1101. Fleabytes

Comment #135322 by MaxD on February 28, 2008 at 8:36 pm

Paula you said an interesting thing,

I'm convinced that he absolutely believes what he says he believes. I don't doubt it for a moment. This is one of the reasons why I decided that it should be his book, rather than the others, that I should deal with in detail. I think he absolutely believes that the whole of "creation" is the battlefield between God and Satan, good and evil, and that Jesus is the only solution to that battle so far as humans are concerned. I find that an utterly bizarre belief, and like most other contributors here I see that it has desperate consequences for the way he views life and the way he interacts with other people (particularly those who don't share his beliefs), but I have no doubt whatsover that he holds these beliefs with total sincerity.

I find this with alot of the apologists. After meeting them, and listening to them I am more or less always shocked when it isn't a scam, when they really believe. The little apologists, local apologists, priests and preachers can maybe be excused for simply buying into the tracts, and other materials. They, after all, arent responsible for the errors and obfuscations that tend to permeate every bit of religious apology I have ever read.

The authors of these tomes though, many of whom are obviously true believers, cannot be let off so easily. They are always the first to claim that religion imparts the most sure morality, and virtue in people yet they tend to engage in deeply dishonest tactics in the presentation of their own ideas and those of their intellectual foes. Isn't it shocking that the use of dishonesty is so prevalent among influential believers. It is a game of half-truth, quote-mining (sans the context of course), no truth and anti-truth.

What is sad is that David Robertson is so un-unique in his approach to his apologetics. By that I mean so dishonest.

1102. Fleabytes

Comment #135186 by MaxD on February 28, 2008 at 5:02 pm

I just read a response This clearthinker character wrote to an atheist in which he misrepresented Sam Harris in the following way.

I assume you have read Sam Harris's latest astonishing statement that there are some people who deserve to be killed because of their beliefs?

I think this line by Harris is taken entirely out of context as it was focused on the curbing of relgious inspired violence by such communities as were so addled by such beliefs as to be beyond the influence of rational discourse. I suppose we already do some of this when we send missles into caves filled with Al Qaeda members. They may not have yet killed Americans or Brits but we are essentiall killing them for those beliefs that drive them to kill us. It wasn't simply a blanket statement about killing people whose beliefs with which we simply disagee. Moreover it was line embedded in larger philosophical discussion on our moral action in war.

1103. Fleabytes

Comment #134938 by MaxD on February 28, 2008 at 11:08 am

Clearthinker are you sure the following line is from the Blind Watchmaker,

"in a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference' Richard Dawkins The Blind Watchmaker.

It isn't that I care one way or the other. I think it accurately reflects the universe we are in. I just remember it or a line very like it from River Out of Eden (which I think is an excellent primer for school children on evolution.)

1104. Fleabytes

Comment #134932 by MaxD on February 28, 2008 at 10:56 am

Paula said:

It would take Wee Flea logic to interpret this as quaking in their boots, but then, that's the only logic (sic) you seem to have access to. Fact is, David, you are determined to distort everything to force it to fit in with your view of the matter, no matter how devious or transparently dishonest you have to be in the process. Please don't think for one moment that anyone is fooled by your antics.

I just wanted to repeat it for the cheap seats.

1105. Fleabytes

Comment #134928 by MaxD on February 28, 2008 at 10:45 am

clearthinker said:

'Dachau is wrong is not a fact'. I cannot prove that Dachau is wrong to an atheist, because a consistent atheist is a materialist for whom the only facts are those that can be empirically proven.

I'm not sure how you could not convince or prove to an atheist that Dachau was wrong. I am not sure how you have come to convince yourself this is a fact based on line from Betrand Russell. It seems that one need realize that we are all more or less equipped with the same basic psychological hardware to recognize that other people-regardless of their enemy status-share the same pain receptors and same drives. Simple human empathy would get you to that point with any atheist that was unwilling to engage in the kind of nationalism inspired in group/out group demonizing that often goes on in conflicts. The sciences of human nature have done more to put the commonality of the human family on an evidence based footing than the ancient religions.

Clearthinker you also make the mistaken case that our suspicion that there is not a supernatural world to consider is itself a claim of faith.

I have done this already and now do so again. Your atheism is not just simply an absence of belief in God. It is a an absence of belief in God based upon a materialist/naturalist philosophy. In other words you start from the presupposition that there is only the natural, there is only matter and that any claims to the supernatural are de facto false. That is a faith position and a self contradictory one because ironically the statement that, only that which can be proven materially can be objective fact, is itself a statement which cannot be proven materially and therefore cannot be objective fact.

I wouldn't presume to speak for everyone here but it certainly isn't a faith claim on my part. Clearly as a scienctist I favor any approach that attempts to explain phenomena with a maximizing of parsimony. However I would be quite fine with any reasonble demonstration of supernatural phenomena, whose research methodology was well described and submitted itself to the scrutiny of the rest of the scientific world.

If anyone could demonstrate in a repeatable way ESP, telekinesis, out of body experience, life after death, angels (what a taxonomic nightmare that might be!) or any other such claim I'd happily review it and send my tax dollars in to examine it some more.

My skepticism on the supernatural point though has to do with the almost cosmic amount of nothing that has been found in support of any supernatural hypothesis. I used to be very open to many supernatural ideas, as well as to the cryptozoological. I am tempted to the snide, "but I then grew up and graduated high school." Certainly maturing in my thinking was a factor. The main one though is just that there is no evidence for any supernatural claim. One has to lose hope in an endeavor after decades of failed work. Wouldn't you say?

1106. Are they running for President or Pastor-in-Chief?

Comment #134784 by MaxD on February 28, 2008 at 7:55 am

It is deeply annoying. I wonder how many of my of my fellow americans roll their eyes when they hear these characters drone on so about Jeebus. I know I do. I have to hear this kind of shit at sports games, and in politics. And of course you can't go more than two weeks in this country-in most places- without having some television show pontificate about the glories of faith and its god-damn necessatiy. (This just happened while I was watching the first season of The Unit. It almost ruined the show for me.) And of course you will run into many an evangalizer if you get out very much at all.
It is a strange counrty where ones fantasy life can be percieved as a something you want to export to your neighbors.
I wonder if my evangelical neighbors would find themselves edified to hear about my new found obsession and worship of Juxtamonkey? Would they like it when I quoted her at great length?
I'm not sure I think I will go try it.

1107. Are they running for President or Pastor-in-Chief?

Comment #134493 by MaxD on February 27, 2008 at 10:05 pm

Testujin,
You said,

Putting yourself in their shoes, how would you sidestep those ridiculous questions without raising concerns or losing votes? Keeping in mind that this is a popularity contest.

I think the easiest way to sidestep these kinds of assine quesitons is with the following statement or style of statement.

"I think that the American people are tired of politicians pandering to them in this obvious way. Our country values religious freedom and expression, just as much as if values freedom from any government establishment thereof. As your (plug elected office in here) I will strive to act in ways that help all Americans regardless of who or what they worship. What I categorically won't do Mr. Russert is answer this frivolous question. I will not do this not because I am afraid of what the American public would think of me. I am refusing to answer your question because it isn't in any way germaine to the business of governance."

1108. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #134454 by MaxD on February 27, 2008 at 8:08 pm

"Why do you uh..say its uh..bad?"
Joy has had a great deal of the new age quacks on her show. I think she has a bit of the post-modernist "oh well it all good....if it is right for you it can't be wrong."

"That just means we have a poor education system." Refering to a point Dawkins made about the widespread belief that the Earth is 6000 years old. This is just moronic. It has nothing to the education system. I've read dozens of science text books and not one of them has ever said the Earth is between 5.6 billion and 6000 years old. The 6000 year belief is a product of religious indoctrination and as such gets hammered into kids I daresay a bit more often than the time they spend doing science. Ms. Cardine is either too dense or too polite to point that out, or accept it as damning the religious mindset.

1109. The Giant Tortoise's Tale

Comment #134136 by MaxD on February 27, 2008 at 10:11 am

My personal favorite of this kind of documentary is probably
Attenborough's The Life of Mammals. The Life of Birds is also a huge pleasure to watch.
Comparing the Cosmos series with the Attenboroughs work or Dawkins isn't quite fair I don't think. They are not focused on the same things. I think most of Attenborough's docs are equal in quality and excellence to Sagan's cosmos. As does Root of All Evil. But to put one above the other seems to miss the point.

1110. The Giant Tortoise's Tale

Comment #133810 by MaxD on February 26, 2008 at 9:39 pm

Will there be another trip to the Galapagos lead by the RDF any time soon?

1111. Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

Comment #133807 by MaxD on February 26, 2008 at 9:18 pm

Bitter and confused. Bitter and confused.
That is what I think.

1112. Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

Comment #133589 by MaxD on February 26, 2008 at 12:04 pm

Teratornis,
I just don't like your terminology I am afraid. Social Darwinism, Sexual markets for instance seem to be evoking several ideas into the broken service of defending your malaise about this 90/10 business.

The simple fact is that people chose sexual partners much of the time because they have recieved several cues/clues that the mating will be a good thing. Much of it is thoughtless on the part of the maters. But instinctively they are picking up signals about good genes, especially when the goal is simply about whether or not they should have sex with a person. If you are lucky enough to be found attractive by a potential partner, you will be instantly funnier, better looking, more of turn on, more sensitive more everything. Thus you will be more likely to get laid with at least this person.
This isn't necessarily the same thing as long-term mate selection. For this other clues are sought. Sometimes there is an overlap of the two types of signal searching, sometimes there isn't. I'm going to guess-though I know of no studies that have made this specific finding- that where that overlap is strong partnerships tend to have more fidelity.

Teratornis also said:
"I don't know why so many people seem to assume that because two people married each other, that tells the whole story about what they find attractive. That would be like saying all the people who scrub other people's toilets for a living have their dream jobs. People at the top of the employment market are probably a lot closer to doing what they want to do for a living, than are people at the bottom."

I certainly never said any such thing about what marriages imply about mate preferences. I think I've said that they are complicated by several factors. I am further saying that what people may choose in a long term mate may not be the same thing as what, or rather who, they choose for sex.

I think you have identified something rather salient about sex after 40. But you have missed something at the same time. Male mate preferance doesn't alter that much (think of how many marriages go the way of the dodo because the male-over 40- decides to trade his old model in for a 20something new model). I am not sure female preferences change all that much either. However Males, certainly established ones, seem attractive to younger women. Older men (women tend to prefer men between 5-10 years older) are an ancient signal of good genes (that may be a false signal with medicine prolonging the lives of people who in the environment of our evolutionary history would have been smilodon food). Older males have survived and that has, for most of human history, not been an easy thing. While older women may still prefer men older than themselves after 40 (or at least men the same age) they are much less likely to find such mates. Their reproductive age is behind them along with all the physical factors men find attractive.

1113. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #133578 by MaxD on February 26, 2008 at 11:36 am

Juxtamonkey,
Having just read the verse, " Quetzalcoatl 4:69:87:577:fuck." I think I understand the verse though it is deeply profound. It has me wondering....
Uh...could I get in on this new, or is it old religion.

1114. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #133563 by MaxD on February 26, 2008 at 11:22 am

Frankus,
Is your avatar a McFarlane drawing?
-max

1115. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #133558 by MaxD on February 26, 2008 at 11:16 am

Well said Igor!

1116. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #133548 by MaxD on February 26, 2008 at 11:00 am

OMFG as they say in these internet parts.
Did this guy even read the books he so confindently waxes on about? Does he understand anything repeatablity? Does he understand that Dawkins seeing an Angel would constitute no proof of anything unless we could repeat the process in a predictable manner.

I was well into my paroxyms before this line, "The striking naivete of this viewpoint becomes clear," but after that I felt like punching my computer screen. Alas.

What is naive is that this guy thinks one person's "vision" of an Angel constitutes-how I'm not sure- proof of anything. This is a ghastly place to have come with smarts that are purportedly greater than those of a Dawkins or a Dennett or a Harris or a Hitch, or for that matter for someone whose smarts are greater than that of my dog. Even my dog may know better than to engage in this kind of sloppy reasoning.

If you are going to be religious you have to more or less place your faith on its own ground which isn't the fertile one of science. That is why they call it faith. Those people claiming that science proves the existance of God have fucked up royally because of course there is nothing like proof or evidence for the assertions of faith. There are anecdotes surely. But they exist for every crack pot idea you might come across. We can't credit every anecdote with out replication or some other form of experimentation that supports it.
NOMA while quite easy to discredit gets at least that much right. If someone said "my belief in God is based on faith that it is so" has essentially precluded themselves from a rationale discussion of said beliefs. They are off the hook because they aren't making claims about objective reality that can be tested. But you can't step in to the scientific realm and not expect other scientists to handle your pet claims, hypotheses with kid gloves just because you are attached to the outcome of such testing.

This apologist doesn't understand that.

1117. Richard Dawkins on five of his favorite books

Comment #133123 by MaxD on February 25, 2008 at 4:19 pm

Is it supposed to be fiction?
Well here are my 5 fiction faves in no particular order.
1. Lord Of the rings (including the Hobbit..a bit of a cheat I know)
2. It: Stephen King
3. Watership Down: Richard Adams
4. Franny and Zoe: Salinger
5. Batman: The Dark Knight Returns: Frank Miller
Honorable Mention(s):
The Maltese Falcon: Dashell Hammett
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn: Mark Twain
Animal Farm: George Orwell

Worst Fiction Book Ever:
The Taking: Dean Koontz (It was a gift to me. Ugh.)


Fave Fiv
e Non-Fiction again no particular order
1. The Demon Haunted World: Sagan
2. Cosmos: Sagan
3. The Selfish Gene: Dawkins
4. The Extended Phenotype: Dawkins
5. The Blank Slate: Pinker
Honorable Mention(s)
The Blind Watchmaker: Dawkins
The Dinosaur Heresies: Bakker

1118. Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

Comment #132990 by MaxD on February 25, 2008 at 1:50 pm

Teratornis,
You said:
Sex is the last bastion of Social Darwinism. The sexual market is ruthlessly efficient, sorting people according to their value in that market (their sexual market value). An oversimplified summary: rock stars get the supermodels, and everybody else has to settle to some degree.

It isn't the last bastion of Social Darwinism. It is just darwinism. Its called assortative mating. People tend to mate with people of like physical characteristics. Most couples are good matches for things like symmetry, major-histocompatiblity complexes and the like. Does money and power often figure into mating choices? Sure but it is less a factor in our sexual choices. Here the host of neo-darwinian clues are sought, most without anyone being any wiser.

Women and men are looking for mates with good genes and they are looking for signals that demonstrate such qualities. There is the assortative mating calculus (unknowingly calculated) that tends to see most long term couples assorting in which the spouses more or less match each other along an array factors that indicate status, health, symmetry etc.

You owe it to yourself to review evolutionary theory before you try to co-opt to make one of your points. You also need to find out what social darwinism is.

1119. Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

Comment #132182 by MaxD on February 24, 2008 at 12:28 pm

Teratornins.
I think you are the only one who doesn't get what I am saying. I don't trust you because of your self-righteous moralizing. I don't like reading your stuff because it is chalk full of rude insults and condescension. I've tried to be more or less friendly in our exchanges until the last post. And that is because you essentially talk past anyone who doesn't quite share your view. You could just say, well I'm not convinced by what you say, provide your links and shut the fuck up.

But every time you say "now take a deep breath it can be really hard to connect dots" I just tune out. I hear what you are saying, I've read what you wrote. I remain unconvinced on a few points. I am also unconvinced on the peak oil business. But it remains something I am going to continue researching. You may be right, but I doubt it. We have been hearing this end of the world business for 40 or 50 years. It becomes a matter of chicken little type skepticism on my part. And I will have to see something more convincing than wikipedia to make me quake in my boots. You are right though about one thing. Everything YOU write is easy to evaluate from its written expression alone. That is to say it is condescending, self-righteous, long-winded shit. Equal parts paranoid bull and of general variety.


I'm glad you love wikipedia. I'm glad you love your computer. And that you have group bike trips with people who are able to tolerate you.

1120. Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

Comment #131892 by MaxD on February 23, 2008 at 2:37 pm

Sweet Evil Jesus. Teratornis you are a dense fellow who seems intent on confusing things.
Not only do you miss the point of what I am saying, you continue to write excessively about what you have misunderstood.

Oh and that moronic bit about moving through wires was not only not entirely accurate, but condescending to boot. Fuckwit.

All I am saying is that at the moment human nature is bent toward face to face contact for establishing trust and reciprocity. Ebay has some methods built into it that help us navigate our natural distrust. Namely the ability to look at the satisfaction of other people who have done business with the person we have never met. This capitalizes on our need to kick tires and shit that I was refering too. This can be done on forum like ebay, but not as much when picking our leaders. We can of course go looking at their voting records, but that is for the more conscientious voter and not the average voter who is picking their leader along other criteria. Namely personal factors. Teleivision is a descent medium for us to see our candidates and leaders interact with others. And maybe it would be enough if that is all they were allowed to do. But again, look at the candidates that didn't submit to the travel junkie business. They got fucked. Television is a nice medium to be sure, but the candidates needed to be in the states for more than just the debates to be seen on local tv more and by the population in those states.
Fuckwit.

Humans didn't evolve to adapt. We are lucky to be a highly adaptable species. Maybe even capable of doing what you are saying but not with out more training, education. Which I am sure you would advocate. I would too. Humans have not been able to overthrow several hold overs from the environment of evolution, namely as Pleistocene hunter/gatherers. This has reprocutions your simple, "stop being travel junkies" slogan doesn't address.
Fuckwit.
That is all I am saying. I haven't been condescending to your dumb ass. I've argued my case and you continue to misunderstand because you like your nice simple vision.

Futhermore I give not two shits about changing yoru myopic, blinkered mind. I was just saying that human psychology poses some problems for your picture. We do communicate on this forum, but I don't know you. Don't trust you (how can I establish in a few posts on a forum). I don't like you and we aren't friends. Some of these factors would likely change if we were discussing this daily at work, or a pub.
Back later for another one of your cut and paste jobs.
fuckwit.

1121. DLD08 - Life: a gene-centric view

Comment #131071 by MaxD on February 21, 2008 at 9:46 pm

Oh shit, bats are really birds. So much the worse for the Aves.

1122. Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

Comment #131069 by MaxD on February 21, 2008 at 9:40 pm

cerireid,
I had been meaning to speak to the point about being a pop diva but felt I would come off like that "leave brittany ALONE!" guy. However you answered the question in a way that I hope robotaholic will find as eloquent as I did.

1123. Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

Comment #131048 by MaxD on February 21, 2008 at 7:45 pm

Damn,
someone just ruined my hamster propulsion idea. I better call the patent office and tell them it was a wash.

1124. The Lava Lizard's Tale

Comment #130910 by MaxD on February 21, 2008 at 1:33 pm

That was quite amazing. I think Natural History ought to give Dawkins some column space. It, his column could be called "The tales."

1125. Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

Comment #130899 by MaxD on February 21, 2008 at 1:20 pm

Ah...there is hope for the world,
If a person can go from "Fuck AHA...she can take her chances as long as she works at the AEI," to "I'm willing to revise the opinion based on some contrary evidence." There is hope indeed.

1126. DLD08 - Life: a gene-centric view

Comment #130857 by MaxD on February 21, 2008 at 12:00 pm

I like Venter in that he says alot of challenging things, and sparks my imagination.

1127. Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

Comment #130853 by MaxD on February 21, 2008 at 11:56 am

I am sure you are correct about the Jewish Neo-cons though Wolfowitz is an interesting case in that he doesn't fit your mold well.
I do believe he is idealistic inthe same way Hitch is. I'm not saying he is right to have pushed for the removal of saddam however he was, I think sincere in his rationale. At least that is what most sources close to this suggest.

1128. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130845 by MaxD on February 21, 2008 at 11:44 am

Here is my contribution to blasephemous joke-mongering.
What is the difference between jesus and a picture of Jesus? It takes only one nail to hang up a picutre of Jesus.

1129. Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

Comment #130844 by MaxD on February 21, 2008 at 11:40 am

Al-rawandi,
I do have to disagree with some of your stance on AHA. I believe AHA left the Netherlands because her security concerns were finally too grave to stay.
Moreover I think it is strange that you would hold such venom for her because of where she works. Richard Clarke for a time worked inthe Bush WhiteHouse, I don't think you would impugne his character on the basis of that. I'll understand if you think that is an apples to oranges comparison. It doesn't seem entirely fair. I think that the Dutch gov has behaved in a way that speaks of some craven political pandering. They do have a large Muslim population with more than its share of fanatics. "See we don't like her and won't help her, and look we've announced that she is now on her own." Sort of an open season announcemnt according to Harris and Rushdie. I tend to agree. I think European leadership tends to be pretty craven when regarding its muslim populations. When it should be making broader overtures to the moderates of such communties, showing others that such philosphies, and societal integration are what will be rewarded.

I presume you agree with AHA on most of her critique of Islam. So why the vitriole? I'm not trying to attack you here, just curious. Because you sometimes have the appearance of a jilted lover when talking about her. This is okay too. I've been just as angry at George Lucas for fucking up my childhood by adding Attack of the Clones and the Indiana Jones Chronicles to canons that I love.
Ugh.

1130. Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

Comment #130819 by MaxD on February 21, 2008 at 10:27 am

I myself get tired of hearing about bio-diesel. At least when mentioned by environmentalists. Because it won't do a damn thing about our evironmental concerns. Bio-diesel and other bio-fuels have the good quality of perhaps weening us from foreign energy sources but it will not limit the production of greenhouse gasses by much if any amount.
I think hamsters on wheels that turn the shaft are the way to go.

1131. Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

Comment #130815 by MaxD on February 21, 2008 at 10:20 am

I thought about addressing that point, but the cyber sex comment had me drifting into ad homs about gamers and other lifeless people. From Teratornis's posts we can't assume he is one of the computer limited, 12 sided dice rolling variety. Just that he is a bit self-righteous about bicycles. Which is fine. I just think he doesn't realize that he his information technology while wonderous isn't overcoming simple habits like smoking (while an addiction it is certainly on the wane as a past-time. Well at least in the US. When I was in Ireland a couple of months ago it seemed as if everyone, as one old timer put it, "had a fag in their gob.") It is more than just habit, I think it is a hard-wired part of our psyche that demands many of these things kind of things like face to face contact, like word of mouth. I'm not saying it can't be overcome, though I will admit I personally don't want it to be terribly well over come. I am a travle junkie. I like seeing new sights, meeting new people and being exposed to new cultures. Sure I could have seen pictures of Newgrange on the infotainment superhighway. But I would have lacked the being there. I wouldn't have had the drizzle, or the sound of the Boyne, or the jay like calls of the Jackdaws. Or the locally grown Guinness!
I tried really hard to figure out a way to bike to Ireland, I really did.....

1132. DLD08 - Life: a gene-centric view

Comment #130813 by MaxD on February 21, 2008 at 10:14 am

Oh, also the audience seemed particularly dim-witted. I was ready for some of the deeper questions but we got questions about the soul?

1133. Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

Comment #130795 by MaxD on February 21, 2008 at 9:48 am

Teratornis said the following:
OK, here's the big conceptual leap: every part of this "more" can fit through a wire. Even if humans want to have sex with their leaders, eventually we can figure out how to fit that through a wire too.

People happen to still be using travel junkie methods to move mere information for two reasons:

1. Historically that was the only way to do it.
2. People are slow to change.

Now this seems to confuse several things at once, and be a bit question begging in the bargain. First though let me say I agree if it were just a matter of moving information around then the fiber optic wire would be the way to do everything. However humans did not evolve with this technology and this has dramatic influence on how we establish trust.
Humans are gregarious, social primates. We like to meet the people who are telling us their ideas, that way we can kick the tires, watch their eyes and examine the way they deal with others. Much of this require some kind of person to person interface.
Television, and the internet has broadened our ability to see candidates and get the details of their messages, but if we weren't seeing them interact with others on then we would be less interested in them. Not everyone gets to meet our political candidates but we do get to see them met, and we get to see them react to new situations and people. This satisfies some deep need in our psychologies. I will have you note again the Giulianni campaign and the blunders it made in not giving into the "travel junkie ways" of politicians.

Of course people are slow to change. And every thing you say is true about the wire being more effiecent. However i don't think it is more efficeint at establishing trust. I not saying the method is full proof, far from it. I am just saying that interaction in real time with real people is a demand made on us by our evolved psychology. Currently our use of these tools is a supplement to the other methods we use to assess people and what they are telling us.

1134. DLD08 - Life: a gene-centric view

Comment #130779 by MaxD on February 21, 2008 at 9:21 am

I think Dawkins has a genuine interest in the question because much of the relationships positied in Ancestor's Tale heavily utilizes the work of molecular tasonomy.

I think he and Venter have both hinted at a new taxonomy that simply tracked individual genes through their evolutionary lineages, but Venter is suggesting something quite different, and as it happens more than I think is warranted by the existing evidence.

So until I see a strong presentation of the case Venter makes, in a paper say, I'm going to continue to give the molecular taxonomists the benefit of the doubt.

1135. DLD08 - Life: a gene-centric view

Comment #130569 by MaxD on February 20, 2008 at 11:05 pm

I understand Venter's point about various cross-contamination into the genome's of organisms and at first it sounds like he is onto something. His critique would really be damaging mostly to a lot the early work by Sibley and Alquist (especially their bird work). They utilized DNA hybridization and were not interested in specific genes.

However when I was doing my work on Corvid Phylogenetics I looked primarily at a single highly conserved gene (mitochondrial cyt-b). More than this it seems like you would be wise to use samples from various populations, and in as large a numbers as you can get. This will wash out or identify the kinds of anomolies that Venter seems to think damn molecular taxonomy. Most of the time these genetic analysis fall out the way you would predict from phenotypic analysis alone. I think that is strong evidence that molecular taxonomy has more than a grain of truth to it.

In any event I am not yet convinced by Venter's argument that the whole enterprise is flawed. I too am anxious to hear more of his argument.

1136. DLD08 - Life: a gene-centric view

Comment #130552 by MaxD on February 20, 2008 at 8:24 pm

Mitchell Gilks,
I was trying to explain this tick of our nomenclature and taxononmy to krisking as he was so hung up on labels.

1137. Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

Comment #130544 by MaxD on February 20, 2008 at 8:08 pm

Teratornis,
I agree we are addicted to oil. I am all for new technologies that reduce our need for the stuff. My reasons are two fold. I don't like that represive govs get money because they happen to have been lucky enough to have been created on a land rich in a substance that will cause the overlooing of various human rights violations by otherwise rationale nice moral people. My other reason is that fossil fuels are hell on the environment.

However calling amerians travel junkies is not the same thing as saying we are addicted to oil. Though I grant you the automobile holds a special place in American Mythology. It will probably continue to hold one in our deeply backwards american hearts when the technology provides us with clean running none fossil fuel using cars. I do try to offset my fuel consumption by donating money to conservation and restoration funds.
I could probably bike across the US, however, my kid probably couldn't, and my wife the medical student doesn't have time for bike trips right now. In the summer's I do bike just about everywhere I go. But my location makes biking not terribly feasible for a portion of the year.
Biking when single and well placed in a community works excellently well. But juggling more than myself in an area with poor mass transit makes my dependance on my car something I just don't feel I have to apologize for.

Now does some oil money get sent to terrorists? I am sure that is so. But I am for killing the terrorists and pressuring those who would give them succour by any means necessary to quote the great revolutionary leader Magneto. In the meantime I say we develop those technologies that will help us live greener and still be travel junkies.

1138. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130411 by MaxD on February 20, 2008 at 1:12 pm

Ha,
It is very "fascile" bishop. Unlike the deluded contortions required to believe the reprehensibly goofy.

1139. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130405 by MaxD on February 20, 2008 at 1:08 pm

Of course it was (refering to the LOTR being more coherent lit).
What the hell? Isn't the bible supposed to be written by one person? Seriously? Couldn't the producer of the Universe in all its glory get one book right. Why all the confusion about the paternity of Jesus that betrays itself in the pages.
Why can't God get it correctly? Does he need an editor? And please do not waste my time with any nonsense about it being written through people. God-who knew every hair on my head before I was born- could work out the dication to paper problem.

1140. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130390 by MaxD on February 20, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Bishop,
You see precisely what you want to. This involves the habit, decidedly bad, of looking only at those things you find support your idea. We tacky science folks call that confirmation bias.
Your world view is a combination of entrenched supernaturalism, confirmation bias and ignorance. I'll understand if you think the last two are kind of the same thing. But I think they represent different aspects along a spectrum of know nothingness.

1141. Why Darwin matters

Comment #129839 by MaxD on February 19, 2008 at 4:15 pm

I think most of the true friends will be true friends even still. But having a big whooping dance fest where hooting and hollering into a deaf sky will probably vanish.

1142. Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God

Comment #129814 by MaxD on February 19, 2008 at 3:42 pm

But if you are going to pray for me I've been hoping for subscriptions to several marvel comics and a renewal of The Auk. And hell I'd really like a subscription to Ecology too. The comics I am going to keep to myself and if someone happens to get me the subscriptions to the right ones I will see it as the hand of dog, I mean God.

1143. Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God

Comment #129811 by MaxD on February 19, 2008 at 3:39 pm

Someone has an avatar here that says: Prayer how to do nothing while believing you are doing something.
I know that isn't quite the whole thing but....close enough.

1144. Why Darwin matters

Comment #129801 by MaxD on February 19, 2008 at 3:30 pm

Krisking,
I have provided evidence. I think we all have. I hate to keep harping on this but you need to go look at a herring gull picture and lesser black-backed gull. They are seperate species. They do not interbreed yet are connected by a ring around the northern hemispher of closely related species. As you progress in one direction around the hemisphere each group can breed with its neighboring group but not groups farther away until the species at one the herring gull say can no longer breed with species on the other end the Lesser black-backed gull. What we see is a more or less continuous morphological and behavioral gradient between the two species on the "ends" of the ring. Wipe out the species in between and you would have what looked like unconnected species and not two relatives at either end of a kind of gradient. I'm sure you will just say well, they are still birds while ignoring the evidence. The confusing thing about our taxonomic labels is that they fix a more fluid and dynamic process.

There is a relative of the mongoose that is large, scampers about in trees hunting monkeys. Now to look at it you would never say "oh clearly a mongoose." That fact was worked out with careful attention to other details. It looks to me like a cross between a cat and a dog that has been dorso-ventrally compressed un-equally from front to back. That is its forelimbs are shorter than it's hindlimbs. Even still it doesn't fit terribly comfortably within the mongoose morphology so your chide, well its still an X doesn't work. Though clearly that it is called a mongoose will give you fits. You will have to resort to something both weaker and more revealing, "Well its still in he carniovora, or its still a mammal."


I notice you do avoid dealling with points such as this. This leads me to believe that your really are just a believer looking for proof of the assertions of your faith. Best of luck if that is the case.

1145. Cutting Edge: Baby Bible Bashers

Comment #129770 by MaxD on February 19, 2008 at 3:00 pm

"Thay git mad when ee' ask i' thay spake english, hu hu."

What a redneck hillbilly. When DaddyBoutwell was telling his kid-who had his first real taste of what wasting your life means in DC- that the reason why they weren't getting any response was because most of the people don't speak english I started laughing. What a deluded man! "Thay spake spanish and even Japanese." Clearly it was the language barrier that accounted for their marginalization and lack of success. If only DaddyBoutwell had become a fitness nut instead....

The second family was completely absorbed in riding the coatails of the daper and talented twins into the big bucks and fame. "Why didn't you mention your grandma who had introduced you?" Ummm didn't Granny say that the point was blessed and annointed and lead by God? Who the hell is she to tell him how to preach given that mandate? He should say "Granny! God-a told me-a to get rid-a of these sinful Doritos-a right now-a CAN I GET AN AMEN-A?"

I bet all these parents would flip out over abercrombie and fitch ads using young bodies to sell things. And they would positively froth over child pornography (well not the brazilian Dad) but the damage they inflict must be equally as harmful as other child exploitations.

1146. Why Darwin matters

Comment #129757 by MaxD on February 19, 2008 at 2:44 pm

Krisking said,
"the theory has relied on detective work."

I have to say science is detective work. It you were looking for revelation you are looking in the wrong field. Were this a court of law Evolution would long ago have been convicted. The salient fact here is that all the evidence, and I do mean all of it points toward evolution. From every field of biology it points to this. Here biology is ahead of the physics in that we seem to have found our unified theory. The debates now are largely about what mechanisms are most important to what processes. Is speciation driven primarily by drift or natural selection? Does group selection play any significant role in the evolutionary processes? There are other questions to be sure but you get the idea.

These are still fascinating discoveries but every day new evidence pours in that just strengthens the theory.

You may be hankering after sky-hooks and may continue to believe in God long after your study of evolution. You seem like a smart enough guy, and if you approach the evidence like a scientist there is really only one way to go. Even if you find the evolutionary theory compelling you may believe in God. It seems to work for Francis Collins with little if any cognitive dissonance. However at no point in that could you say that the evidence of nature pointed you in that direction. You would just have to say well, its just a gut feeling I have, or a faith. As I said, the "god step" is unnecessary in evolutionary theory.

1147. Cutting Edge: Baby Bible Bashers

Comment #129648 by MaxD on February 19, 2008 at 12:23 pm

I don't think these kids have alot of friends. In Jesus camp there was one girl who would go play with her pal next door, but their pal around time was always marred by Jeebus. That is the Jesus Camp girl could never let the fact that her friend either didn't believe or couldn't be bothered about it slide. The parents in these situations seem to constantly tell the kids that this is the most important thing in the world.
Toward the end of this documentary, the father says all that really needs to be said on the subject- You can't love anybody, not your wife, not children, not your friends (I presume mistresses and other lovers fall into this category too) above Jesus."
And thus....
Religion poisons everything.

1148. Cutting Edge: Baby Bible Bashers

Comment #129640 by MaxD on February 19, 2008 at 11:59 am

The story of the weird Brazilian girl and her father was really disturbing. THe dad and the girl sleep in the same bed? WTF? I can think of one crime the dad left out his litany.....

1149. Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God

Comment #129631 by MaxD on February 19, 2008 at 11:49 am

Shit.

1150. Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God

Comment #129627 by MaxD on February 19, 2008 at 11:46 am

Please don't tell us that Bishop. We will probably get sick.