51. Biology prof expelled from screening of 'Expelled'

Comment #148007 by chuckgoecke on March 21, 2008 at 7:11 pm

I went to the original article at twincities.com, link above, and just for fun, read some of the comments there about the original article. I was expecting some fun, and a lively discourse. I am sick to my stomach. This was my home state, and the number of utter idiots, with absolutely nothing to add to the discussion, was just appalling. There were a few good commnets, even a few from the wrong side, but ... it just hurt my brain. Interestingly, the behavior of PZ, when confronted by the officer and theater management, were independently described by two fellow attendies, and he was of course, very well behaved. Their comments about the chilling effects of having an officer patrolling about were equally priceless. I haven't read PZ's account yet, I'm heading that way next.

52. Sci-fi guru Clarke to have secular funeral

Comment #147494 by chuckgoecke on March 20, 2008 at 4:56 pm

Just as I now use the idle processing power of my Mac Mini to help science, when I pass on, I hope my organs and tissues of any value will be used for transplantation, and the rest of my body, given to science, perhaps to help a team of medical students become better doctors.

53. First 'Rule' Of Evolution Suggests That Life Is Destined To Become More Complex

Comment #146195 by chuckgoecke on March 18, 2008 at 6:27 pm

In my previous comment I eluded to increasing complexity being easy to see in the fossil record. One group that this is clearly demonstrated in, I recall(from my geology days at U or Mn, Morris, PZ Meyers' current university), were the Mesozoic Ammonites. In particular, one can see increasing complexity in the suture pattern on the sides of the shells. Ammonites are shelled cephalopods like the contemporary nautilus, but which died out with the dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous. The sutures are expressions of the walls formed between the current and previous body compartments, added as the animal grows. The suture patterns, which started out simple, became steadily more complex, and dendritic in later forms, through the Cretaceous. Additionally, the shells became more ornate with ridges and ornamentation. These fossils are abundant in the Pierre Shale which covers much of western South Dakota, and were the subject of my Senior Paleontology Project in 1979. (Several of my most beautiful specimens are in a display cabinet at my Republo-Christian brother's house, which were plundered from my collections while I was a grad school - if that ain't ironic).

54. Writer Arthur C Clarke dies at 90

Comment #146085 by chuckgoecke on March 18, 2008 at 3:39 pm

We have sadly lost a great imagination and visionary, in a man who also was rational, level headed, and a strong caller for reason and science. Good Bye, Arthur, Sir. I will miss you. Joyously, you will live on forever in our hearts and minds; everyone you have touched in your life.
Chuck

55. First 'Rule' Of Evolution Suggests That Life Is Destined To Become More Complex

Comment #146026 by chuckgoecke on March 18, 2008 at 1:47 pm

I can see it now.... Some intelligent designer will be attributed with pushing this drive to complexity. Rather than seeing this, as it really is, evidence of a natural process that leads, naturally to higher and higher complexity, the enemy will twist this around in exactly the opposite way. Oh well, they always do. Very interesting, if a bit obvious, to anyone who's ever looked at the fossil record.

56. Richard Dawkins on The Alan Colmes Show

Comment #143956 by chuckgoecke on March 14, 2008 at 6:10 pm

This was the first time I've heard Alan by himself. He's a great guy and very level headed, and it comes out perfectly when he's by himself. Put him with Hannity, and the avalanche of moronic drivel is so great, that Alan is overwhelmed. Alan needs to stiffen up his backbone and call the Fox morons out more often on the TV show.

57. Taking evidence seriously

Comment #137394 by chuckgoecke on March 2, 2008 at 7:35 pm

I am of course concerned about pseudo-scientific and mystical crap being swallowed by the public without any skepticism, but I'm also concerned about what I see as two misuses of skepticism. First is the distrust of well tested new technologies and products that are definitely going to greatly benefit mankind. These would be things like
1) Irradiation of food to kill micro-organisms.
2) Inserting certain genes in food crops to make them immune to broad spectrum but environmentally safer herbicides(Round-up Ready corn and soybeans). These things are tested for years before being released to the environment and food supply.
3) Cloning of Meat and Dairy animals to increase the number of highly productive individuals(been done in the plant world for thousands of years).
4) many more....

The second is the establishment medical or scientific community setting too high a hurtle of provable effectiveness in any new or alternative production or techniques.
Some examples of this I've noticed lately are:
1) Herbs - The studies of the herb Echinacea found that the herb did not prevent colds and only some studies showed that there was moderate reduction in symptoms and duration of the colds. The medical community appears to have written this herb off as useless. The proper dosing and other details of the studies may not have been met, plus it is not rational to expect anything to prevent a cold(no medicine does), caused by virus that an individual may not have any immunity for. Echinacea is something that is a cheap and has no negative side effects, and if it "may" reduce the duration of a miserable cold, I'll take it. The same could be said about moderately higher doses of Vitamins like C and E, and other antioxidants.

2) In my particular area of expertise, horticulture and agriculture, there is a constant and long running debate about organic versus synthetic techniques. In the area of fertilizers, very often the establishment of universities and chemical companies tell us that plants can only absorb nutrients in their ionic form, thus synthetic forms are just fine and all that is ever needed. Organic gardeners claim that strong synthetic fertilizers "burn" organic matter out of the soil, and reduce the biodiversity of the soil micro-organism community. Establishment people claim that there are no studies that show this happening, they see lots of micro-organisms in any soil. This particular argument is a dilemma, because who has the burden of proof here? The problem is that we don't know. We don't know what the baseline soil micro-organism diversity is or ought to be. Some recent studies suggest that we haven't even scratched the surface of what is the real range of soil micro-organism diversity. The ocean gene assay that we've read about recently needs to be repeated for the all soils of the earth, where it may be possible that moving laterally 10 feet(inches?) or vertically 2 inches results in a totally different community. A daunting task! Add to that, finding pristine soils in heavily agricultural areas may be impossible. I appears to me, that erring on the side of preserving soil bio-diversity might be smart. Thankfully, our mother earth seems able to fix a lot of our fuck-ups, but we may be reaching the limit of her abilities. Praise be to Gaia!
Conversely, some claims of organically inclined people are wildly unscientific, so I don't tend to automatically fall into their camp. In my neck of the woods, some claim that the magnetic properties of some rock powders have great impacts on plant growth. I can just say to that, "Show Me".

In summary, heathy skepticism is good, but blind, ignorant, ludditic or politically motivated skepticism is not.

58. Potentially Habitable Planets Are Common, Study Says

Comment #132479 by chuckgoecke on February 24, 2008 at 8:04 pm

I am all for SETI. I wish they would reinstate federal funding for it. My previous post was just to emphasize that it really is like looking for a needle in a giant haystack. But hopefully, there are lots of needles....

59. Richard Dawkins on five of his favorite books

Comment #132471 by chuckgoecke on February 24, 2008 at 7:46 pm

Matt Ridley - The Red Queen
Carl Sagan - Contact
Frank Herbert - The Dune Trilogy
Sir Arthur C. Clarke - Childhood's End
J. R. R. Tolkien - The Lord of the Rings Trilogy

Richard, Please, Please give us at least one novel, before you die. Carl did it. Do it for us; do it for Carl.

60. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #132448 by chuckgoecke on February 24, 2008 at 7:01 pm

This just emphasizes what I have said in another post of what an artificial, convenience term, the "species" is. Its an attempt to pigeon-hole what is in reality an amorphus genetic cloud. (being pulled around by the genes themselves, right, Richard?)

61. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #132436 by chuckgoecke on February 24, 2008 at 6:41 pm

His arguments are like the parapsychologist who claims that scientific observation somehow spoils the psychic energy, thus always ruining the attempts to verify the claims. I just heard that James Randi has removed this 1 million dollar challenge, having never had anyone close to winning it in the many years his challenge has been up.

62. Physicist Neil Turok: Big Bang Wasn't the Beginning

Comment #132418 by chuckgoecke on February 24, 2008 at 6:19 pm

I visited the site pulsar1z recommended, and think it very interesting. I love cosmology, although I do not have the background to "check the math" myself. However I think that breakthroughs are also possible coming from non-high level mathematics types. I just takes great imagination and maybe luck, plus lots of mental perspiration to come up with, or integrate, or synthesize or cross pollenate ideas into something that is closer to the truth. The high level math is required to ultimately check, or actually do the science, and hopefully confirm the theories. Amateur astronomy and cosmology is alive and well!

The Neil Turok's theory is similairly very interesting. I take issue with one thing he said, though. I do not believe that it would be fair or even correct to say that there is not any practical benefits to cosmological theories. The practical spinoffs are not likely to evident for some time, but thats like asking Ben Franklin what were the practical applications to his electrical experiments. The future practical aspects of understanding the nature of space-time and possible manipulation and control of it might be gia-normous(my wife remind me that the term doesn't apply to me.) I want a world with transporters and warp drive and worm holes and all that fun stuff.

63. Bart Ehrman, Questioning Religion on Why We Suffer

Comment #130526 by chuckgoecke on February 20, 2008 at 7:11 pm

I though of another reason I like my stupid tee shirt for my avatar. It so nicely highlights what a bunch of rabid, cannibalistic wife beaters living in a trailers us atheists are.... Uooops... I guess I should speak for myself.

From the underwhelming response for me to remove my avatar, I just might have to leave it for a while.

64. Bart Ehrman, Questioning Religion on Why We Suffer

Comment #130142 by chuckgoecke on February 20, 2008 at 6:19 am

Dear Mr., Ms., or Mrs. Teapot of Greatness,
Sorry you disapprove of my tee shirt pic. It's not me, although I sort of look like the guy. If I owned a tee shirt like that, I wouldn't burn it, but I also wouldn't wear it, except around certain friends. I like the pic, not because I advocate beating women, nor cannibalism, its the double-double entrandre, that I like. If you don't see that, sorry, but maybe you also might lighten up a bit. If lots of people are offended, all take the pic down.

65. Potentially Habitable Planets Are Common, Study Says

Comment #129926 by chuckgoecke on February 19, 2008 at 7:01 pm

The sad thing is that alien civilizations looking and listening for us here on earth only will have about a 100 year window of time when we are leaking radio energy out into space, basically the 1920's to the 2020's.(Out of a 14 billion year universe life and a 4 billion year earth habitability.) The rate that cellular, satellite, and fiber optic networks are replacing broadcast radio and TV, we will very soon not be leaking much radio energy out into the universe. Likewise we listeners for other civilization have this severe constraint on us, plus the possibility that many if not most other civilizations may not want to be listened to. Maybe they are worried about Borg-like super robot civilizations that assimilate other civilizations that they encounter( ie. find, by listening for), and spread across the universe like an ultra slow virus. Scary!

Maybe we should all observe the WWII poster with a GI holding up his cup and saying, "How about a nice cup of shut the fuck up".

66. Bart Ehrman, Questioning Religion on Why We Suffer

Comment #129882 by chuckgoecke on February 19, 2008 at 5:51 pm

Having now heard almost all of the show, it seems like Bart must have read Richard, Chistopher, et al reciently.
Chuck

67. Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God

Comment #125066 by chuckgoecke on February 10, 2008 at 9:21 pm

Boteach display some of the most breathtaking inanity in his misunderstanding of the science I've ever witnessed(I didn't partake in the Dover trial). Most of his arguments had the tone of extreme Zionist apology, as if Israel needs an apologist, especially one as inept and down right nasty as he. Except for about doubling my blood pressure, this debate was quite enjoyable.
chuck

68. Why Darwin matters

Comment #124215 by chuckgoecke on February 8, 2008 at 7:38 pm

Although Most of the "interesting stuff" happens within species it would be inaccurate to assert -if I remember "The Blind Watchmaker" correctly- that species selection is not something that happens and has an effect at all. This could be understood from reading this piece, and is not strictly true. I think one should be careful not to overstate one's point so as not to have one common misconception replaced by another. Clearly species selection can and does happen (some species end up in blind alleys and die off, others manage to find a path that leads to survival), although complexity itself evolves within a species.

The problem here is the term "species". It is more of a convenience term, then a precise definition(not unlike the biblical "kinds"). A species is a way to compartmentalize what in reality is a cloud of genetic traits, a cloud that is diffuse in some organisms and more sharp in others. The cloud drifts around, changes shape, and sometimes splits and rejoins with itself. If a split off of the cloud drifts away long enough, it becomes unable to rejoin with the original cloud. Sharply defined clouds would be organisms with little genetic diversity(like cheetahs), which may be more susceptible to changes in their physical or competitive environment. Larger clouds that are more diffuse have lots of variability and less susceptibility to extinction(like panthers). Really large clouds that are diffuse may have blobs breaking away and rejoining at all their edges, and some of them may become new species. Physical barriers may make this more likely. Behavioral barriers may also develop. Selection is the wind that pushes this drift around, blowing from multiple direction a different times. Occasionally the selection wind blows one organism's cloud over and pushes another's out of existence. Additionally, each organisms clouds are interacting with all other organisms clouds to one degree or another, sometimes helpfully, lots of time, harmfully, and mostly benignly. This is my understanding of genetic drift and speciation.

69. Blasphemy

Comment #122614 by chuckgoecke on February 5, 2008 at 4:03 pm

Hear, Hear, well said. We all must redouble our efforts to combat the political correctness and multicultural forgiveness that is going to make a bad situation worst in the coming years. Dan's comments here do just that.

70. Belief in Belief

Comment #117431 by chuckgoecke on January 28, 2008 at 7:33 pm

Brilliant stuff! Hitchens always makes me feel that I'm proud to stand with him, and that I am on the moral high ground, keeping myself in the rational world. I'd like to see more discussion of the whole discipline of theology, how it is an empty intellectual endeavor, just a bunch of old men, stroking themselves and rehashing tired old topics.

71. George Scales, War Hero and Generous Friend of RDFRS

Comment #111789 by chuckgoecke on January 15, 2008 at 6:54 pm

Dear George,
Thanks for your wonderful contributions to to this wonderful organization. The truth has a way of getting out. Good luck with your operations, give em 'ell there at the hospital, and realize that since you are fully within the realm of geezerdom(ear hair is a dead giveaway), you get free grabbing rights to the asses of all the lovely young nurses, and conversely free psssbping rights to all the ugly old ones.
chuck

72. The Group Delusion

Comment #110672 by chuckgoecke on January 11, 2008 at 9:58 pm

Anybody heard about the insomniac agnostic dyslexic...


He would lie awake at night wondering if there ready is a dog.

Wooter, First The primordial soup they talk about was the result of the reducing, (non-oxidizing, i.e. no oxygen) atmosphere, and the presents of high energy sources, like ultraviolet light, electricity from lightning and heat from lava, natural catalysts like clays and minerals and the raw elements like hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen. Amino acids , lipids, simple sugars were forming, and being destroyed all the time. Amino acids are molecules with a basic amino or ammonia-like end, and a acid or vinegar-like end. The whole ocean was literally a "soup" of thick, nasty organic sludge and gunk. Stanley, et al showed this happening in the 1950's. His experiment was an apparatus that contained maybe 1 or 2 liters of water. 4.3 billion years ago, the whole earth's ocean was the experimental vessel. These compounds were continually forming and breaking down, but some of them were more stable, so they started to accumulate. Some of them were able to hook-up with others in special ways, that aided their stability. They were mostly chains of amino acids, because the basic and acid ends attract to each other. In order for these molecules to be able to hook-up with their friends, their friend had to be special shape, or one type of mirror image of several. Molecular assemblages started to form, and the start of selection was occurring, even though, you could hardly call them "living". They couldn't reproduce yet, but the assemblages might have just grown, until they became unstable, and broke into small parts that they would then go on growing. Eventually, an assemblage was able to form that used a backbone of a simple chain called RNA to hang on to. RNA is kinda like an amino acid chain, only it has simple sugars and phosphates, as well as nitrogen containing compounds. This backbone could tear away from its assemblage, and help form a new assemblage. These assemblages were helping to stabilize each other, possibly forming together into a ring-like clusters, with their more vulnerable ends protecting each other, and their master RNA, sitting in the middle of the group, making more copies. That RNA was also able to make copies of itself, if conditions were right, and occasionally they were, but not most of the time. The copies were not very accurate, though, and there were lots of mistakes. Sometimes the mistakes were actually better at aggregating the amino-chains and releasing them, or better at making the chains that were themselves more stable, thus evolution was well off and running. Eventually RNA began copying itself with a similar backbone, with a slightly different sugar, that gave it much different properties. It was stiffer, and not as good at aggregating amino chains, but it was able to pair itself with an exact copy of itself, but in a converse or mirror image form, DNA. This was the backup copy if itself, and walla, genetics was born, an actual proto-life form was formed. Its called the "RNA world". These activities may have been at first occurring on the edges of clay crystals, that look like decks of cards, perhaps around very hot, violent places like near volcanos. Places people once thought not conducive to life, until they looked.
Thats the primordial soup story.

As far as how could life become complex, just look at a tree in the forest. It grows from a seed, thats pretty simple. Many seeds are similar when they first germinate, but each has a different life history, and its branching structure that develops is do to the complex interactions with its environment. The final tree is a very complex in shape and structure, but no one, no intelligence, has guided it on it way up into the forest canopy. Similarly, the evolution of life has been one long big tree, starting out as simple bacteria-like organisms becoming more complex all the time, but in a blind and unguided way, lots of false starts, broken branches, dead ends, and also with no set goal, just a tendency to spread out and upward as far as it can, filling every opening in the canopy.

73. The Group Delusion

Comment #110224 by chuckgoecke on January 10, 2008 at 4:44 pm

I am not a student of Biology (in fact, I am an absolute beginner on the subject), but after a careful reading of this article I have a question regarding the outcome of the research shown: while it can be shown that some species reach a pareto-optimal point in their behaviour, why is it we can see other similar species not exhibiting this behaviour, yet surviving just as well? Therefore, does this behaviour have an evolutionary advantage at all? Given the generational span of insects and the age of the earth, shouldn't we expect to see all insect species currently behaving in the same, optimal way?

Can anybody help?

Besides the multitude of ways of making a living etc., that Richard and others mentioned, all living things have multiple levels of adversities constantly coming their way, those adversities themselves are always evolving. One such group are parasites and disease organisms. Matt Ridley's book "The Red Queen" covered this marvelously. Like the Lewis Carol's Alice in Wonderland Red Queen, life forms are evolving (running) as fast as they can, just to stay in place.

74. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #105783 by chuckgoecke on January 1, 2008 at 8:16 pm

Hi everyone, Merry Solstice, and Happy New Year. Since I have officially changed underwear for 2008, I thought I'd share something I've change my mind about also.

Coming up with this admission, is actually very hard for me, because I know so much, and am very sure of my own correctness. But my major change of mind over this last year or so has been about Global Warming. No question that global warming is occurring, or that it is probably going to cause significant disruptions to agriculture, ecosystems, and human habitation. I am now convinced that these disruption are actually going to be net harmful to human society. Coming from Minnesota, global warming, as it became more and more obvious, reminded me of how much I hate cold weather. I love mild winters. I thought that, in-spite of the disruptions, the net gains would out-way the losses, people displaced by rising sea level could be relocated, and ecosystems, like agriculture, would just shift. Some farms will become ranches, soybeans will be replaced by peanuts, corn by cotton, spruce forests by wheat fields or hardwoods.

Trying to project the future climate can only done in terms of a range of possibilities; the models are far from perfect, but getting better. (In my former life, I used to be a petroleum engineer reservoir modeler, so I know a little about numerical modeling). My thinking that things might not be so bad, like many of our politicians - apparently, is based on splitting the differences between the best and worst cases, picking a probably future scenario that runs down the middle of the tornado shaped cloud of future possibilities.

At the beginning of 2007, the arctic scientists were thinking that the loss of permanent sea ice was was out in the 2030 time frame, but summer of 2007 musta been a scorcher up there, because they are now worried that the sea ice might be gone in five years or so. If one looks at the trend of the projections, rather than the projections themselves, it is worrisome. Considering the thinning of the ice, as well as the loss of area, summer after next starts looking like the time to invest in a sailing marina at Point Barrow, Alaska.

It will be a shame to loose all those big beautiful bears, walruses, and seals, but more importantly, it is the worst case scenarios, which are off the scale of the current models, that really worry me. The real worst case scenario, as I understand it, is not just bad droughts, hot summers, flooded coast lines. A runaway greenhouse could kill most all higher life on Earth. If the global circulation, the North Atlantic conveyor belt were to shut down, the whole Earth's oceans could, like the Black sea, become anaerobic below the surface. A permanent ocean thermo-cline could develop, which would have to very dire outcomes. (The Black Sea actually has a halo-cline due to different salinity of the incoming Mediterranean water and fresh surface water runoff). The ocean would not product nearly the food and oxygen it has up to now, but in a very worst case scenario the ocean might actually poison the earth's atmosphere with hydrogen sulphide. Sulfate reducing bacteria are the culprits, and there is nothing we could do about it by then. H2S is very poisonous; at levels like 2 - 4 parts per million. Sulfate reducing bacteria are photosynthetic purple colored very primitive life forms, usually found in hot springs. They use either light or carbon(organic matter) to make H2S from sulfate salts in the water. They are the nemesis of aquarists, and cause loss of fish and corals when a power outage stops aquarium circulation. Some geologists are now thinking that such a global runaway greenhouse H2S poisoning may have been the cause of the Permo-Triassic or other major extinction events. Fortunately for life on earth, not all critters are as sensitive as us humans, and mammals, but things won't be the same.
I think I'll try riding the train to work tomorrow.

75. U.S. Congress Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith

Comment #98500 by chuckgoecke on December 13, 2007 at 7:11 pm

Here's a few more resolutions we need:
Butterflies are Free!
Kissing Babies is Nice.
Apple Pie is Good.
We all Love our Moms... oh wait, we already have a day for that.
Cow shit is much better smelling than pig shit.
Nascar races are fast and furious.
How about them Cowboys!

76. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96640 by chuckgoecke on December 10, 2007 at 7:32 pm

Dear Father Jonathan,
So you think the horrible governments of Stalin, Mao, Pol , et al were horrible because they were atheist, then consider this. How do you think Richard Dawkins and the other free thought secularists (i.e. the four horsemen) would have faired in the Stalinist Soviet Union, or Pot Paul's Cambodia, trying to promote their ideas of free thought and stuff? Free thinkers would have been the first to disappear. I think you just call these governments atheist because they suppressed the church(s). They were suppressing any and all groups that attempted any free thought. That's what we call totalitarian - total control, of everything, including thought and action. Kinda patriarchal wouldn't you say? ...Father?

With Great Irreverence,

Chuck

77. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #91920 by chuckgoecke on November 29, 2007 at 2:51 pm

USA_Limey:

Defending Clintons lying about his philandering on the American tax payers dime in the whitehouse

Limey, if you could say that you have always given 100% of your time to your employer, you can make this comment un-hypocritically. But I doubt it. Clinton screwed up, no doubt, but neither the screw-up or the lying about it after word, come even remotely close to impeachable, except to a wickedly partisan congress. Clinton was a relatively brilliant president, especially considering the congresses he had to work with. He never lied about national security related issues such as Iraq, nor used his power to suppress good science, or career federal prosecuters. It was unfortunate that Clinton's indiscretions occurred in the Whitehouse, but remember, this is where he lived and worked, and it was the only place available to him. As for cohersion of a subordinate, I think Monica was the aggressor in this situation, she knew what she was doing, and knew enough to save the evidence, for what ever future plans she had for it. I wish you could, like his wonderful wife, find some way of forgiving him.
As for the breach of trust in a marriage, when there is an acceptable choice of degree of monogamy, perhaps some marriages can be held up to higher standards. People all have this reptilian personality lurking inside of them, and they will screw up occasionally. Is a 20 minute screw-up enough reason to throw away a twenty year relationship?

78. Stem cell breakthrough

Comment #90611 by chuckgoecke on November 25, 2007 at 7:34 pm

I'm ready for the full body stem cell makeover. You know, they take a cell of mine, pluripotentiate it, grow it into stem cells for all my major tissue types, heart, GI tract, nerve, etc. and inject them, in the right proportion. They float around, find their correct tissues, and six months later, I start reverse aging, and I'm back to 20 years old in 3 years. No problem, when do I sign up? Will my insurance cover this?
Chuck (reposted from Pharyngula)

79. Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

Comment #88568 by chuckgoecke on November 17, 2007 at 8:57 pm

JFHalsey wondered if species can loose a chromosome. I'm not a geneticist, and its been a while since I've had a Molecular Genetics class, but I think that loss of a whole chromosome would be a mutation that would be instantly fatal, assuming that every chromosome has at least one actual gene on it that creates an essential protein. The telomere/centromere search was a brilliant solution of the ape-human relation problem. People may not realize that besides the typical things that can cause minor mutations(single or localized base pair change), such as radiation or bad chemicals(diesel soot), I think some viruses can go into cells, insert themselves into the genome or snip and cut chromosomes apart, and re-assemble them, naturally doing what genetic engineers are doing now. Like most mutations these huge changes are almost always fatal, but occasionally... A really big non-fatal and favorable change might occur ...whalla Stephan J Gould's punctuations.

80. Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

Comment #88566 by chuckgoecke on November 17, 2007 at 8:29 pm

It seems to me that one of th ID/creationist arguments against evolution is the beauty, wonder and complexity of life on Earth. The argument is like saying, I (personally) can't comprehend how the complexity of the life on Earth arose or developed, by whatever means, therefore it must have been created by someone much bigger and smarter than me. Is this not the Argument from Personal Increduality, one of the lamest, weakest and crappiest arguments in all of rhetoric and debate? The only thing this kind of argument affirms is the weakness of the argumentors mind.

81. Eugenie Scott on Intelligent Design and Young Earth Creationism

Comment #84334 by chuckgoecke on November 1, 2007 at 7:09 pm

This is a great review of recent and historic creationism/ID developments. Those people sort of remind me of the moles or gophers in the game at Chuck-E-Cheese and other arcades, where one smacks down the animals into their borrows, and they pop up elsewhere, up-smack-down-up... Kind of a fun game, I seem to recall; I'd probably like it even better now, imagining the Pat Robertson's and his sort, not to mention some of our fearless political leaders as the little rats to smack.

82. Neanderthals May Have Had Gene for Speech

Comment #80225 by chuckgoecke on October 20, 2007 at 8:52 pm

It seems to me, the more they find out about anthropology, the closer the works of Jean Auel(sp), the Clan of the Cave Bear, etc author seems to have gotten it pretty much right. Neanderthals, according to her as I recall(must be 20 years since I read it), were somewhat brutish people, stocky, muscle bound, with rather primitive spoken language, but good sign language, with crude clothing, effective, but not precision stone tools, and hunting techniques that involved direct contact with the large powerful game animals. The Cro-Magnon, modern humans who were displacing them, were slimmer, faster, more agile, with much better vocal communications, better clothing that was sewn, and tools that were very refined with wickedly sharp thin blades attached to lightweight throwable lances that could safely take down faster and bigger game from farther away. The also may have exploited more food sources, such as fish. A lot of her theories were pretty fanciful, like domestication of animals 30 or 40 thousand years ago, but I think she got the basic differences between moderns and Neanderthals pretty much right.

83. New Rules: A Religious Test

Comment #73620 by chuckgoecke on September 25, 2007 at 2:49 pm

Richard Morgan said:

I love this guy, but still prefer Rowan Atkinson

I like another Rowan you-tube vid clip, where he plays a preacher. It puts forth an interesting speculation on the methods of the early Christian movement.


http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=fTzXJMU1sLc&NR=1

84. New Rules: A Religious Test

Comment #72999 by chuckgoecke on September 23, 2007 at 6:08 pm

I think the actress next to Salman, was Janeane Garofalo, with movies like "The Truth about Cats and Dogs", and a lot of cartoon voice-overs. She is a very cool comedian, social critic and atheist. Her bio is long and rich:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janeane_Garofalo

85. New Rules: A Religious Test

Comment #72990 by chuckgoecke on September 23, 2007 at 5:42 pm

I wish Bill would make a run for US president. I think he may do better than one might suspect. He has two natural constituencies, atheists and people who desperately want the stupid drug war to be over, both pretty decent size groups of folks. He might also suck over some of the very libertarian Republicans, and of course, he's a natural for a large chunk of Democrats. Of course there is lots of overlap between these groups, but I think he'd make a fair show. He would then be a nice counter point to Thompson. The Hollywood Bowl!

86. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #69131 by chuckgoecke on September 9, 2007 at 6:50 pm

This is pretty hilarious. Sorta makes me think, brother Stephan Colbert might have written it. As another hero of mine eluded to today, Garrison Keilor reminds us that irony is a sharp weapon in the hands of English Majors.
chuck

87. God Bless Me, It's a Best-Seller!

Comment #64326 by chuckgoecke on August 19, 2007 at 3:11 pm

Riley, in comment #64275 said:

Far from being "unused to debate" it's one of the activities that the fully engaged 'religious types' are most used to doing! The chief claim to fame of Jerry Falwell's Liberty 'University' is it's debate team! According to one rating system (albeit flawed), it's the number one debate team in the U.S. !

I believe Hitchens is referring to many Christians being unused to debate with atheists; having to really defend their faith. This is central to both Christopher's and Richard's argument; that why should religion be given such a free ride and kid-glove handling when it comes to debates or criticism.
Debates within the religious factions are of course vigorous and frequent, but to outsiders, I'm sure most of them are irrelevant. For instance, a few years back, when the Southern Baptist Convention produced the wonderful nugget of turd; that a wife should be subservient to her husband. I'm pretty sure that that stand was fairly hotly debated within the church bureaucracy, not for its correctness, but whether to put it out explicitly as doctrine.

Most of the defense of their faith the fundamentalist Christians have had to engage in lately, if you listen to the 700 club or others, is to defend the right to prayer in schools (in other words the right to force prayer in schools)or to post the 10 commandments on public buildings or the right to force saying the religious VERSION(post 1950's) of the Pledge of Allegiance.

chuck