Pharyngula: Open thread: PZed's in the UK

Search this blog

Profile

PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)

I reserve the right to publicly post, with full identifying information about the source, any email sent to me that contains threats of violence.

I support Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Random Quote

(Complete listing)

You contain a trillion copies of a large, textual document written in a highly accurate, digital code, each copy as voluminous as a substantial book. I'm talking, of course, of the DNA in your cells.

Richard Dawkins

A Taste of Pharyngula

(Complete listing)

Diploblasts and triploblasts

Digit numbering and limb development

The proper reverence due those who have gone before

Other Information

2005 Koufax Award
Best Expert

2006 Weblogs Award

Subscribe via Email

Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.

Sign me up!

« A visit to Downe | Main | Open thread: PZed's in the UK »

Open thread: PZed's in the UK

Category: Open Thread
Posted on: October 16, 2006 6:00 AM, by PZ Myers

Party thread!

TrackBacks

(TrackBack URL for this entry: )

Comments

Oi!

Posted by: Bokanovsky Process | October 16, 2006 8:09 AM

The God debate
Patricia Pearson reviews the recent books by Dawkins and Collins, and reveals her immense shallow-tude.

Posted by: quork | October 16, 2006 10:25 AM

Gawd! That brings back memories! I think I'll go have a pint now. Thanks PZ.

Posted by: kmiers | October 16, 2006 10:31 AM

I also realize that Michael Behe, Philip Johnson and William Dembski, as advocates of intelligent design, are among the sharpest minds in the country.

(snicker)

Posted by: quork | October 16, 2006 10:32 AM

Not the Pogues circa '85 but they'll have to do.;)

Posted by: raindogzilla | October 16, 2006 11:07 AM

from the 'gos debate' crap :

Evolutionary psychology is a very new field, with no proven theorems.

Does someone know the guy, who invented the brilliant idea that instead of maths, science is the business of "proving" i.e. 'this is just an unproven theory', 'prove me the world war 2 really happened', 'no proven theorems' ? I would like to have a word with him ( and test the effects of several caustic chemicals on his face, too... )

Posted by: T_U_T | October 16, 2006 11:34 AM

Ugh, after I stayed up all night reading a book and writing a paper for class I come home and read the God Debate...
That's a terrible treat for a job well done, at least I got to listen to Flogging Molly while I got angry at that crap.

Posted by: Guenter | October 16, 2006 12:09 PM

LETS GET PISSED!1!!

Posted by: Sean O'Doherty | October 16, 2006 12:33 PM

Indian youth weds hill to ward off curse

RANCHI, India (AFP) - A teenage boy in a tribal village in eastern India wed a hill in order to appease its goddess and remove a curse placed on his mother, a report said.
...

No report on whether the marriage was consumated.

Posted by: quork | October 16, 2006 12:42 PM

#10

While we party, Eugenics makes a bit of headway:
"The North Korean regime's obsession with racial purity has led to the killing of disabled infants and forced abortions for women suspected of conceiving their babies by Chinese fathers, according to a growing body of testimony from defectors.

The latest description of Kim Jong-il's policy of state eugenics came from a North Korean doctor, Ri Kwang-chol, who escaped last year and told a forum in Seoul that babies with deformities were killed soon after birth.

"There are no people with physical defects in North Korea," Ri said. Such babies were put to death by medical staff and buried quickly, he claimed. He denied ever committing the act himself."

UK Times

Posted by: Bro. Bartleby | October 16, 2006 1:32 PM

#11

Via Hullabaloo comes this bit of science news from Michigan.

+++

Posted by: mjs | October 16, 2006 1:36 PM

#12

A cartoon version of the life of Pope John Paul II, telling the story of his life and death in animated form, is to be released on DVD by the Vatican.

Posted by: quork | October 16, 2006 2:26 PM

#13

My yard has become a bit of a fungus farm. Mostly stinkrods but there are some other ones there too, some quite pretty. I don't know what they are but I have been known to slow down while driving to look at fungi attached to trees. Maybe tomorrow I can have my starfish pictures up.

Posted by: Mena | October 16, 2006 3:20 PM

#14

I guess I'd leave the country too, if this was happening in my state (Candidate Michele Bachmann tells Church congregation "God then called me to run for United States Congress..."

Posted by: mark | October 16, 2006 4:17 PM

#15

quork -- you posted the link to the BBC's article on the cartoon Pope; here's my commentary on same. :)

It was just too good to not comment on.

Posted by: Warren | October 16, 2006 4:32 PM

#16

Anti-Atheist Movement

The New York Film and Video Festival (www.nyfilmvideo.com) brngs you 'The Anti-Atheist Documentary'-Omer Pasha (www.omerpasha.tk)
...
Synopsis: God Exists Atheists Are IN Error-They think they will get away with denying God and condemning Judaism , Christianity and Islam. Denying God Is the road to eternal fire. Freemasonry is a proof of the Devil. Jesus will turn Muslim. The pain of Iraq will be undone.Only one God exists, the rest are fiction.
...

What a pity I won't be able to make the premiere, I'm sure the flawless logic would save me from my godless ways. (Yawn)

Posted by: quork | October 16, 2006 6:26 PM

#17

Nanobiomotors are the synthetic ecology future of Dawkin's evolution for Earth.

Posted by: drew hempel | October 16, 2006 6:38 PM

#18

In the video, everything appears to be happening in Ireland (to me, anyways), except at 3:16, when the skateboarder crosses an intersection, and cars are clearly visible driving on their own right side.

Posted by: TheBrummell | October 16, 2006 6:54 PM

#19

I NEED HELP! I'm not a biology major but rather a recovering 46 year old Lutheran. In my local paper, there was a letter regarding abortion. This letter said that 'Surely you can't argue what science has deemed valid -- that human life begins at conception.'

In the online edition of the paper, we can respond to the letter (annonomously if desired). I chose to post ""Can you support your claim that science has deemed that human life begins at conception?""

To which the response was "Yes. Open any biology textbook."

Since I'm not at all equipped to really have this debate, I need help. So far all what I've said is that a sperm cell is 'alive' and an egg cell is 'alive' and that I believe that we can trace 'alive' even farther back. I asked if they could actually cite any information that showed that the scientific community believes that life begins at conception. OK, I know that's weak but like I said, I'm in over my head. I could use idea's/usefull links posted here or if anyone wants to jump in directly, you can go to the on-line comments at
http://www.winonadailynews.com/articles/2006/10/16/opinion/letter15.txt#blogcomments

Keep in mind that they don't get posted immediately (anywhere from a few minutes to several hours later).

I suspect that this isn't what PZ planned on the comments being used for but hey, I hope he understands.

Thanks for the help.!

Posted by: rmp | October 16, 2006 7:28 PM

#20

rmp,
PZ talked about it in Fetuses wiggle, so?. I think the problem is where do you define the beginning of human life? Is a living bunch of cells human if they have the genetics? Do they need "potential" to become a whole self-sustaining human? What about all the embryos in LN2, or cells in culture? It all depends on where you draw the line of "what is human"? You may also want to look around here for anencephaly and maybe some other things. I imagine your Google searches will have to be fairly specific, there are probably tons of pages on either side, and be careful whom you trust on the 'net.

Hope that helps,
Mike

Posted by: Mike | October 16, 2006 7:48 PM

#21

I am not a biologist but you said:
"I've said is that a sperm cell is 'alive' and an egg cell is 'alive'.
That seems correct to me. I don't think you would make a kid if you started with a dead egg or dead sperm. I would have thought conception was a necessary but not sufficient step for a human life.

Posted by: oldhippie | October 16, 2006 8:10 PM

#22

Ah, semantics. A fertilized cell is indeed alive, and it is human, but whether it possesses "human life" is a far more complicated question.

Given that medicine regards people as being dead when their higher brain functions cease... functioning... even though their bodies are still alive, a case can be made that according to existing standards a collection of living human cells is not a "person" if it lacks those brain functions.

If this person is arguing that cells are alive at conception, that's simply stupid.

Posted by: Caledonian | October 16, 2006 8:11 PM

#23

Nor am I a biologist, but the best answer, and I think the truest to this line of talk is that life does not begin. Life is a continuous process. To attempt to define a point where it begins is, well, pointless.

Posted by: cactus j | October 16, 2006 8:22 PM

#24

"Not the Pogues circa '85 but they'll have to do.;)"

Yah, a bit more MacGowanesque spitting and rather a lot more rudeness in material and delivery, and they'd just about have it. :)

Posted by: Jud | October 16, 2006 9:33 PM

#25

An acorn is "alive" but it's not the same as an oak tree. It takes time, material, nurturing environment, and a certain amount of luck. We can't equate the potential with the actual. A blueprint isn't a house: same reasoning. And a fertilized egg, while it has the potential to become a thinking, feeling human being with enough time, materials, nurturing, and luck, isn't one yet.

Hope that helps!

Also there's the basic principle that the fellow sitting next to me, undoubtedly a living individual, can't use my body, even to keep himself alive, without my permission. So why give a fertilized egg the right to use it?

Posted by: Monado | October 16, 2006 10:15 PM

#26

Dr. Myers It was a great job debunking Deepak Chopra's post "the trouble with the genes" which appeared on Huffingtonpost. Deepak Chopra did not stop at that and continued to post Part 2, Part 3 of "Trouble with the Genes" in Huffington Post and Intentblog.com(maintained by his friends and family). In it he criticized his critics and made further claims. I the bloggers here who made a good job with their comments would be interested to know this.

THE TROUBLE WITH GENES (Part I, Part II, Ad Infinitum...)

And how did DNA come about in the first place? It came about when the universe wanted to watch itself at play. DNA has served that function for around 2 billion years and shows no sign of stopping. ~Deepak Chopra

The trouble with genes is
They go on turning
Many sane people into
Into mystic and mad people.

They make a medic lose his head
He starts finding souls in void instead
Coming from God and those who're dead
Forming intelligence sending to our heads.

So our minds are muddy and muddled
Ab initio dirty bowls filled with
Anger, lust, greed, entanglements and ego
Cleanse your mind with meditation

The erstwhile medic now a mad man says.
And then etherly intelligence would seep
Into your mind connecting you with God
And everyone else: born, unborn and the dead.

Genes really make no one - cats, rats
Lions, lamas, gorillas, apes, snakes
Cows, bulls, horses, men, women
Roses, bushes, birds, hornets, insects,

Mangoes, papayas, peaches, plums
Turtles, frogs, seals, sharks, fish -
They all come from a grand wish
When God put together genes two

Million years ago and "the universe
wanted to watch itself at play."
So shame on anyone who talks of
Biology, evolution, genetics or medicine!

~ Whie Wings

http://whitewings.sulekha.com/blogs/blogdisplay.aspx?cid=101522

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/the-trouble-with-genes-p_b_31805.html

http://www.intentblog.com/archives/2006/10/the_trouble_wit_1.html

http://www.intentblog.com/archives/2006/10/the_trouble_wit_2.html

Posted by: VJay | October 16, 2006 10:59 PM

#27

THE TROUBLE WITH GENES ( Part 3, A Response)

"I am thrilled to be able to share ideas on the leading edge of speculative thinking. Unlike Thangaraj, who shows not the slightest acquaintance with my writings or hundreds of other titles in the field, I am fascinated by genetics and its implication for consciousness in general."

"In the course of twenty years I've tried to seriously examine all these factors. Thangaraj believes he can trump the whole lot with chemicals in a test tube."

~Deepak Chopra

For twenty years I have been
Doing speculative thinking,
And sharing ideas on the leading edge
Ending into the world of souls and ghouls.

I remind you, all speculative thinking,
All speculative ideas, all speculative
Conclusions no ground to stand on.
But my musings on Vedas and gods.

I do not care to give you
Any evidence of what I say.
I do not have to prove anything
For speculative thinking is in my soul.

Now I see a raja of thugs
Bringing me down with his
Wishful thuggery showing me
Chemical reactions in test tubes.

I have my gloves on.
Put your gloves on.
Sand is not shifting under my feet
I am praying sweating in Indian heat

Standing on solid har ki pauri
Taking to my shrine in Hardwar.
I would leash on you demons and ghouls
To burn to ashes your miserable soul,

Like Lord Krishna did in Kurukshetra war.

I have seen life after death
I have seen life before death
I am a holy avatar in this birth.
With your genie genes, you'll

Rot in hell, never a chance for rebirth.

Notes: Har ki pauri are the steps leading to the
temple of holy gods on the banks of river Ganges
in Hardwar in India. Raja is a king in Hindi/Urdu.

~White Wings

http://whitewings.sulekha.com/blogs/blogdisplay.aspx?cid=101536

http://www.intentblog.com/archives/2006/10/the_trouble_wit_2.html

Posted by: VJay | October 16, 2006 11:03 PM

#28

For a real before and after shock, in regards to Flogging Molly frontman, Dave King, check him in a previous incarnation . Fastway...I think I actually used to own that record.

Posted by: raindogzilla | October 16, 2006 11:29 PM

#29

Here's a response by Dr. Deepak Chopra to fierce criticsm he faced( from this blog, Huffingtonpost, Intentblog)for his artilces on "Trouble with the Genes":

"Since Thangaraj has taken the time and effort to post objections to my ideas about genes, I thought he deserved a reply. Normally I don't respond to reckless objections that fail to take consciousness seriously, but Thangaraj no doubt represents other readers here in his worldview.

The so-called Cartesian split, which would compartmentalize the material and immaterial world, is something I want to heal. It seems highly likely that consciousness is innate in Nature. There are simply too many flaws in a completely materialistic view. If we had complete knowledge of how a piano produces those organized vibrations known as music, we would still know nothing about beauty, inspiration, harmony, aesthetic delight, genius, and the evolution of musical styles from one culture to the next.

Indeed, to demote beauty, truth, love, honor, integrity, emotional boding, curiosity, insight, epiphanies, morality, religion, personality, and relationships to chemical interactions is foolish on the face of it. Materialism is expert in achieving a certain kind of technical knowledge and pointless in regards to deeper knowledge. The Cartesian split in effect nullified centuries of humanistic thought by promoting technical, data-gathering science. Much to our benefit, of course.

But when Thangaraj attempts to intrude into the enormous arena of philosophy and spirituality with a whisk broom, brushing it all off as nonsense, he exposes a shallow viewpoint. It's far more productive to find a way to heal the mind-matter schism, to see how our deep human concerns are compatible with science. That's why genes are so important. They are the best interface between mind and mater that we now possess.

Thangaraj asserts that in the mixture of nature and nurture, adult behaviors can be explained mostly with genes and childhood behavior mostly with environmental influences. Such an argument fails on the face of it, for he hasn't explained how our genes 'decide' or 'know' when to influence a person and when to lie back in the shadows and allow the environment to do its work. Contrary to his claim, twins aren't a straw man; they are pointedly relevant because identical twins are the only practical way to isolate identical genes in order to observe what they 'cause' or 'influence.'

I would assert further that cause is a tricky business because there's a tangled scheme of genes, personal predilection, family influence, social conditioning, inherited beliefs, and as yet unexplained ingredients (the X factor denoted by the Sanskrit terms, Karma and Dharma) that creates any complex behavior. Karma and Dharma aren't outmoded Indian religious concepts but keys to how the individual fits into a larger scheme of human evolution and behavior. In the course of twenty years I've tried to seriously examine all these factors. Thangaraj believes he can trump the whole lot with chemicals in a test tube.

I am not willing to use disdain and rhetoric to bolster a weak argument. Far from feeling the sand shift under my feet, as Thangaraj asserts, I feel only one shortcoming in these recent posts, the absence of sufficient space. Genetics is a massive field; I was giving only a thumbnail sketch of certain mysteries yet to be solved.

It's not helpful to be met with vehement disdain, but it's not hurtful, either. I am thrilled to be able to share ideas on the leading edge of speculative thinking. Unlike Thangaraj, who shows not the slightest acquaintance with my writings or hundreds of other titles in the field, I am fascinated by genetics and its implication for consciousness in general." ~ Deepak Chopra

http://www.intentblog.com/archives/2006/10/the_trouble_wit_2.html

Posted by: Togo | October 16, 2006 11:35 PM

#30

As this is given as a party thread, here is some advice for a single visiting another country.

Chelsea Handler's one-night stand etiquette course.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?search=&mode=related&v=Xe0W6QXtkyg

Sometimes things are not so hunky-dory. The Truth about a One-night Stand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76OmLX-5DDw&mode=related&search=

A surprise one-night stand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIjsM73hgPY

Now you are warned.

Posted by: bernarda | October 17, 2006 5:25 AM

#31

So far all what I've said is that a sperm cell is 'alive' and an egg cell is 'alive' and that I believe that we can trace 'alive' even farther back.

Yup, at least 3.5 billion years back. There has been a continuous chain of life since then. At some rather arbitrary time, one branch of this turned into "human" life. Life is not sacred, or so I believe since I am willing to kill plants and animals for my food. Human life is not sacred, or so I believe since i approve of the killing of living human tissue, such as tumors. (Tumor cells in people are alive. They are human.)
Not every sperm and not every egg survives to voting age. Not every fertilized egg gets implanted. Not every implanted embryo survives to birth. And what about identical twins? They are the result of a single fertilized egg which splits into two embryos at some point. Does the second life get created at fertilization, or when the embryo splits?
I think your best response is to sing a couple verses of Monty Python's Every sperm is sacred.

Posted by: quork | October 17, 2006 10:07 AM

#32

Dr. Myers It was a great job debunking Deepak Chopra's post "the trouble with the genes" which appeared on Huffingtonpost. Deepak Chopra did not stop at that and continued to post Part 2, Part 3 of "Trouble with the Genes" in Huffington Post and Intentblog.com(maintained by his friends and family). ...

Orac over at Respectful Insolence is blogging those. Be sure to check it out.
The Trouble with Deepak Chopra, Part 2
The Trouble with Deepak Chopra, Part 3: More Choprawoo

Posted by: quork | October 17, 2006 10:14 AM

#33

""Can you support your claim that science has deemed that human life begins at conception?""
To which the response was "Yes. Open any biology textbook."

It is not a settled question by any means.

Here's an entire page on the whole question, both from the historical perspective, and from the current scientific views. It's from a companion website to a biology textbook called Developmental Biology.

http://7e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162

This is the same page but for a newer edition. It doesn't look too different from the previous, but I haven't done a thorough comparison.

http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162

Posted by: Owlmirror | October 18, 2006 4:18 PM