51. Does Evolution Select For Faster Evolvers? Horizontal Gene Transfer Adds To Complexity, Speed Of Evolution

Comment #19865 by LookToWindward on January 30, 2007 at 10:56 am

I thought it was just because the majority of our DNA was responsible for the intricate machinery within our cells, therefore you'd expect single-celled life to take up the majority of evolutionary history?

52. Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens debate blasphemy

Comment #19312 by LookToWindward on January 26, 2007 at 7:36 am

I suppose, Riley, that Hitchens is merely of the opinion that war is the only thing that will settle certain of these questions and may, in the very long term, end up being less awful (according to some measure of awfulness that includes death and suffering together) than the alternatives.

I don't agree with him, but I see where he's coming from.

And yes, like all extremely well read intellectuals, both of them regularly sacrifice accuracy and comprehensibility for poetry. Fair enough, sometimes I want to hear poetry.

53. Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens debate blasphemy

Comment #19290 by LookToWindward on January 26, 2007 at 5:42 am

That is quite the most brilliant and inspiring oratory I've heard in some time.

How wonderful it must be to be so well rounded and well read that one always knows precisely how to say what one means; and where one has borrowed from elsewhere one is able to remember precisely where, and even which passage.

54. Arguing for Atheism

Comment #19274 by LookToWindward on January 26, 2007 at 3:31 am

I wouldn't criticise RD for his invective because I think any robust debate needs its pit bulls as well as its poodles (and, as many have pointed out, there are plenty of pit bulls on the other side).

But I do wince when I hear him claim that he is not offensive nor goes out of his way to be offensive. Admittedly, his offensiveness is nowhere near as bad as the highly-sensitive religiots make out, but I would say things like calling people 'faith-heads', bashing Bush-voters, and consistently alluding to the high intelligence of atheists - sometimes directly mentioning the corollary (that the 'faith-heads' are unintelligent), sometimes indirectly - is on a par with political commentators calling a liberal a 'pinko' or someone calling a computer scientist a dorky nerd. Not highly offensive, but certainly not completely inoffensive. I think Richard should be a bit more honest about the fact that he does often intend to raise his opponents' hackles.

55. Unscientific American: US Almost Last in Understanding Evolution

Comment #18610 by LookToWindward on January 22, 2007 at 3:11 am

It's a fact that all living organisms on earth are descended from a common ancestor, and a theory that this is possible due to a mechanism governed by natural selection.

Since it is only really the fact that creationists dispute, the theory never really comes into it. Even without a good theory to explain descent, the facts point to common ancestry, in a way so thoroughly confirmed as to be as likely to be disproved as the fact of the Copernican solar system.

I wonder if we shouldn't come up with a different word for common ancestry so that we're not using the same word for both fact and theory, and we can finally put that tedious canard to bed.