1. Priest Antonio Rungi wants beauty contest - for nuns

Comment #236649 by Sigmund on August 25, 2008 at 2:08 am

I think I've found a clip of Father Rungi judging the competition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vlOhj4eTpA

2. Last Night's TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin, Channel 4

Comment #233562 by Sigmund on August 20, 2008 at 3:42 am

I've linked the youtube version of the whole series on my blog if anyone hasn't seen it yet.
http://sneerreview.blogspot.com/2008/08/richard-dawkins-genius-of-charles.html

3. How Our Culture Keeps Students Out of Science

Comment #226445 by Sigmund on August 8, 2008 at 5:03 am

As someone mentioned earlier, provide real career potential and people will take up a subject.
Its a dirty secret of the science community that there are in fact far too many scientists rather than too little being produced by the education system. Many of the bloggers writing about science are actually educators who need a certain number of new students per year to fill their classes. They are not going to rock the boat by pointing out that there are actually permanent academic jobs for only about 5% of those currently qualifying. Imagine it in another profession if only 5% of medical students, lawyers or accountants had a chance of a permanent career, does anyone seriously think those jobs would be as popular as they are currently?
I know lots of research labs that will only take on new members of staff if they agree to work for no salary. From an economics point of view I'm sure Bill Gates would find this the perfect solution thoughout his industry but for those thinking of starting a career is it really ethical to withhold the reality they will be facing by the time they are qualified?

4. Richard Dawkins, the naive professor

Comment #225948 by Sigmund on August 7, 2008 at 2:24 pm

If the atheist comments (and yes, they did seem out of place and unnecessary) were included on a lawyers advice to satisfy Ofcom will it be possible to remove them for a foreign edition (for instance, as something that could be shown to schoolchildren in the US - a few people have said that it currently would get into trouble because of first amendment issues)?
By the way, Hampstead Garden Suburb brings back memories. I was a census enumerator there in 1991, I think, and got shouted at by one particular resident for turning up on the Sabbath to deliver the census forms. I think it was the Jewish Sabbath he was talking about but I wonder if he seriously expected me to avoid all possible Sabbaths just to be sure I didn't offend anyone!

5. Interview with Paula Kirby on 'The Right Hook'

Comment #224905 by Sigmund on August 6, 2008 at 1:54 am

Great interview Paula, very nicely done on your part.
Having grown up in Ireland but lived abroad for the past 20 years it always hits me whenever I return that some assumptions are simply taken for granted by most in the population. In this case it was the idea of a historical Jesus being exactly the same as the one (or more accurately, the four) depicted in the Gospels. The priest's points were all based on this idea. Once you can get past this and actually work with the history that we can verify to some degree then the underpinning of so many of his points completely slips away.
I am an atheist yet I have no problem with those who want to use religious stories in a metaphorical manner (even the Jesus of the bible, we are told, was constantly doing this through his use of parables to illustrate his ideas of how people should live). The Christian churches, however, NEED there to be a true historical aspect to their religion. Its what distinguishes it from the dead religions that we all regard as based on myth. I've had several debates with Christians who make the point that if the Gospel stories are true then Jesus MUST be God and the rest of the churches teachings follow on logically from this point. I always agree with them on this point and then tell them that the historical part (meaning the evidence for biblical miracles) is completely lacking and as verifiable as the Greek or Viking legends. I ask them on what basis we should elevate Christian stories as truth and these other stories as myth. That's usually when the 'faith' card comes into the open.

6. Vicar supports Life of Brian ban

Comment #222563 by Sigmund on July 31, 2008 at 2:35 pm

Welease Bwian!

7. VOICES OF SCIENCE: PZ Myers - Buy it now on DVD

Comment #222236 by Sigmund on July 31, 2008 at 3:04 am

Voxmoose, try doing a little background reading on all four of those mentioned and you'll see that PZ sticks out like a sore thumb. Sagan certainly isn't a current top scientist. Because he's dead. When he was alive, however, he was clearly involved in numerous important discoveries and projects that pushed the boundaries of human knowledge (regarding the athmospheres of Venus and Titan and the idea of liquid water on various moons of the solar system - amongst many others) and, like three out of the four mentioned, has an impressive publication list.
To describe PZ as a top scientist is like calling Carl Zimmer a top scientist. I like both of them but to be a (top) scientist you actually need to do science rather than communicate the research that others have done. OK, that's my personal opinion and others may differ but I seriously think that experimental work is a necessary condition that shouldn't be overlooked.
That said I understand why Richard Dawkins might want to include PZ in this group of interviewees. While not exactly known for his science, he does have a high public profile that appeals to the target audience of this video and for that reason alone he is worth including. Just try to get the categories correct, please.

8. VOICES OF SCIENCE: PZ Myers - Buy it now on DVD

Comment #220706 by Sigmund on July 29, 2008 at 12:56 am

"Four fascinating discussions between Richard Dawkins and some of today's top scientists. "
Wait a second, in what particular universe is PZ Myers a 'top scientist'?
I like his blog and don't doubt that he's a decent teacher, but top scientist! - you are joking right?
I would describe him as a scientific activist or more accurately a 'top scientific blogger' but 'top scientist' makes him sound like a nobel prize winner or someone who regularly publishes in the big journals pushing the boundaries of his field of interest - and that, unfortunately, is just not PZ.

9. Car dealership advert tells atheists to 'shut up'

Comment #185887 by Sigmund on May 29, 2008 at 12:41 am

Unfortunately atheism isn't currently punching its numerical weight in terms of the effect it can have in the US publics mind. Politically the obvious tactic to apply to this ad is to have it attacked by a group like the Anti Defamation League since the non Christian 14% must also include Jews - and antisemitism is clearly NOT something that Ford would want associated with its brand.

10. Mail-boat record 'proves Darwin stole his original ideas from a Welsh scientist'

Comment #184810 by Sigmund on May 26, 2008 at 8:06 am

Darwin came up with the idea of the first phylogenetic tree in 1837, according to his notes.
http://sneerreview.blogspot.com/2008/05/tree-of-life-hacked-down.html

11. Huge hidden biomass lives deep beneath the oceans

Comment #184712 by Sigmund on May 26, 2008 at 2:57 am

Teratornis,
You are suggesting two separate things here.
First reconstructing dinosaur gene sequences from degraded DNA.
Second using related species to give a clue what genetic alterations could be introduced to change them into animals physically indistinguishable from dinosaurs.
The second approach is feasible in time (Chicken rex!) but the first is impossible since DNA degrades totally in the time frame we are talking about - tens of millions of years. It would be like trying to reconstruct a snow sculpture that had been left in the Sahara a hundred years ago - there is simply nothing left to work with.

12. The Faith of Flanders

Comment #184401 by Sigmund on May 25, 2008 at 2:13 am

I loved the joke about Maude praying for God to make her 'more judgmental'.

13. Huge hidden biomass lives deep beneath the oceans

Comment #184398 by Sigmund on May 25, 2008 at 1:51 am

There are sound biochemical reasons to doubt whether a single cell can be 111 million years old. DNA as a molecule, while quite stable compared to many others, is subject to degradation - radioisotopic derived cleavage from isotopes of phosphorus etc.
This puts limits for the length of time a single DNA strand can remain intact - probably somewhere in the order of tens of thousands of years.
That is one of the reasons why the Jurassic Park strategy of reviving dinosaurs doesn't now make scientific sense.
On the other hand the bacteria may have strong repair processes that fix the errors that creep in over time - but I highly doubt they could do it sufficiently well to allow the same cell to survive without replicating for 111 million years resulting in an ancient cell that is now capable of dividing.

14. God and Science Collide in Nation's Capital

Comment #182446 by Sigmund on May 20, 2008 at 6:31 am

Whats the difference between 'atheist' and 'agnostic'?
I'd guess about two extra zero's on your Templeton Foundation cheque.

15. Changing my Mind

Comment #106411 by Sigmund on January 2, 2008 at 9:17 pm

He's certainly changed his tune since his 'American Psycho' days.

16. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #105799 by Sigmund on January 1, 2008 at 8:46 pm

"And with a few exceptions (e.g. the gene for lactose tolerance), we probably haven't adapted to our environment much since the Pleistocene."

I'm afraid Sam is very much out of date with his human genetics. There are many, many other genetic loci that have been subject to selection, lactose intolerance is just the best known.

17. A new website addition: Debate Points

Comment #81612 by Sigmund on October 25, 2007 at 1:07 am

What does atheism say about the purpose of life ?
This is a common enough question from theists yet if you look at it from an evolutionary perspective it makes little sense. What is the purpose of a bacterium's life? What is the purpose of a rabbit's life? What is the purpose of a nettle's life?

18. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #81577 by Sigmund on October 24, 2007 at 11:19 pm

Whatever about Hitler, it is disingenuous to claim that Stalin or Pol Pot were not atheists. I think the evidence clearly suggests that they were. Sam Harris has a valid point when he suggests that the term 'atheism' is problematic since it throws such a broad tent that WILL include non rationalists such as the aforementioned murderous dictators.
The best argument I have heard to counter the Stalin, Pol Pot question is to point out that the problem is FAITH - the application of a belief of dogma in the absence of evidence or even despite the existence of evidence to the contrary.
Stalin and Pol Pot were clearly men of faith - faith in the truth of their extreme communistic agenda that was not wavered by any amount of evidence to the contrary.
To advocate pure atheism - non-belief in a deity - is not exactly how most 'new atheists' actually view their philosophical outlook on the world. What they actually mean by 'atheism' is 'rationalism' or 'naturalism' or 'secular humanism '- all philosophies capable of adapting to new evidence as it emerges. Contrast this approach to the idea of faith, either in a religious or a political dogma and you will see how Stalin, while clearly being an atheist, could never be seen as a 'new atheist' (while I dislike the term I do think it at least points out that there is a difference in approach). On the other hand, Stalin was obviously a man of faith.

19. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80828 by Sigmund on October 23, 2007 at 6:22 am

phaseshift, its not a question of being able to think on your feet. Theistic arguments have not progressed for thousands of years so there is very little new that any theist will bring to the debate. All you need to do is pick a few points and argue them well. Hitchens generally does this very well and doesnt need an unlimited supply of points.

20. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80799 by Sigmund on October 23, 2007 at 4:37 am

When I saw Michael Shermer's name as the opponent on this one I was a little apprehensive, for good reason as it turned out. I agree with the earlier commentator who mentioned the Kent Hovind debate and a podcast debate with Bill Dembski where he likewise failed to land punches (in contrast to someone like Hitchens, Dawkins or Pigliucci who know how to approach these matters). Shermer is far too much a fence sitter for my liking. He is firmly part of the religion friendly group of atheists and you get the distint impression that he is doing all he can to avoid giving them something difficult to think about. You can only debate apologists like D'Souza if you are prepared to call them out on their lies or ignorance and Shermer, unfortunately, wasn't prepared to do this.

21. The Flea Circus moves to your iPod!

Comment #67813 by Sigmund on September 4, 2007 at 11:21 pm

Sorry pewkatchoo but I have to agree with the previous criticism of your approach.
You used the argument from authority and completely dismissed any chance that the author of this work might have something significant to say, all without making the slightest effort to hear anything of his arguments. It took me about thirty seconds to find the audiosamples from the book - at which point I realized it was indeed a load of nitpicking nonsense.
However I know that because I checked the evidence myself. Being a rationalist doesn't mean taking sides against ever critic of another rationalist - remember, even the best of us can make mistakes. No doubt there is a possibility that some valid criticism of The God Delusion could have been made but you should at least listen to the argument before you dismiss it out of hand.

22. The Flea Circus moves to your iPod!

Comment #67599 by Sigmund on September 4, 2007 at 1:27 am

This one is a little weird compared to the previous flea attacks.
Heres a link to some excerpts from this ipod book.
http://theintelligentcommunity.com/
Click ipod tutor and then audio samples.
I listened to it and got the impression that it wasn't a typical religious apologetic style attack on 'The God Delusion'. Rather it was cynically designed to make money from those religious people desperate for counter arguments to dismiss Dawkins arguments.
The audio sample seems to indicate their tactic against The God Delusion is to split it into hundreds of small excepts and then argue that each one of them, by itself, is a logical fallacy. This allows the authors of this piece to ignore parts of Richards argument, evidence provided etc, for each individual segment. Any detailed theory can be deconstructed and argued against in this manner but it is not exactly intellectually honest.

23. I'm gonna be a MOVIE STAR

Comment #65127 by Sigmund on August 23, 2007 at 1:19 am

The constant use of the 'academic freedom' angle within the ID community is nauseating. It just shows that these people are not scientists. If I write a grant application with the premise that everything on Earth was flown here last Tuesday by the masked chicken-men from the planet Mongo, who have cleverly covered up their tracks and left no evidence behind, it really isn't lack of academic freedom that stops me getting the grant.
The use of the term 'freedom' strikes a cord with many non scientists which is why it is being used in this way. And its not only members of the public that get caught out - I see that (former?) skeptic Michael Shermer has chimed in with a defence of the basic premise of this movie in his latest column for Scientific American.
"the principle of freedom stands above both science and religion."
So, Michael, does the Discovery Institute get to define 'freedom'?

24. Interview with Richard Dawkins about 'The Enemies of Reason'

Comment #63028 by Sigmund on August 13, 2007 at 12:42 am

Lets see, they are married, work together, live together, do everything together and spend almost 24 hours a day in each others company and yet occasionally have very similar dreams.
Its a miracle ! There can be no other explanation!
(Mind you, why is it that when I heard them say this the very first thought that went through my head was "yes, of course you do, its probably the nightmare realization of 'Aaaaaargh, I've married Judy Finnegan/Richard Maddley'" ?)

25. Lecture on Neo-Darwinism

Comment #52787 by Sigmund on June 28, 2007 at 4:50 am

Why is it always black, gay, atheist engineers?
;)

26. Lecture on Neo-Darwinism

Comment #52784 by Sigmund on June 28, 2007 at 4:42 am

Tyler,
That is simply a letter from a looney. I suspect the newspaper editor just decided to print it for a laugh. Having said that, the general level of scientific education in Ireland and the almost complete lack of rational thinking by the populace at large is pretty awful compared to the developed nations of Europe. I guess that explains the relatively low acceptance of evolution in Ireland. I actually grew up there and left in the eighties and yet I'm always dumbfounded by the levels of superstition I encounter every time I return. There is very little scientific skepticism in Ireland compared to what I would describe as a cynicism that does scientific reason no benefit.

27. Lecture on Neo-Darwinism

Comment #52753 by Sigmund on June 28, 2007 at 2:09 am

Zaphod, I guess I can let Richard off with the synonymous mutation point, given that it was an audience of humanists rather than molecular biologists but I still have a problem with the speciation question that has stuck with me from reading 'The Ancestors Tail' where Richard doesn't really emphasize this aspect enough for my liking. There really must have been some point where the chromosome 2 translocation occured that very rapidly separated out the human line, probably within a small number of generations (in an isolated population just three generations would be enough to fix it).
I used to work as a cytogeneticist myself and I would occasionally come across these sorts of translocations in couples referred for tests due to infertility problems so it sticks in my mind when I think about the likely effects of the chromosome 2 fusion event in human evolution.

28. Lecture on Neo-Darwinism

Comment #52742 by Sigmund on June 28, 2007 at 1:24 am

Very nice talk overall but I'm afraid Richard is somewhat out of date with his description of the neutral theory and his answer to the question of timing for speciation to occur with the guppies. Synonymous mutations CAN have important effects on proteins - primarily due to the fact that codons tend to be optimized to the most frequent tRNAs present within the cell and a mutation to an uncommon tRNA codon can affect translation rate and protein folding (and hence protein shape and function). Likewise I had a problem with his description of the horse/donkey and lion/tiger infertility question. Infertile crosses are often based on chromosomal numerical differences rather than slight changes throughout the genome as he suggested. A chromosomal alteration, such as occured with the robertsonian translocation that created human chromosome 2, can within two or three generations sweep through an isolated population and subsequently result in the inability of these individuals to breed with the original population due to unbalanced transfer of genetic material. Small gripes in an very good presentation.

29. Messiah

Comment #52430 by Sigmund on June 27, 2007 at 2:43 am

Its rather shocking that a pretend psychic like this can get results so similar to real psychics and healers such as Yuri Gellar, Silvia Brown and Benny Hinn;)
I bet he really is psychic and is just denying it! The big spoilsport.

30. Baby's 'miracle' recovery in British hospital to give Malta its first saint

Comment #45488 by Sigmund on May 28, 2007 at 2:26 am

I work in cancer research and it is not unusual to have 'miraculous' recoveries occurring when dealing with large numbers of cases. However, one must be very careful when reading about these situations not to assume that the patient has in fact recovered from an untreatable condition. By far the most common reason for this situation is misdiagnosis by the initial physician. In other words the patient didn't really have that disease in the first place. Doctors tend to stick by their own when this happens, they have a rather morbid fear of malpractice lawsuits - something that could easily follow a situation where a patient was put on chemotherapy or radiotherapy for a disease they didnt have. Quite often it is a lot easier for the doctor to go along with the 'miraculous recovery' story rather than 'ooops, I accidently put your child on chemotherapy for six months when they didn't need it!".

31. 20 Million Years and a Farewell

Comment #13759 by Sigmund on December 19, 2006 at 9:59 am

Genocide - the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.
Its sad to see a species go extinct but lets not get carried away here, no, its not genocide.
The environment changed and they couldnt adapt.