1. Atheism is a religion and you're as bad as the fundamentalists

Comment #82782 by stackoturtles on October 27, 2007 at 2:52 pm

In this day and age, unfortunately people pay attention to sound bites, so atheists need a simple statement that everyone can understand. That is why I favor as a first pass the easy comparisons. "If atheism is just another form of faith, then not carrying a rabbit's foot is just another superstition."
GB

2. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60219 by stackoturtles on August 1, 2007 at 10:34 am

Wasn't the fleas showing up looking to feed off new dogs inevitable?

Amerika! I luv dis kuntry.

3. Lecture on Sex Ratio Theory and Sexual Selection

Comment #53323 by stackoturtles on June 30, 2007 at 8:01 pm

My post above just raised another question. If it is true that mildly favorable genes are at a disadvantage when in close proximity to strongly unfavorable genes, there should be selective value in the mildly favorable genes being as far away from
unfavorable ones as possible. Has this been studied?

4. Lecture on Sex Ratio Theory and Sexual Selection

Comment #53322 by stackoturtles on June 30, 2007 at 7:53 pm

As a retired high school and part-time college biology teacher for 36 years, one of the concepts that I struggled with was how all of the mildly positive selective traits competed successfully with strongly negative selective traits, since natural selection acts upon the entire genome of each individual.
For example, say you have a trait whose selective advantage is somewhere in the neighborhood of 51 to 55% over the alternatives and one trait whose selective disadvantage is overwhelming, like a genetic disease or susceptibility to diseases.
If they are inherited on the same chromosome and they are in close proximity to each other so that crossing over is minimized, they will almost always be inherited together and the slightly advantageous gene will be swamped by the likelihood that the individual may not live long enough to reproduce.
Have the mathematical models been written and computer simulations run to test the interactions of genes of varying selectivity? If so, can someone direct me to references to them. I'm guessing they probably have been, but I would like to get this clear in my mind. Richard has probably covered this at some point, but I can't recall it. Thanks!

5. Group Threatens to Sue Pentagon Over Military Role in Evangelical Festival

Comment #45395 by stackoturtles on May 27, 2007 at 2:49 pm

Isn't this just the latest version of "praise the Lord and pass the ammunition"?

The U.S. military has always had an uneasy allance with Christianity, but up until recently the number of non-christians and non-believers in the military has been too small to protest.

It is long overdue and praise goes to Mikey Weinstein for calling them on it.

6. How dare you call me a fundamentalist

Comment #40447 by stackoturtles on May 14, 2007 at 9:54 am

David Robertson seems desperate to pin the fundamentalist label on Dawkins and atheists in general. That must be all he has.

Let's be clear. A fundamentalist believes in something for which there is NO positive evidence and will believe so even in the presence of negative evidence. An atheist does NOT believe in something for which there is NO positive evidence, but is able to say what would change his mind.

If Richard Dawkins is a fundamentalist then his NOT carrying a rabbit's foot makes him a superstitionist.

7. NEXT MONDAY: Bill O'Reilly interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #34187 by stackoturtles on April 23, 2007 at 1:21 pm

Because he knows that Dawkins is smart, O'Rielly will likely not get in his face. He is afraid of losing a verbal exchange.
So, I expect him to be civil.

8. Atheists split on how to not believe

Comment #34183 by stackoturtles on April 23, 2007 at 1:11 pm

Atheists should vigorously challenge the "fundamentalist" label. There is no comparison between those who believe something for which there is no evidence and those who disbelieve something for which there is no evidence. It's the evidence (or lack thereof), stupid!

Nobody would label someone who is not afraid of a black cat crossing his path or of walking under a ladder an "unsuperstitious fundamentalist" and there is no reason why atheists should be defending themselves on this issue.