Comments by Epinephrine

Comment #114519 by Epinephrine on January 22, 2008 at 11:02 am

I think we need one with the bacterial flagellum - unfortunately I am no artist.

Oooh, or perhaps a twist on the "it's turtles all the way down" logic, showing fossils of turtle evolution at different depths, "it's *not* turtles all the way down".

252. Stop revisionist Christian nation House Resolution 888

Comment #114228 by Epinephrine on January 21, 2008 at 3:29 pm

To be fair, I was young when I felt negatively about Americans in general - I now know better.

As thirdchimpanzee says, how you play the game matters. The USA is a power in the world, and as trite as it may be to quote uncle Ben, "With great power there must also come great responsibility". The USA is in a position to be a leader in many ways, but unfortunately isn't presenting an example many would choose to follow.

253. Stop revisionist Christian nation House Resolution 888

Comment #114192 by Epinephrine on January 21, 2008 at 2:04 pm

Summer Seale -

Before I met intelligent, interesting, and friendly Americans I pretty much thought they were typified by people like you.

You essentially seem to hold the position that you can do what you want because the US has some firepower; torture people, bully allies into agreeing, and pretty much ignore the rules and treaties you sign because you don't feel like following them. That's the side of America that people hate.

Congrats, you went from "it isn't torture" and that line of bullshit to "fine, it's torture, and I'd like to do even more to them" in the space of a page.

254. Interview with Ian McEwan

Comment #114181 by Epinephrine on January 21, 2008 at 1:46 pm

(to OP)
I'm assuming you haven't actually held a brain then...

Nice to see another mention of moral atheists. I don't agree that religion is ineradicable, I suspect it's just a matter of time and education.

255. Questions Delay Creationist Master's Degrees

Comment #112565 by Epinephrine on January 17, 2008 at 1:25 pm

Thankfully it's being asked some tough questions. I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the thought of an MSc. in Creation Science...

256. Science, Evolution, and Creationism

Comment #112233 by Epinephrine on January 16, 2008 at 3:45 pm

Chihuahua
Scottish Wolfhound
Dachshund
Husky

All the same species, less different from each other than from the wolf (despite a wolf and husky being pretty similar in some ways).

Hard to quantify this stuff, excepting at the DNA level. Even counting number of mutations is insufficient, in that multiple alleles are possible, and may present a continuum of changes. I assume all changes to an allele are equivalent then, even if they provide varying levels of phenotypic change. Changes that have no effect (different codes for the same protein) aren't counted as "evolving", despite being measurable changes?

I'll agree with each generation presenting an increment in evolution, in a sense. Some however do "change" more, so I think we end up with a term for the number of generations over which a life form has had the chance to respond to pressures, and another measure of DNA change representing the number of changes due to evolving.

257. Science, Evolution, and Creationism

Comment #112203 by Epinephrine on January 16, 2008 at 2:58 pm

Measuring genetic difference from most recent common ancestor makes sense in terms of quantifying evolution - that's about the only type of "more evolved" I can picture.

As to which is a "better" wasp, I don't think one can answer that kind of question - I was just pointing out that a fig wasp might be thought of as more specialised than a yellowjacket. Comparing it to another very specialised wasp on the other hand is tricky - I'm not sure how one could define specialisation though.

258. Science, Evolution, and Creationism

Comment #112185 by Epinephrine on January 16, 2008 at 2:09 pm

It almost sounds like the idea of specialisation is being confused with the idea of evolution and evolvedness. (Did I make up a word?)

Certainly the most obvious cases for evolution are often extreme specialisations; a peacock's extravagant tail as a specialised sexual signal, the 18 visual pigments of the mantis shrimp, or the mutual fig and fig-wasp specilisation. It would certainly seem that specialisation requires evolution, but diversification doesn't always result when evolution takes hold.

Coelacanths originally had many species and body types, but only one variety (I think) has survived to the present - is this reduction of diversity of the coelacanth an evolution, even though the one type that remains is largely morphologically unchanged?

Maybe rather than trying to refer to evolution in terms of quantifying it (more evolved/less evolved) which in my mind revolves around mutation rates, number of selection events, etc., and is possibly unmeasurable due to invisble evolution (molecular evolution), we could used terms like specialised, adapted, differentiated, generalised, generic or some such.

Thus a fig wasp is highly specialised and specific, whereas other creatures may be less specific and more generalist or opportunistic species are less specialised and inhabit broader ranges, often showing less change over time? Just trying to think through this...

259. Science, Evolution, and Creationism

Comment #112039 by Epinephrine on January 16, 2008 at 8:37 am

Quetzalcoatl -

What about animals such as crocodiles and sharks, that have been around since the Mesozoic yet changed very little in that time?

They haven't changed much morphologically, but we don't know to what extent they have changed in biochemical ways. Looking at the DNA for species that are thought not to have changed has been illuminating in this respect, showing us that species that we thought were the same are in fact quite different - I have no doubts that while a stable morphology has been found, molecular evolution has continued to act on crocodilians, sharks, coelacanths and other "living fossils", just as we see birds that are from outward examinations the same species but are genetically very different.

Edit - figured it would be studied, here's an example, here's an article on crocodile molecular evolution....

L. Rex McAliley, Ray E. Willis, David A. Ray, P. Scott White, Christopher A. Brochu and Llewellyn D. Densmore III, Are crocodiles really monophyletic?--Evidence for subdivisions from sequence and morphological data, Molecular Phylogenetics and EvolutionVolume 39, Issue 1, , April 2006, Pages 16-32.

260. Science, Evolution, and Creationism

Comment #112014 by Epinephrine on January 16, 2008 at 7:57 am

Steve Zara, re: humans being more evolved

We obviously are. I think you may mean "fitter". We are much more complex that those organisms, and so more changed (evolved) from ancestral forms. However, the fact that we are all around in the world today means we are all equally "fit".

I'm not sure I agree - I think by one definition amoebas are more evolved, in that they have had more generations over which they have changed (or had the opportunity to). The subject comes up again and again, I'm not sure that there is any right way of putting it. Clearly bacteria evolve faster than we do, they're continually changing.

I agree that one can't use the term "fitter", and I don't like the concept of "more evolved", the only way one can truly measure that is as a function of the number of selction events and the mutation rate (or some similar set of attributes). Invisible changes can take place, evolution of biochemical pathways and such, and they are as much evolution as morphological changes are. I'm sure you know this, but it's easy to use terms like "more evolved".

261. Huckabee Wants A 'Faith-based' Constitution

Comment #111976 by Epinephrine on January 16, 2008 at 6:13 am

epeeist -

The Mexicans and the Canadians might be advised to consider building big walls to stop immigration.

I don't know, I think we want to let them in - fleeing atheists welcome. *Then* we build the walls.

262. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #111667 by Epinephrine on January 15, 2008 at 11:39 am

I agree. I suspect that the main effect is the one Shermer was trying to show, that we judge things relatively rather than absolutely - but no doubt each person's values will be different and influenced by their personal history.

263. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #111661 by Epinephrine on January 15, 2008 at 11:15 am

Not to mention, even if I could somehow be convinced that prices would stay the same, considering the cost of living as it is now (even in S.C. where it is relatively low), the first option would barely be enough to get by on depending on things like how many people you are financially responsible for, possible health problems that require frequent maintenance, etc. There are far too many variables IMO for this to be a viable example.

Not picking on you annabanana, but it really illustrates what a privileged and wealthy group posts here.

50k is considerably more than the median *household* income, not just the individual income. So over half the people in the USA have less than that much income for their household. It would be interesting to know the income level of those surveyed.

I do agree though that there may be a zero-sum game type effect in the brain, and that when one is the least wealthy of one's peers it has a depressive effect - so there is strong support for choosing 50k from that perspective.

264. Evolution Debate Led to Ouster, Official Says

Comment #111615 by Epinephrine on January 15, 2008 at 6:54 am

The neurodojo site is still tracking Ms. Comer's situation.

http://neurodojo.blogspot.com/search/label/TEA%20and%20Comer

Not sure if the situation will change, the TEA is probably hoping everyone will just forget about it after the feedback it got in december, I suspect it'd be a good thing not to let it be forgotten.

Ms. Comer's quote is touching - "But I feel like this is my contribution," she said. "This is my time to draw my line in the sand for science."

The world certainly needs more educators like you, Ms. Comer.

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

Comment #111344 by Epinephrine on January 14, 2008 at 12:03 pm

Good luck with your surgery, and a speedy recovery!

266. Did mozzies, not a meteor, do for the dinosaurs?

Comment #109603 by Epinephrine on January 9, 2008 at 9:00 am

Pretty crappy, all you are doing is a three ball cascade. Now let's see you turn it into a Mill's Mess.

Pssshhhh, Mill's Mess. Try Burke's Barrage or Rubenstein's Revenge :P

(sorry, had to get in on juggling talk)

267. The Mind of the Market

Comment #109536 by Epinephrine on January 9, 2008 at 6:52 am

Diacanu -

Ah - I thought by your tone you were attacking the idea that neuroscience doesn't mix with other fields, such as economics. What ideologies would Shermer be pushing?

Perhaps we can get together over a dill-mocha? ;)

268. The Mind of the Market

Comment #109527 by Epinephrine on January 9, 2008 at 6:40 am

Diacanu -

It sounds like a misnamed field of study. Surely you'd agree that neuroscience/cognitive science underlies our decision making/value assigning capacities, and studying this could be filed under some neologism like "neuroeconomics".

Heck, recently in Science (26 October, 2007 - a journal that one would have a hard time saying *isn't* about science) the cover story was "Advances in Neuroscience: Decision Making", and it examined issues like social decision making from a game theoretical perspective *, neurocomputational models of the frontopolar complex and so on - so it's pretty much a legitimate field of study, despite it being poorly named. As someone with both neuroscience and game theory under my belt it's not surprising that I found this an interesting special section.

* Sanfey, Alan G. (2007). Social Decision Making: Insights from Game Theory and Neuroscience, Science, 318, 598-602.

269. Changing my Mind

Comment #109182 by Epinephrine on January 8, 2008 at 2:14 pm

walk, Re: fish oil

Not something I've looked into, but a quick search showed that mercury doesn't seem to be a problem, and that's the concern I might have had.

http://www.consumerlab.com/results/omega3.asp

270. Changing my Mind

Comment #109161 by Epinephrine on January 8, 2008 at 1:04 pm

walk,

I don't mean to suggest that all natural medicines are dangerous, just that they are more prone to these faults than the more carefully monitored pharmaceutical industry, and that there is less reason to take the risk. Heavy metals can be found in herbal medicine, Chinese medicine and Ayurvedic medicine, for example - not in all of them obviously, and the odds of getting contaminated products is likely low, but who knows what type of soil your imported ginseng (just an example) was grown in?

Likely there are good medications as well, but those won't need bizarre supernatural claims of "vibration science" or anecdotal support - they'll be supported by evidence.

271. Changing my Mind

Comment #109114 by Epinephrine on January 8, 2008 at 11:21 am

Grr, lost my huge post...

Ok, alternative medicine has several issues:
1) Not clinically effective - it performs at or below placebo
2) Encourages belief in supernatural twaddle - reiki, aura massage and all that
3) Can actually be dangerous - performing below placebo is a bad thing.
4) Prone to quality issues

First off, the only justification for any medical treatment is evidence. Evidence-based medicine is vital - we're past bloodlettings and treating lethargy with a teaspoon of quicksilver. Epidemiological evidence, clinical trials - that's what you need.

Second - reducing resistance to supernatural claims. Drug companies don't get away with customer claims, anecdotes of miraculous recoveries and such. Nor do they get to use claims of supernatural powers, such as this lovely garbage:

"All products are handcrafted using high quality Shea Butter, poppy seed oils, and Love. We only use 100% non-toxic, environmentally friendly non-GMO ingredients and no Sodium Lauryl Sulfate. We test on friends and family, not animals!

A focus on Vibrational Science helps purify and enrich the healing potential of all our products."

Great, it's got love in it. There wasn't enough love in my antibiotics. And vibrational science, good, what's that exactly?

And don't forget the dangers - unlike a pharmacist, who is trained to know what interferes with what, you'll get no such help from alternative therapists.

Moreover, you may end up taking something downright dangerous - a few examples?

Calabash Chalk used to fight morning sickness, was tested and found to contain lead and arsenic.
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/advisories-avis/_2007/2007_136_e.html

"Metaboslim" apple cider vinegar capsules, adulterated with sibutramine
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/advisories-avis/_2007/2007_105_e.html

Optimum Health Care Sleep Easy supplement, laced with clonazepam,
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/advisories-avis/_2007/2007_89_e.html

Baby's Bliss Gripe Water (apple flavour) - natural health product, batch found to be contaminated with cryptosporidium.
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/advisories-avis/_fpa-ape_2008/2008_01_e.html

etc...

Those are just a few examples, and it's from a huge list of products that are bacterially contaminated, ethylene glycol filled, adulterated with drugs, or contaminated with heavy metals.

Even when they aren't harmful or contaminated they are often of no benefit, and serve as a vehicle to weaken belief in traditional medicine, encourage irrational belief in untested or discredited therapies, and provide a means to traffic drugs illegally.

272. US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

Comment #109085 by Epinephrine on January 8, 2008 at 9:47 am

Wow, I didn't realise that religion was only every second census. Thanks, I assumed we would be seeing some data soon from 2006, but apparently not.

273. US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

Comment #109062 by Epinephrine on January 8, 2008 at 8:45 am

Re: Comment #109050 by rod-the-farmer on January 8, 2008 at 8:22 am

(this from 2006)
Religiosity index: Less than a third of Canadians are "highly religious"

This isn't from the 2006 Census is it? To my knowledge 2006 Census data isn't available on religion yet. Is that from the 2006 release of the 2002 Ethnic Diversity Survey?

Edit: Confirmed, that's 2002 data that was released in 2006 - the 2006 Census is still being released as analysis is completed - they haven't released the religion data yet, but I'm looking forward to seeing it.

274. US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

Comment #109051 by Epinephrine on January 8, 2008 at 8:24 am

arogop

Canada?... You mean Northern Montana right? I love to visit there. Great Orchid hunting!!!!! Cypress Hills ROCKS!!! (The Alberta side)

I prefer the term "Soviet Canuckistan", but glad you like visiting us - I'm actually in the nation's capital (not Toronto!), a long way from Northern Montana, though my wife's family are out west.

275. US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

Comment #109038 by Epinephrine on January 8, 2008 at 7:57 am

Living in Canada, I'm somewhat concerned about the US election. Thankfully we are more secular, but many of our policies are affected by what goes on south of the border - I have no doubts that pressures from the US slowed down our legalization of gay marriage and is holding back the decriminalization of marijuana possession.

That said, we have a good thing up here - strengthening dollar, good education system (I can even find the Pacific!), good social system and medical care. For those in the US that might flee if another republican gets in and starts appointing religious nutbars to the supreme court, I'd be happy with more atheists moving here, and there's plenty of room. To quote The Arrogant Worms, "Canada's really big."

Oh, and I enjoyed the UK too - lived in Gloucestershire (near Tetbury) for a while, and outside of Oban before that (though I couldn't stand London). You've got a beautiful country :)

276. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #106804 by Epinephrine on January 3, 2008 at 1:43 pm

Artful Dodger: "There is NOTHING in the Bible that could be remotely construed as providing a mandate or even a pretext for child abuse or any other kind of abuse."

The above posters have given some good examples, here's another.

Proverbs 20:30
Blows and wounds cleanse away evil, and beatings purge the inmost being

Yeah, that's not abuse. That's just beating the EVIL out of people. Plus all the bits about how if you don't beat your kids they're doomed... he who spares the rod and all that.

277. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92277 by Epinephrine on November 30, 2007 at 7:39 am

notsobad,

Many animals will kill young that aren't theirs. Why? It could be to remove the genes from the competition, to free a nursing mother for sex... but it happens. Huimans aren't the only brutal ones, though we're animals nonetheless.

Vengeful behaviours are documented in apes, and I believe in crows as well. I suspect that vengeful behaviours are much more common than we believe in the animal kingdom, it's one of the most effective strategies out there, I'd be surprised if evolution ignored it. Look at the winners of prisoner's dilemma - they all operate roughly on a "tit-for-tat" basis, the essence of cooperation and punishment.

278. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92259 by Epinephrine on November 30, 2007 at 6:38 am

I'll agree that sex outside marriage isn't wrong in principle, but it depends of course on the terms of a marriage. In my marriage (in which we are both atheist) we agreed that a major factor is trust and loyalty. We agreed that we are exclusive sexually, and any deviation from that monogamy *would* be "cheating", as we trust one another not to.

R.D. is trying to challenge the notion that sex outside of marriage is sinful, and stating that the public has no need to know with whom a politician has extramarital affairs. I have to say this is one point on which I disagree - sure, sex isn't sinful, but violating your word/agreement in a way that is emotionally hurtful to another most certainly isn't acceptable. The vast majority of marriages (whether religious, legal, or simply a statement in front of friends) are a proclamation of a pair-bond, monogamy, and each has the right to expect the other to respect that agreement.

While we shouldn't care with whom a politician has sex, the fact that they are unwilling to honour their spouse in the manner in which they pledged, that they have no control over their sexuality, or that they would hurt someone they (at least at one time) love(d) is telling - would I want this person deciding matters that require my trust in them? Ethical issues?

If you enter into a relationship with a different understanding, great! You've conquered an ancient and evolutionarily derived desire for control of your mate. It isn't however anything that *needs* to be overcome, any more than you need to prove that you can walk without your little toe.

Killing each other in jealousy is a bad thing; the presence of jealousy isn't. It's a bit like many psychological traits that we have evolved - the ability to enter a depressive state for example, has survival benefits, though obviously depression that runs out of control is problematic. Jealousy isn't bad in and of itself - it helps us understand what we value, offers insights into our nature.

Evolutionary psychology has examined many of these issues, and as usual, the evolutionary perspective sheds a great deal of light on the subject. I for one still believe that we always have a choice in how we act, and cannot condone breaking trust for a tryst.

I'll also echo earlier mentions that taking the view that it isn't wrong to have extramarital sex lends itself to claims that atheists operate in a moral vacuum. Sure, there is nothing wrong with sex, nor with it occuring with someone outside of a marriage - provided both partners (and the added person!) are willing - but I worry about how this will be taken by the media.