately not. Some very bright people can believe utterly crazy things, such as the physicist Frank Tipler believing that Jesus' resurrection had to do with some sort of dematerialisation and neutrinos.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

95. Comment #148534 by Ian H Spedding FCD on March 23, 2008 at 9:08 am

Speaking as a layperson, I find those animations informative as they illustrate what is going on inside a cell better than a verbal description could. However, I see them as only a first step.

What is arguably more fascinating is to hear scientists try to describe what the inside of a cell would really looke like, assuming we could see at that scale.

From a slightly different perspective, I've long been a fan of TV shows like Star Trek and Stargate. But I would also like to know what a black hole or the mouh of an artificially-enlarged wormhole might really look like. Or what would the Space Shuttle look like whizzing past at 17000 mph or what would we see - if anything - of a space-ship flashing by at half the speed of light?

People are fascinated by the gee-whizz aspects of science, so combining the latest scientific thinking with the latest CGI as in Walking With Dinosaurs seems to me to be a good way to go. make the creationist/IDiot vision look as narrow, dull, limiting and stunted as it really is.

Other Comments by Ian H Spedding FCD

96. Comment #148535 by oriole on March 23, 2008 at 9:09 am

Let's hope Richard will come out with a really strong public statement exposing these contemptable ID liars for what they are. I'm aware of the argument that we should ignore them; that they're just trying to provoke us to generate free publicity, but I think these cowards (the discovery site with the lies about Dawkins and Myers doesn't allow comments, of course) are in dire need of a figurative bloody nose.

Other Comments by oriole

97. Comment #148770 by birdman on March 23, 2008 at 10:02 pm

Some google searching revealed the existence of a google indexed & publicly viewable web page at http://www.wihsradio.org/inhouse_journal.html . The page in question has a reference to a contact phone number for the film's producer Mark Mathis. There may be value in calling the man during the coming week so as to inquire further about this matter.

Other Comments by birdman

98. Comment #148782 by Pao Chang on March 23, 2008 at 10:52 pm

It's a "crappy" film (re:lord's privy seal) that will have a brief shine in the limelight for maybe a week to a month if the film producers are lucky. The movie will then disappear into the 99 cent bin at the local video store just like the hundreds of other bad films CREATED annually.
When it comes to social events such as the fate of PZ Myers at the theatre, the public has the attention span of perhaps a week or two, and here I am being generous in my prediction, then it will be forgotten. As the media people like to say, "The story has no legs." Now if Mr. Meyers had been shot, well then, now you have a story. Just kidding.
However, I agree with Professor Dawkins and Prof. Meyers that there must be immediate response to this kind of idiocy and no matter the attention span of the general public.
Thanks guys, this is fun watching and reading.
Pao Chang

Other Comments by Pao Chang

99. Comment #148804 by bibanu on March 24, 2008 at 1:09 am

You guys are funny. I bet Stein will make a lot more money from the reaction to this story.

I hope that he will send a "Thank You" note to all of these blogs :) :)

Other Comments by bibanu

100. Comment #148942 by metajeff on March 24, 2008 at 5:35 pm

I'm afraid that Mr. Dawkins and Mr. Myers have been the unwitting participants of an unscrupulous publicity stunt. I think Mark Mathis' decision to "expel" Mr. Myers was a deliberate attempt to get attention, as negative as it might be. Looking into Mr. Mathis' professional past, I found that he has never produced a film before (as evident by Mr. Dawkins' review as well as many others), and is, in fact, some kind of PR strategist and has even published a book called "Feeding the Media Beast: An Easy Recipe for Great Publicity ".

I believe Mathis knew exactly what he was doing by refusing to admit Mr. Myers. He knew that it would be the talk of the internet, and needless to say, I think he was right (I myself had never heard of "Expelled" before this incident took place). While it's true that Mathis probably "shot himself in the foot" in terms of promoting the true message of film, he indeed scored a slam dunk when it comes to creating a word of mouth campaign, even if most of those words are negative.

Other Comments by metajeff