101. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #166924 by Epinephrine on April 23, 2008 at 1:45 pm

TheTruthID

No one wants to defend one of your own. You keep asking me for reasons why I beleive in ID, and when I quote one of your own, no response.

Very interesting?

A physicist who believes in creation does not prove it is true.

Despite having an education, a physicist doesn't necessarily know a thing about evolution - much like the vast majority of people who haven't studied it.

Oh, and he's not "one of our own". We're atheists, he clearly isn't.

102. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166504 by Epinephrine on April 23, 2008 at 9:25 am

Steve Zara

How exactly do you expect the general public to react to discussions of statistical significance?

A really good question.

I think this needs to be addressed, possibly more than any other issue of science education, as it applies to nearly every aspect of science (not saying that evolution is unimportant!).

The vast majority of science issues that face the public, from safety of drugs, to contaminated groundwater (lead paint, vaccine risks, global warming, DNA tests and criminal trials...) all have to do with statistics. We need the lay person to understand the concepts, at least in a broad sense.

It should be part of maths early in school, starting in kindergarten most likely. Pulling marbles (or tokens or something) from a hat, and showing that you can get different samples from the same source. That bigger samples are better. That you don't always get an answer that you can be sure of, but that with enough sampling you have a pretty good idea of what's going on.

103. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #166445 by Epinephrine on April 23, 2008 at 8:52 am

Prospero811-

Question: How does the Creationist or ID-er explain extinct species?

You are underestimating the IDer's ability to make stuff up.

I predict answers would be selected from:

-There might not have been many (after all, how many parahippus have been found?)
-God punished them?
-Fossilisation enlarged/shrank the bones, and they're all just horses (some might be young)
-They are all of a baramin (some word for "type"), hence only one of those was needed on the ark, the others drowned
-They are all of a baramin, and varied widely after the flood, but only the ones god really liked are still around.
-Further inanity...

104. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165921 by Epinephrine on April 22, 2008 at 3:28 pm

Chewmanfoo -

But I choose something that engenders respect for my fellow man and for the creation, an awe for the wonders of science and for our ingenious scientific method, which is leading us every so slowly to God.

Bully for you. I also happen to have chosen something that engenders respect for my fellows; man, woman, animal and plant - indeed, all my fellow travelers.

Your use of the conjunction "but" to start your statement seems to imply that we don't value life. I assure you that you are wrong to generalise in that manner - many atheists are very moral, and in fact unlike those who do good out of fear of punishment, our actions are motivated by a desire to better the world.

If you came here to ask questions, to learn, to get a new perspective, I applaud you. If you came to try to peer down at us because we "lack" something, I have no use for you.

Cheers,

Epi.

105. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165219 by Epinephrine on April 21, 2008 at 8:27 am

I notice that Hmmmm's question about "convergence" was answered a few ways, but I don't think it addressed the question he was asking. I suspect he was really inquiring as to why there are discrepancies between sources on the tree of life structure, and that his "convergence" would be that many researchers would end up with the same findings, if they were true. One person (alexmzk) responded that "they all provide the exact same 'tree'", but that isn't entirely true - there are small variations on the tree; the second part of his statement however is true - "the same 'tree' (would you believe it) you'd expect had evolution occurred." - Though a few variations on the tree exist, they all fit the data known so far.

So here's my attempt to answer the questions I think Hmmmm is asking.

Q1.) Why are there conflicts between scientists if evolution is true (i.e. there is a single tree)?
A1.) Not all the evidence is available on every branching point of the tree. The conflicts are typically very minor, but are necessary to science. Science relies on building theories based on evidence, and the current evidence can support more than one explanation for some things. As an example:

Fruit bats (megachiroptera) don't have echolocation for the most part, while the small insect eating bats (microchiroptera) do. One could conclude that likely the bats split and one type developed echolocation to catch a tough prey, while the other type didn't as fruit don't move much. It turns out that a few fruit bats do have echolocation though - so the story gets trickier; perhaps all bats developed echolocation, but those that had no need (since they adopted, over time, a lifestyle that didn't rely on it) lost this ability. This is possible, and then the few fruit bats that have echolocation may depend on it more than we would guess. Another possibility is that echolocation evolved twice, once for the microchiroptera, and again later for the small group of fruit bats.

As you can see from the example, this is not exactly a problem with the scientific method, or with evolution. Either version could be possible and only additional evidence will settle the question. I'm fairly confident that further genetic analysis will reveal the answer, but only because science allows itself to question theories will be continue to close in on the true solution. While the trees may differ slightly in the timing of a few features, it's much like reading the American and British versions of a book. The overall content is the same.


Q2.) How can there be a difference between models?
A2.) The short answer is that there can be multiple solutions to a problem, and multiple theories to fit data. If you know that X Y=10 they are infinitely many solutions. If you know that X and Y are natural numbers it reduces the number of choices to 9 (or 11 if you count 0 as a natural number). If you discover more evidence telling you that X is odd, you now have only 5 possibilities. This is exactly what happens in science - we have data suggesting one of a few models can fit, and as new data is found it generally restricts the options, converging on a single solution.

Sometimes an earlier assumption turns out to be false. For example, Newton's theories weren't wrong, but they didn't apply to curved space. The curvature of space wasn't known or indeed measurable, so he couldn't include it in his models. In such cases, instead of narrowing our choices additional data can actually increase the number of choices, but it always builds on the data available, and there are often multiple models that fit.

Q3.) If the conflicts are minor, why do we hear about them?
A3.) The conflicts truly are minor - they often involve issues such as whether a given bone is an early human (homo) or not, or other such similar issues. As Dawkins points out many times, such exercises in line drawing are pointless, since really there is a continuum, that's the nature of evolution. A ring species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species) is an example of this in the geographic sense, while we are looking at the same issue from a temporal perspective. (Incidentally, there is a nice video on the site about a type of salamander, illustrating the concept of a ring species)

Those who would like science to seem self-contradictory exaggerate these conflicts. They may ask rhetorical questions like, "why should we believe we evolved from these primitive forms when scientists can even decide if this bone belonged to a human or an ape?", misleading the public as to the nature of the disagreement, and making a controversy out of something as simple as a name.

106. Teacher Expelled Over Religion

Comment #162199 by Epinephrine on April 16, 2008 at 10:08 am

My understanding of the situation was that she was fired for passing on information about an anti-ID talk, using her work email.

It wasn't about her not teaching creationism in science class, unless things have changed since I last read about her case.

I'm not suggesting that the TEA were in the right (they most definitely are imbeciles), but I'd like to be clear on what the issue actually is; the article text above says

Chris Comer, a Science Teacher in Texas was Expelled for not teaching Intelligent Design in her science class. It's a scary day indeed when our science teachers get fired for recognizing that creationism is not science.

and if that's not the case it should be removed - we don't need to distort the truth, it's already bad enough.

107. Inadequate, private and late apology with grotesquely inadequate excuse

Comment #160240 by Epinephrine on April 13, 2008 at 8:45 pm

BFKate

Glad it's not necessarily me, very generous of you

No need to be sarcastic, I was perhaps belabouring the point that I was criticising the statement, not the author. Internet fora and response threads like this are prone to reading ad homs when none are intended, thus my caveat (which was meant to be humourous).

I don't agree with you at all, but I do so respectfully.

I don't see how you can say that she is just expressing an opinion, she is employed, and hence has a duty to her employer to act in a manner appropriate to her work. She represents several things (now as a non-American, I may get this wrong in detail, but it would be something like this I suspect) - the democratic party, the people of her riding (or whatever the boundary is for state representatives), the state government. I don't know the method/mechanism to discipline those who step out of line, but there is generally a system.

Sure, she has a "right" to say what she said, but she must face the consequences of it. A person has the right to say many things, but we still must be held accountable for our actions. The right to free speech doesn't prevent consequences, and you can be fired in many jobs for expressing opinions - or even facts.

If there is a system to punish her, it should be invoked, just as much as it would have been for other minorities. It's not the least bit amusing that it's acceptable to demonise atheists.

It reminds me of the time a female co-worker (at the office, in front of others) asked me if I was wearing anything under my kilt - I simply said that if I asked her if she had any panties on under her skirt, even in jest, I'd likely be fired for sexual harrassment. For some reason double standards crop up everywhere. What fuels my ire is that Rep. Davis is going to get off lightly not because of any lack of wrongdoing, or the sincerity of her apology, but because she was only attacking atheists.

108. Inadequate, private and late apology with grotesquely inadequate excuse

Comment #159192 by Epinephrine on April 11, 2008 at 3:18 pm

I'm no expert on law and this sounds like a fairly legal definition of freedom of speech which is not the sense I use the phrase in. I do believe the freedom has to be absolute to have any value.

Sorry, but this (not necessarily you) is idiotic.

According to you then, I could walk into an airport and say "I have a bomb!", and that's just my freedom of speech? Or encourage people to kill members of an ethnic group? Or perhaps utter death threats?

It's not absolute, and it never was. It's meant to protect your rights to express yourselves as individuals.

Rep. Davis wasn't speaking as an individual, she is a representative of the government, speaking in a government setting. It was completely inappropriate, and she should be fired, just as any person who works a retail would be if they were incredibly rude to a customer. You bet your ass a clerk will be fired if he hands someone their purchase and says something bigoted/threatening - freedom of speech won't protect them. Same issue. She violated her position and the trust of those who elected her, and all those she represents.

If the waitress at a restaurant said "get the hell out, you aren't christian, and this is a christian nation. Your kind believes only in Jihad and bombing innocents!" to a Muslim she'd be fired on the spot. This is EVEN WORSE. This isn't some shmo, it's the representative of government. She has even MORE of a duty to watch her mouth. If she isn't fired outright it's a joke. Replace the atheist with ANY minority religious or ethnic group pretty much and she'd already be on the curb.

109. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156238 by Epinephrine on April 7, 2008 at 6:55 am

If we want to replace use of the word "Darwinist" we need to come up with something nearly as simple. "Gene-centred evolutionist" or "modern evolutionary synthesist" are too cumbersome. I agree though that it's unfortunate, since the gene-centred view isn't exactly what Darwin was suggesting.

110. Biologists Take Evolution Beyond Darwin Way Beyond

Comment #156234 by Epinephrine on April 7, 2008 at 6:38 am

People seem to want to keep sneaking in selection at levels about the gene.

I have no issue with the possibility of selection at levels other than the gene, it's when they try to suggest that other levels are involved when genetic selection can explain it that I have trouble.

The ability to learn and pass on skills is genetically influenced, but what happens to be learned isn't. Humans of course come to mind, but other species could also benefit in this way.

For example, termite harvesting with sticks is a learned behaviour in chimpanzees, and could provide enough of an advantage to allow groups knowing the technique to survive a famine/drought while other groups couldn't. Both groups may have the same genetic ability to learn, but one has been exposed to the idea and knows how to fish for termites. Individual members who know how to fish for termites may not even be that bright, and the population as a whole could be less able to pass on skills, but the skill they happened to pass on effects their survival.

111. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151321 by Epinephrine on March 28, 2008 at 1:40 pm

a complete set of human DNA within a distinct body of cells is all that's needed to define a person as a person

Wow, and since a cancerous tumour has genetic differences from the original cells you it's a new person. I wonder whether tumours have souls?

112. Fleabytes

Comment #151103 by Epinephrine on March 28, 2008 at 6:57 am

There's somewhat of a misconception about beer strength and the USA. While there are certainly styles of beer that are stronger than those typically consumed in the USA, the beers most people are familiar with should not actually differ in alcohol content between the USA and another country (say, Canada).

The issue is that for some reason, many American legal standards refer to beer alcohol content in terms of alcohol by mass (abm), while the rest of the world uses alcohol by volume (abv). Since ethanol (the alcohol we think of in beer and other beverages) is less dense than water, this results in American beers having a lower percentage alcohol listed. An example would be the "3.2" beer laws of several states, which refer to 3.2% abm, which is roughly equivalent to a 4% abv beer.

113. Two More Fleas

Comment #148014 by Epinephrine on March 21, 2008 at 7:30 pm

I'll add a few to the list of similar animals -

how about the mustelids?

Clearmind (wooter), I invite you to examine the least weasel, ermine (stoat), long tailed weasel, black footed ferret, mink, pine marten, fisher, badger, river otter, wolverine, and sea otter.

Spanning the range of ~50 grams (2 ounces?) through as much as 45 kg (100 pounds), they are quite the assortment - and that's just a list of Canadian mustelids. They even resemble one another, once you get over the size differences and gradual changes that are required for specialised living. In fact, the least weasel, ermine, and long tailed weasel look pretty similar, and in areas without the least weasel but where ermines live the ermine tends to be smaller, moving in on the least weasel's niche.

Sure, looking at a wolverine and a least weasel it wouldn't necessarily jump out at you that they are similar, what with one being 400 times the size of the other, but they share dentition, body plan, scent glands and so on. When one sees the specimens all lined up the similarities are all the more striking.

This can be done again and again in the animal kingdom. It can be done at virtually any starting point. Looking a little farther back on the tree of life and following a nearby branch leads us to animals that are similar as well, but with bigger differences. The coati, ringtail, olingo, kinkajou, and the raccoon are all similar to one another, and more distantly similar to the mustelids - exactly as we'd expect, as the procyonidae are closely related to the mustelidae.

114. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #147416 by Epinephrine on March 20, 2008 at 10:59 am

Comment #147406 by Duffguy

I think to give them the same open minded attitude that we expect from them (ie. asking them to question their beliefs, and look into the works of some of the "four horsemen"), then we should by all means read the book.

If theologists are going to cite this book as a rebuttle, I'd like to know what I'm up against.

Quite frankly I'm a little disappointed in most of the comments on this. We expect them to accept our message, but we're shrugging off their response. The same attitude we generally accuse them of, no?

I agree that we should each, ideally, read every book on the subject thoroughly.

We simply can't - the "fleas" number at least a few dozen so far, I don't have time to read 20-30 books "refuting" TGD, so I will rely on excerpts from the books, reviews of the books by people in whom I can place some trust, and the argument highlights, in the same way that I often read abstracts of scientific articles or reviews of them before deciding whether to read an article in full.

While I agree that in principle we should read everything, it's unreasonable in practice.

If there are obvious logical flaws in the highlights, it likely isn't worth reading. If the arguments they choose to present are the same tired arguments that have been refuted, it doesn't encourage one to dig looking to see if maybe there is a new argument hidden somewhere.

When one writes an abstract, one tries to present information succinctly, setting out the hypothesis, method, and results in as clear a manner as possible. When one writes a summary/chooses an excerpt it should likewise be a good selection. When one writes a report, typically there is an executive summary/briefing note, as not everyone has time to read every report.

Day's book doesn't strike me as being worth reading, based on reviews, based on exceprts, based on arguments. I am as open to reading it as I am to any book, but given the limitations on my time there is a degree of triage done on my reading list, and even books that have made it to my bedside table sometimes languish there as other (more urgent?) books move ahead of them in the stack.

115. A Designer Universe?

Comment #147349 by Epinephrine on March 20, 2008 at 7:49 am

PlagioClase -

There is no evidence that I know of to suggest that the fundamental constants could be anything else. The entire idea of hypothesising that they might have been other than they are is pointless if they can't have been different.

The anthropic principle makes a lot of sense, in many areas - why we happen to be on a planet at this temperature (we are creatures that need liquid water to exist, hence it's hardly surprising that we exist on a planet with liquid water) - it makes some sense in that there are other types of planets with different temperatures (some of which may well also have life, but not life depending on liquid water, obviously).

Much of the issue seems to be a problem of logic, really.

* People point out that life as we know it couldn't exist if things were a little different.
** We don't know if things could be different.
** It only applies to life as we know it.

* Isn't it amazing that life exists, in a universe that has values of the constants that allow for it?
** It would be far more amazing if life existed in a universe in which the constants didn't allow for it. It's somewhat pointless the other way round - it's trivially true that "if there exists X in the universe, the constants allow for the existence of X."

Steve Zara seems to know a great deal about physics/cosmology, which is one of my weaker areas to be honest; perhaps he'll stop by to enlighten us.

116. Full house captivated by atheist Dawkins' take on religion

Comment #146970 by Epinephrine on March 19, 2008 at 3:37 pm

My point was that much of the sentiment against it is dogma, and recent. I have a particularly horrid little book called "Circumcision Exposed" (copyright 1998) which rivals creationist literature for its blatant falsehoods (I picked it up for 30 cents, for laugh value).

There's been evidence for medical benefit for circumcision for a long time, it's just the amount of benefit that is a question. And people routinely pay more than expected return on things (think of insurance), particularly when the cost is bearable and the benefit if needed is large (penile cancer prevention, reduction of cervical cancer). The circumcision debate is unfortunately led by people who essentially are against it because of principles (don't hurt children, don't choose for them) rather than looking at evidence.

117. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146872 by Epinephrine on March 19, 2008 at 1:55 pm

Comment #146865 by Steve Zara

Aw, thanks Steve :) You're pretty swell too ;)

118. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146858 by Epinephrine on March 19, 2008 at 1:47 pm

If there were an evoultionary advantage shouldn't gays be the norm and hetros be the benighted minority?

If one looks at game theory and evolutionarily stable strategies, we can see how a population can allow for the use of strategies that couldn't be stable on their own. Hawk-dove situations can support populations of retaliators, bullies, and all sorts of other strategies in the right mixes, and without some elements others couldn't persist stably. Bullies can't invade a hawk population, but they can invade doves.

Is there any evolutionary advantage? I am curious, I don't understand evolution well enough to know either way.

I don't believe that anyone knows with certainty, but there are reams of theoretical answers, varying from incomplete penetrance, multiple genes some of which provide advantages on their own, social advantages and kin selection and so on. Clearly non-reproduction doesn't make sense unless the genes help other copies of themselves, but there are many ways that can come about.

119. Full house captivated by atheist Dawkins' take on religion

Comment #146832 by Epinephrine on March 19, 2008 at 1:19 pm

Circumcision without medical reasons: textbook.

Curious about this one. Can you explain why? In Ontario (where I live) they decided to stop funding circumcision out of the provincial health care coverage, but they certainly don't call it abuse.

In fact, if one reads the report, the decision to stop coverage is based on a cost-benefit analysis, and in fact the results were that the costs balanced roughly with the benefit.

The overall evidence of the benefits and harms of circumcision is so evenly balanced that it does not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns.

Canadian Medical Association Journal 1996; 154(6): 769-780

Of note is the fact that there was in fact, a calculated benefit to circumcision, which matched pretty closely with the cost of the surgery and the cost of the risks. The choice to make it elective had nothing to do with the safety of people, but to do with the fact that the medical benefits were roughly the same as the costs. If an operation costs 110 dollars to perform, and grants 100 dollars on average of benefit, it is a bad idea for government to sponsor it (they lose money over the long term) - but it in no way means that the surgery is abusive - it still has an actual medical benefit, of an expected 100 dollar benefit.

Interestingly, the cost-benefit analysis only paid attention to effects on the male (penile cancer, UTI, balanitis, phimosis and paraphimosis) and ignores the epidemiological evidence of reduced cervical cancer rates among the female partners of circumcised males, thought to be due to a lower risk of tranmittal of HPV infection.

Speaking as a father who had to make the decision for his son (and we decided not to, though I was unsure about it) I got tired of the bullying from anti-circumcision folks that is dogmatic and doesn't actually examine the evidence. It's certainly not an easy decision, and I'll tell you that when I was sitting in the hospital with my 2 year old son, waiting to see if he'd need an emergency operation because of balanitis I sure as hell regretted not having had the circumcision (which would have prevented it) for him.

So, are you basing your opinion on epidemiological evidence? Or is this dogma?

120. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146674 by Epinephrine on March 19, 2008 at 9:16 am

There is a scientific tradition that if something occurs 1 in 20 times or more frequently, you can't consider it worth investigating as something different from normal.

RIP Gary Gygax, lover of icosahedra.

I mean, yes, alpha of 0.05 is pretty standard, though there are definitely times to use other alpha levels.

121. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146465 by Epinephrine on March 19, 2008 at 5:46 am

@Gordy

I think people might be missing the point here. As far as I know, the study doesn't differentiate between religions, it just claims that religious people are happier (on average) than non-religious people. This may well be true, but it's not because they're right and we're wrong. They can't all be right, because they all believe different things!

Actually, according to the article linked by pdiff (thanks, again) they did compare religions; Roman Catholics and Protestants had odds ratios of 1.127 and 1.126 (so they were 1.127 and 1.126 times as likely as non religious folks to report happiness), while other religions (which were grouped together) only had an OR of 0.96, meaning that they are actually *less* likely to be happy than non-religious people.

Given the relationship between variables (the fact that religion varies country to country, for example) I'd be somewhat surprised if the effects can be disentangled (there may be some multicolinearity, for example), and I haven't been able to find a single reference to the goodness of fit of their model, which makes me wonder if they even tested it.

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

Comment #146271 by Epinephrine on March 18, 2008 at 9:28 pm

@the_ultimate_samurai

You quoted me, selectively removing the rather important, "To simplify things incredibly," with which I prefaced it.

I of course agree that the situation is more complex than my gross oversimplification, but the point was that it's long been thought that evolution, acting as a ratchet of sorts, is unlikely to function well in reverse. It's not surprising that the ratchet gradually advances.

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

Comment #146097 by Epinephrine on March 18, 2008 at 3:50 pm

SmartLX:

The article actually acknowledges the existence of exceptions. They say, "hardly any crustaceans have taken this backwards route" and, "Of course, there are exceptions within the crustacean family tree, but most of these are parasites, or animals living in remote habitats such as isolated marine caves."

It's not really much of a rule, more of a general principle that has known exceptions.

124. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146038 by Epinephrine on March 18, 2008 at 2:01 pm

I don't know why this article is news. We've known for quite a while that religion is correlated with happiness.

I'm curious as to "how much" happier.

I remember something about the correlation of IQ with height. It turned out that if one was 4 feet taller it would account for about one standard deviation of difference.

I rather suspect that there are other factors which covary with religion that are more explanatory.

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

Comment #146007 by Epinephrine on March 18, 2008 at 1:21 pm

Interesting, but hardly surprising.

To simplify things incredibly, changes result from either changing a gene, adding a gene, or subtracting a gene. Since in general you will only have added genes that were advantageous, removing them will not be as likely as adding others.

There would be some cases in which an earlier addition is not as useful now, and it could then be removed (and not surprisingly, this is seen - loss of hair on cetaceans as an example, loss of colour vision in many mammals, loss of vitamin c production in primates) in a sort of scaffolding removal, but more often than not, if something presented an advantage when it was selected for it will continue to present an advantage.

Since overall it is more likely that changes will result from addition rather than deletion of genes, it is not surprising that the tendency over time is for greater complexity.

Changes in body plan are interesting though - I had read once upon a time that we are going to see continual reductions in the variety of bodyplans, but I'm not sure whether I agree - certainly some groups are more resistant to change than others - tetrapods are all still recognisably tetrapods, and are unlikely to become hexapods, but the arthropods can apparently lose and gain segments much more easily than we can. Is (are) mount(s) improbable truly unidirectional?

126. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #145965 by Epinephrine on March 18, 2008 at 12:11 pm

Also in the news, frontal lobotomy has calming effect on psychotics.

127. Two More Fleas

Comment #145907 by Epinephrine on March 18, 2008 at 9:40 am

Nice link Steve! It's handy to know that creation science is based on solid experimental evidence, like quoting the 12th book of The Odyssey.

"Zeus thundered and hurled his bolt upon the ship, and she quivered from stem to stern, smitten by the bolt of Zeus, and was filled with sulphurous smoke."

Wow, I'm convinced. Obviously transmutation of nitrogen and oxygen into sulphur. Clearly well researched.

128. Two More Fleas

Comment #145888 by Epinephrine on March 18, 2008 at 9:18 am

Yay! Wooter addressed me! I'm so special!

The evolution is really notorious for fake fossils and fabricated skulls. Second,
One random fish bone(!) is enough to prove ET
Then we have to find more transition fossils:
Half dog-half horse
Half bird-half dinousor
Half frog-half fish
The list can go on and on

So your response to the existence of evidence is "it's fake".

As to other transition fossils, there exist many, for the transitions that actually happened. You won't find a half-dog-half-horse, though you could find an ancestor of both, but it wouldn't particularly resemble either. Transitional whales, birds, horses, and of course humans are all well studied, and there are numerous other examples showing the appearance of certain features (dentition development and specialisation, movement of jaw bones to become the bones of the inner ear).

Something can come out by chances and Luck that have no conscious and mind
Something can be created by God that have conscious and wisdom and ultimate knowledge.
Everything came out from one single power.
Can Everything come out from chaos, luck, chance? If boeing 747 comes out from the junkyard along with all electronic equipment, then answer is yes otherwise, of course, answer is no.

You are rambling here.

Natural selection isn't about chance, though chance plays a role.

I'm sure this has been explained to you many times, but all that is required is the ability to reproduce imperfectly and a selection force, and evolution is guaranteed. Your analogy simply fails.

You do have a very good question hidden in your rambling, that of the existence of consciousness, and it's one that nobody has an answer for - we don't yet know what consciousness is, or how it evolved. That (of course) doesn't mean that consciousness didn't evolve, any more than not knowing the directions to the local Walmart means that Walmart doesn't exist.

The question of whence consciousness arises, and why it exists at all is a very serious question, but it's not answerable by saying "god made it", in that this is the complete failure to answer anything. Nobody will take your statements seriously if all you offer is "god made everything" - it has no explanatory or predictive power, and is completely unfalsifiable. It is as pointless as saying "faeries did it" or "the Invisible Pink Unicorn (bbhhh) sneezed the universe into existence."

129. Two More Fleas

Comment #145151 by Epinephrine on March 17, 2008 at 10:11 am

Wooter:

One kind cannot evolve from another kind logically scientifically biologically â€" DNA- otherwise if we assume it were true then, we will have a lot of fossil samples that belong to monsters like creatures â€" like in evolution movie- half is horse half is zebra?

Which one easier and logical and scientific? All the animals were created separately or all animals and human beings came from a worm?

Ok, first off, there are "transitions". Look up Tiktaalik for an example of a a fishapod.

Secondly, evolution is more logical and scientific. It might not be as "easy" as "goddidit", but it certainly explains eveything a lot better.

130. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #145078 by Epinephrine on March 17, 2008 at 8:20 am

Comment #145005 by cincyatheist on March 17, 2008 at 7:00 am

I would love to not have to own a car and be able to ride the bus to/from work, but the bus routes don't cover very large areas and I would have to transfer several times each way. Not only that, but I would spend another hour and a half going to/from work with an already limited 3-4 hours of waking time at home. If I were to do that, I would get up at 6:00 AM and go to work. I would get home at 7:30 PM, make dinner, shower, do homework, etc. then go to bed at 10:00 PM. We are stretched too thin and the public transport is mediocre. Do you really think I wouldn't love to save $15,000 by not having to buy a car?

Telecommute.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommuting

As in, none of the things you are talking about.

131. Two More Fleas

Comment #143853 by Epinephrine on March 14, 2008 at 2:08 pm

Actually, I suspect he did mean amino acids. All amino acids except glycine have a chiral centre, and all are classified as L rather than D, excepting cysteine (and they aren't truly levorotary, they are of the same chiral arrangement as levorotary glyceraldehyde).

Still, it's not really a big question. Since they are generated by similar (and chirally sensitive) mechanisms, it's not surprising that they all share the same chiral organization.

132. Richard Dawkins on The Alan Colmes Show

Comment #143837 by Epinephrine on March 14, 2008 at 1:46 pm

I'm surprised RD didn't smack down the "why are we still talking about Jesus" moron a little faster. He could have made him sound pretty stupid by asking him if he's heard of Heracles, and asking why that particular myth is also still around, and pointing out that Vishnu, Mohammed, Indra and many other myths are likewise still prevalent, and that it doesn't make any of them true.

Oh, and the poor uppity little old lady who was so offended that Dawkins feels that intelligent people wouldn't be religious. He's implying she's stupid! And she clearly isn't, because she prays with doctors! How can a doctor be stupid?!?

My goodness, the number of well educated morons I've met... in case you are reading this, little old religious lady:

Education doesn't indicate or even correlate that well with intelligence. There are many very bright people with no formal education, and many very well educated people with little intelligence.

133. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #143766 by Epinephrine on March 14, 2008 at 11:17 am

al-rawandi

That and Latkes

Oh, no you din't! Anything resembling potato bannock in the *slightest* is sacred. Mmmmm, potato!

134. Fleabytes

Comment #143756 by Epinephrine on March 14, 2008 at 11:00 am

I think that social living is probably sufficient; construction of a theory of mind becomes advantageous when we enter into competition with one another. While crows may have language of sorts, they certainly have developed the ability to purposefully decieve one another, pretending to cache food for example when in eyesight of another crow, only to actually hide the food when the original observer is distracted looking for the fake cache. I would contest that while language is one way to develop thought, interaction with other brains that are modelling the environment is likely the key, whether the interaction involves language or not.

135. Fleabytes

Comment #143735 by Epinephrine on March 14, 2008 at 10:39 am

MPhil:

These are far more complex than what we observe in animals

That seems like a judgement call. Saying that we have art and ideas, but animals don't? That we have a belief system, but they don't? These strike me as unfounded statements.

Now, I'm not saying that you are wrong, but songbirds devote a lot of brain power to learning, imitating, and extemporising music. Is there any evidence that this is less artistic than our use of language, or of art?

How do you suggest applying parsimony here? It certainly resembles language and art, and the huge allocation of resources to it would suggest that it's important. It could be chatter that is meaningless, or ornamental and for sexual selection, but it could also be language and art.

136. Fleabytes

Comment #143681 by Epinephrine on March 14, 2008 at 9:51 am

Paula -

Your bird story is intriguing. I wonder about the difference between animals that truly pair bond for life and those (like us) that are less prone to permanent bonds. One wonders if we experience only a fraction of the emotion that they experience, whether they have whole dimensions of emotion for their mates that we can't appreciate. Certainly, given the value the pair bond holds among those species, it would be surprising if there wasn't circuitry to reinforce their bonds to a much greater extent.

It's not that odd - we know that birds see colour differently than we do, since they have a tetrahedral rather than triangular interaction between visual pigments, we know that the bird neocortex is arrayed differently from human/chimp neocortex - who's to say what they experience?

137. Fleabytes

Comment #143591 by Epinephrine on March 14, 2008 at 8:19 am

I won't agree that we necessarily have access to levels of communication that animals don't. I'm with Steve in thinking that the line between humans and other animals is in fact much less distinct than we would like it to be, and I wonder at the types and levels of communication and thought that goes on in animals. The fact that crows (and chimps) will engage in deception is pretty fascinating.

138. Whale Evolution

Comment #143567 by Epinephrine on March 14, 2008 at 7:55 am

Steve Zara

have an idea, and I wonder if Josh might be interested. We could set up a monthly "Book Club". Recommend a particular book (such as one those discussed here), allowing everyone here time to read it, and then build up an article based on comments about the book), then open up the discussion to everyone. Who knows? We may even manage to get the occasional author to contribute.

Did this ever take off? Sounds interesting.

139. Two More Fleas

Comment #143548 by Epinephrine on March 14, 2008 at 7:43 am

Sorry, was just trying to be light-hearted about it :)

I don't think it will matter much. He'll probably respond with typical non-sequitur anyway. Here, I'll channel some wooter...


"The earth is as old as God made it, since the glory of God holds no time you can't measure your glory. Why does the planet be so beautiful, if not for God? For the birds and plants and their eggs are the benefit of man, and proves the work of God!"

That looks about vague enough, hmm?

Look through the sequence of digits, and you will find, coded in ascii binary, the phrase "WOOTER IS WRONG!".

Rofl - so true. Hopefully he finds that bit before he finds the bit that reads "Steve Zara loves Wooter" though, or things could get all mushy here.

140. Two More Fleas

Comment #143534 by Epinephrine on March 14, 2008 at 7:31 am

Well, some organisms are selfish... I've met a few!

Wooter - why don't you answer the really simple question - how old do you think the earth is?

Oh, and happy pi day everyone.

141. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141925 by Epinephrine on March 11, 2008 at 11:53 am

Something I've always been unclear about -- did God create hell, as he supposedly created the heavens? Why would some entity, supposedly so loving and caring, create an eternal torture chamber?

Obviously, so that he can save us from it!

God is the biggest sufferer of Munchausen by proxy EVER.

142. The Encyclopedia of Life, No Bookshelf Required

Comment #137644 by Epinephrine on March 3, 2008 at 9:38 am

I'm not impressed by the current contents of the eol, really. It's sad how little of it is filled out - I was looking forward to reading more about various oddities than I'd previously found, but it actually has less information than many sources.

As examples, I searched for information on stomatopods (I had one in a reef tank a while back), pistol shrimp (ditto), tank bromeliads (epiphytes vital in the reproduction of several types of frog), trioks, siphonophores (specifically the man o'war) and several others, none of which had ANY information. It would be nice if it at least had the level of detail that wikipedia presents on topics on opening - it's rather unimpressive that one can find out more about pistol shrimps and their sonoluminescence/cavitation bubbles on wikipedia than on a site dedicated to living things.

I get that it will improve, but a big deal was made about launching it, and more pages with some level of detail would have been a good idea.

143. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #135164 by Epinephrine on February 28, 2008 at 3:58 pm

annabanana, Bonzai,

My work is completely unrelated to clinical trials - I do national health indicators, tracking things like satisfaction with the health care system, obesity, health status and such. I'm not an epidemiologist by training (I studied pure mathematics, then neuroscience) but am learning as I go. As such I am not too familiar with clinical trials - Steve and I are talking about it via PM, but he suggests that I may be wrong in the approach I used, so I will have to talk to some stats buddies and get their opinions.

144. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #134964 by Epinephrine on February 28, 2008 at 12:09 pm

al-rawandi

Yes, they do many dangerous things, like riding in cars. I drive my children places, and do my utmost to be careful. Like any choice of dangerous activity, care must be taken to weigh the advantages against the disadvantages.

Steve Zara - I PMd you about stats.

145. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #134951 by Epinephrine on February 28, 2008 at 11:32 am

Steve Zara -

Thanks for the compliment,

I actualy have a pretty good knowledge of statistics myself, as I work in epidemiology and did my thesis work developing a novel method for detecting non-linear synchronies in epileptic brain activity.

Why do you think that that difference is pretty insignificant? I ran a quick check and got a p-value of 0.075 or so, not significant, but not horribly far from it either. One more case in the vaccine group and it hits significance.

146. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #134924 by Epinephrine on February 28, 2008 at 10:35 am

Vaccination is one of the greatest tools of modern medicine. Vaccines are well tested. Something that will save thousands of lives each year sounds like a good idea to me.

Sure, as long as it doesn't cost thousands of lives each year. The HPV vaccine will be much more important in countries with higher cervical cancer death rates, like Zimbabwe for example.

The Merck vaccine was pushed through fast, and only had about 4 years of testing. The tolerability trials were done on ~22,000 women. There was an observed difference (non-significant) in the number of people developing lupus and arthritis (both auto-immune) between the control and vaccine groups. With only 3 cases in the control group and 9 in the vaccine group it wasn't significant, but that could be due to a lack of sufficient statistical power.

I'm not convinced that the benefits outweigh the risks; thankfully I have some time before I need to decide, as my girls are quite young. Perhaps over the next while more safety data will come out.

147. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #134728 by Epinephrine on February 28, 2008 at 6:27 am

One of the best known examples are the human papillomaviruses (HPV) that are responsible for cervical cancer and genital warts. Fortunately, there is now a vaccine that will cut infections (and hence cancers) dramatically. Of course, it is being resisted by religious fundies, as it is best given to girls when they are youn, and who assume that this will lead to increased promiscuity. Yet another example of a dangerous influence of religion.

Well, I'd point out that plenty of rational people are also uncertain about the HPV vaccine. Merck pushed it hard because they desperately need money. With the rate of cervical cancer deaths (3 per 100,000?) and the unknowns about the vaccine, I certainly am not about to expose my daughters to it.

148. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #134265 by Epinephrine on February 27, 2008 at 1:58 pm

I didn't find the woman who objected to being talked over that offensive; I think Prof. Dawkins was perhaps a bit overzealous in trying to respond immediately. Granted, I also think she was batty, but that's entirely separate.

149. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #134263 by Epinephrine on February 27, 2008 at 1:52 pm

But athletics makes money for the school, which pays for a number of things. I also feel that athletics is an important formative experience and helped me a great deal. You can go through childhood and college and never be forced to interact in a social or team environment.

Some very good points - money is important to a school, and I'm ignorant as to whether the sports pull in more money than they cost or not.

As for teamwork/social environment, I also agree. My father feels that the removal of mandatory breadth classes from university curricula is a bad thing, and I'd have to agree with him. Small discussion groups, sharing philosophical musings over a beer, and getting to see things in another light are some of the joys of the university experience (or any life experience really, it's just that for many university is the first time they end up doing these things). I'd guess that including team-based sports more broadly on campus would have benefits for everyone, loathe as I am to suggest making it mandatory for those few who find such things particularly grueling (not me, I enjoy some ultimate frisbee or paintball from time to time).

150. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #134245 by Epinephrine on February 27, 2008 at 1:08 pm

al-rawandi

As a former professional athlete myself I take a little offense at the subtle characterizations of athletes here. I dealt with it in college, having to listen to some nerd spouting off about how athletes shouldn't be allowed in the University, then subsequently making an ass of him in front of the entire class.

Well, I cetainly wouldn't think such things, though I do think poorly of universities bringing in students who can *only* play sports. Someone like yourself who is both a student and an athlete is great.