Pharyngula: Dr Who? Dr Dawkins!

#1

Dang!

I was hoping that Dawkins got to exclaim:

"Exterminate! Exterminate!"

Seriously, I'd make that my ringtone.

Posted by: Doc Bill | June 29, 2008 6:12 PM

#2

I like this one much better.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

Darwinism is a big fat lie that only true religious wackos would believe.

Posted by: stannley | June 29, 2008 6:14 PM

#3

I had a dream about PZ last night...

I need to get out more.

Posted by: Steve P. | June 29, 2008 6:16 PM

#4

Mr Stan-the-fuckwit: your tedious schtick is wearing out its welcome. You're done here, unless you can see fit to actually ask a question politely and actually pay attention to the answer.

I don't think you're capable of it.

Posted by: PZ Myers | June 29, 2008 6:18 PM

#5

See, he's just opposing Dumbski in order to make a name for himself. Even gets him on Dr. Who.

Well, it is a charge Dumbski made against one scientist in particular, and against scientists in general.

Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Posted by: Glen Davidson | June 29, 2008 6:19 PM

#6

The incongruous part of it was that they were having him, a biologist, be interviewed on the topic of anomalous planets and stars (pointing out that the Earth had moved rather than other things coming to the vicinity of the Earth). In the UK, the proper celebrity interviewee for such an occasion would be Patrick Moore.

Posted by: SEF | June 29, 2008 6:21 PM

#7

Darwinism is a big fat lie that only true religious wackos would believe.

Iz Y Expelled claims only atheists believe in evolution, no doubt.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Posted by: Glen Davidson | June 29, 2008 6:21 PM

#8

Stan, that wasn't Richard Dawkins, that was an auton!

Posted by: Al | June 29, 2008 6:26 PM

#9

Did anyone else think it kinda weird that Dawkins was on TV (in the show) discussing astronomy? I realize it's fiction and all, but would a news program tap a biologist to discuss astronomical happenings?

I'm surprised Phil isn't making something of this. Although, if astronomy's so easy that biologists can do it in a pinch, I suppose he'd wanna keep that on the down low. :P

Posted by: uknesvuinng | June 29, 2008 6:26 PM

#10

I saw it, and it was beautiful.

Posted by: Kel | June 29, 2008 6:31 PM

#11

Doctor Who's showrunner, Russell T Davies, has long been an out and proud atheist (see his wonderful earlier miniseries "The Second Coming" featuring a latter-day messiah played by "Ninth Doctor" Christopher Eccleston), so it's not surprising to see Dawkins guesting.

Posted by: Anna Granfors | June 29, 2008 6:32 PM

#12

PZ: "Mr Stan-the-fuckwit: your tedious schtick is wearing out its welcome. You're done here, unless you can see fit to actually ask a question politely and actually pay attention to the answer.

I don't think you're capable of it."

ok....here's one that went unanswered from another thread...(reworded at your request)

any of you evos come up with a random mutation that adds a new (non-duplicated) bodily structure, such as a part of the aforementioned octopus? You've got millions of body parts in the world to choose from, and life supposedly started with a one-celled organism that lacked arms and legs and organs, so your dumb "science" has got quite a bit to account for in the world.

Heck...got any controlled scientific studies/experiments proving natural selection's ability to adapt an animal population genetically? And just where are all those common ancestors -- or even just one of them? (your wet dreams don't count.)

Posted by: stanley | June 29, 2008 6:43 PM

#13

This series of Doctor Who been excellent.

Doc Bill, Prof Dawkins is too softly spoken to do a good 'Exterminate!' It has to be in a deranged, cracked metallic counter tenor rising in pitch and volume with each ejaculation. That Phelps chap with some a/c passed through his nipple rings would probably be better.

Posted by: Peter Mc | June 29, 2008 6:48 PM

#14

"unanswered from another thread" means that he didn't read any of the numerous answers from the other thread, most of which included linked references.

Posted by: pcarini | June 29, 2008 6:49 PM

#15

There are two points to be made regarding this; first, it seemed to me to be a gentle poke in the eye to those who insist that skeptics and atheists - Richard Dawkins being a very prominent example, certainly as far as the media are concerned - will always argue against extraordinary events, insisting that it has to be some sort of fraud. Instead, what you get is RD saying, in effect, that if extraordinary proof is provided, then he will not be standing around insisting it's all a big trick.

The second point is that he's practically due an honorary Doctorate, if you follow my meaning; friend of Douglas Adams (who was a scriptwriter and script editor for Doctor Who during the Tom Baker era), and married to the second Romana! Well, the actress who played her. And she was formerly married - briefly - to Tom Baker. All he needs is a planet, race, or medical condition* named after him within the show, and he'll be due a key to the TARDIS. I imagine his first order of business, on being presented with a time machine, would be to gather all the creationists he could find and take them back into deep time to witness evolution in action.

And if he did such a thing, what are the odds that said creationists would insist that it was all some sort of trick?

* "Grimwade's Syndrome", an irrational fear of robots, was named for Peter Grimwade, who was directing model sequences for the show. Of course, it's fair to say that in a story called "The Robots Of Death", the fear of robots is not irrational... oh, never mind.

Posted by: Matt A | June 29, 2008 6:50 PM

#16

Never mind the fact that it's a biologist discussing astronomy; the point is that it's Richard Dawkins on Dr. Who, which we've been awaiting for years! It's like the completion of the Holy Trinity on the Whoniverse... Get this: Dawkins was a fan of Douglas (Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy) Adams, who wrote for Dr Who back in the day and worked with Lalla (Romanavortrundelar, or Romana II for short, on Dr Who, in the days of Tom Baker) Ward; they became fast friends and Dawkins invited Adams to read a short excerpt of his work on the 1990 Christmas Lectures at the Royal Institute; somewhere along the line Adams introduced Dawkins to Lalla Ward, who later became his wife (and is sometimes referred to as Saint Lalla among Whovians). See what I mean about Holy Trinity of Who? It was only a matter of time before Dawkins got a guest spot on Dr. Who :-)

Posted by: Chelonian | June 29, 2008 6:57 PM

#17

Stan, why does duplication and modification of limbs, digits etc. not count as valid, beneficial mutation? I gave you the example of the thumb, which answered your question.

I also told you I'm not a scientist, and I'm still not. Six months ago I knew bugger-all about how evolution worked, but you know what I did?

Research. Reading, listening, paying attention. It gave me all the answers I needed to understand. So I'll have a shot at explaining it to you - and the experts can point out anything I've missed and/or explained incorrectly.

Duplication is a perfect illustration of why evolution is real. That's the whole point of evolution - it's not the sudden appearance of a whole new feature (that'd be magic, which is what evolution proponents are against, not for) - it's the slow, gradual modification of beneficial features. It has to start with what is essentially duplication.

Some more examples: claws on crabs, lobsters and other crustaceans; envenoming devices like fangs on snakes and stingers on scorpions.

Posted by: Wowbagger | June 29, 2008 7:01 PM

#18

@stanley
It appears as if you merely troll the comments threads around here without actually paying attention to anything that has been said.
If you actually read any of the posts, you might have noticed a number of entries very recently that provided the examples you asked for.
For example, new structures:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/still_just_a_lizard.php
where a population of lizards introduced to a new environment evolved wider, deeper and longer skulls with stronger bites, as well as cecal valves in their guts because of the change in their diets.

Or if you like, the more recent entry:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/historical_contingency_in_the.php
where E. Coli evolved the ability to metalobize Citrate.

So perhaps you should engage your brain before you shoot your mouth off next time.

Posted by: Jon D | June 29, 2008 7:05 PM

#19

Ah, Matt A beat me to it. But his post prompts me to add, in true Whovian geek fashion, that's there's another relevant connection: to evolution! Lalla Ward played Romana II in City of Death with Tom Baker, wherein an alien wants to travel back in time in order to avert a disaster that befalls his spaceship containing the last of his people. However, the Doctor cannot allow this to happen because the explosion that destroys his spaceship is the "spark" that causes life to emerge from the primordial soup of Earth's oceans, and thence to evolve into the diversity we presently enjoy. (Incidentally, this is very similar to a major plot point of Douglas Adams' "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency"). So again, you've got Doctor Who threading through Lalla Ward and Douglas Adams, via the question of life, evolution and everything, to Richard Dawkins. Isn't it just beautiful?

Posted by: Chelonian | June 29, 2008 7:06 PM

#20

For stannley:
Here's a real-world example of a new feature evolving in a lizard species, in about 30 generations.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/still_just_a_lizard.php

The link is PZ's writeup of the article, and is an amazingly easy read, even for us layfolk.

Posted by: pcarini | June 29, 2008 7:09 PM

#21

In the interest of fairness: this is Richard Dawkins' response to that so called being "stumped" video that stannley so gleefully draws attention to.

...the long pause occurred when I tumbled to the fact that the film-makers were creationists, and I had been tricked into allowing them an interview. I was trying to decide how to handle the difficult diplomatic situation. Should I throw them out immediately? Should I answer the question? Should I stop the interview and discuss their dishonesty with them before deciding whether to allow the interview to continue? I eventually took the third option. It later turned out that they used the long pause to make it look as though I was unable to answer the question. At the end of the long pause, they cut to a scene of me talking about something completely different (presumably the answer to another question which was cut), to make it look as though I was evading the question by changing the subject.

Posted by: RamblinDude | June 29, 2008 7:10 PM

#22

Bah, Jon D beat me to it, and had a better post.

So which American tv show is cool enough to give PZ a cameo? Once one show does it all the others will have to jump on the bandwagon.

Posted by: pcarini | June 29, 2008 7:12 PM

#23

City of Death also featured a cameo from John Cleese, who can be seen admiring the TARDIS in the museum where it landed.

Posted by: Wowbagger | June 29, 2008 7:13 PM

#24

Stan @ #12: Random mutations that add novel body structures are quite common. However, people are generally alarmed by them, so they are typically known as tumors. (Note that a tumor is not 'cancer' unless it metastasizes, and I am not talking about cancer here). Depending on the tumor's tissue of origin, the tumors can appear to be things like lumps, or moles, or even (for bone or keratin-derived tumors) -- horns, which are quite common in the historical medical literature. Of course most mutations are not in germ cells, and therefore most tumors are not inherited, but they are occasionally. Kids who have moles like a parent are a common benign example. (Non-benign examples are genetically-linked cancers -- also, unfortunately, rather common). You may argue that things like moles are not adaptive, but in fact 'beauty marks' (if indeed they increase the chances of mating) would be an excellent example of an adaptive body part addition. In cold climates, hypertrichosis (look up 'Jojo the dogfaced boy' and his family) might be considered another adaptive addition of body part (although you might argue this is duplication, though it's not really, since this is novel growth rather than simply extension of scalp tissue or something like that)

So there ya go. Check out some good development or genetics texts for more info. The subject really is fascinating.

Posted by: Dave | June 29, 2008 7:13 PM

#25

Quite right, Wowbagger - and there's a connection to the new series there too; in episode 4x02 set in Pompeii, the marble merchant Caercilius (sp?) buys the TARDIS for modern art, which echoes with Cleese's character's hilarious mock analysis.

*/me is resolute to bring this post's discussion back to Dr Who trivia rather than troll-feeding*

Posted by: Chelonian | June 29, 2008 7:21 PM

#26

Dawkins holds the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford and is high profile, so it's not implausible that he could be asked to explain scientists' views of bizarre events. I've not seen Patrick Moore for years.

Posted by: amk | June 29, 2008 7:23 PM

#27

Forget it. Stan clearly is not listening or learning, and obviously does not want to be corrupted by listening to us or learning our heretical nonsense. Hand him a box, tell him to clean out his desk, and make room for someone who genuinely wants to exercise their intellect.

(OFF WITH HIS HEAD!)

Posted by: speedwell | June 29, 2008 7:25 PM

#28

To #27:

What heretical nonsense? My answer had nothing to do with religion. It was just biology. Everything example I presented is consistent with there being a God, albeit a God who: 1) likes to strike people down with cancer and give others deformities, or 2) a God who doesn't bother to stop such stuff happening to many people. But that's consistent with the personality of God as depicted in the old testament. So no dichotomy, in my opinion. There may very well be a God, I don't know. But I guarantee if he/she/it is manipulating life here on Earth, he/she/it is doing it using evolution, over really long time periods.

Posted by: Dave | June 29, 2008 7:37 PM

#29

Speedwell, #27, wrote:

Stan clearly is not listening or learning

Yeah, and he's an expert in goalpost-shifting. At first he was just asking for evidence of beneficial mutations; now he's decided that anything that could be considered a duplication (I used the opposable thumb as an example) isn't valid.

Until we can show him a lizard turning into a chicken he's going to cry foul - or, at least, 'not fowl'...

Posted by: Wowbagger | June 29, 2008 7:41 PM

#30

Very cool! How exciting for Dr. Dawkins.

Stan, you're just a loser. Go away until you have something intelligent and on point to contribute.

Posted by: LisaJ | June 29, 2008 7:43 PM

#31

SO have you asked RD to hook you up with a role on Dr WHo yet PZ, incidentally I am sure everyone here has seen it but for those that havent, Rd's eulogy for Douglas Adams http://www.edge.org/documents/adams_index.html

Posted by: Ray Mills | June 29, 2008 7:44 PM

#32

Stan-the-man:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMlb5z1ggqM

Can't believe you trotted out THAT video of Dawkins: just how gullible are you?

Posted by: Peregrine | June 29, 2008 7:49 PM

#33

I've not seen Patrick Moore for years.

Eh? You can't have been looking very hard then - assuming you're at least in the right country. He's on once a month (or twice if you count the repeat) for The Sky At Night. That's more UK coverage (and more relevant coverage) than Richard Dawkins usually gets (apart from his documentaries, which weren't even on the BBC). He's possibly getting on a bit to be doing the orchestral performances much any more.

Posted by: SEF | June 29, 2008 7:50 PM

#34

How exciting for Dr. Dawkins.

Allegedly it was the rest of the cast and crew who were the excited ones. :-D

Posted by: SEF | June 29, 2008 7:52 PM

#35

At least stan admits religious wackos believe big fat lies.

Posted by: Steve P. | June 29, 2008 7:57 PM

#36

Somewhere there is a bridge missing its troll, and a village missing its idiot. Answers to the name stan.

Posted by: Ray Mills | June 29, 2008 8:00 PM

#37

@Dave #27:

1. Wasn't talking about you.
2. Why did you jump so fast? Did something I said prick you?
3. My use of the phrase "heretical nonsense" was sarcasm. For your convenience: sarcasm 2. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule. (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition 2000)
4. The religion against which our most cogent and truthful utterances are heresy is evidently Stan's self-worship, if not his firm faith that he can gain the upper hand over us by repeating the same "magic spells" of argumentation that have proven ineffectual since TalkOrigins first published its famous list of refutations.

Posted by: speedwell | June 29, 2008 8:06 PM

#38

Liars for Jesus™
There are no depths to which we will not stoop

Posted by: Wowbagger | June 29, 2008 8:11 PM

#39

uknesvuinng wrote:

Did anyone else think it kinda weird that Dawkins was on TV (in the show) discussing astronomy?

All scientists in TVland are superscientists who know everything, just like Gaius Baltar.

http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/06/dawkins-does-who.html

Posted by: Norman Doering | June 29, 2008 8:17 PM

#40

To Speedwell, in response to #37:

1. Oh, sorry then, my mistake. Message board targets are hard to follow sometimes.
2. Not sure what you mean. Or see #1.
3. Sorry, missed that. I just think religion and biology are separate topics, too often muddled, and really Stan's challenge, on the face of it, was straightforward biology. I do not care if he becomes an atheist. But I would hope he learns some developmental biology and genetics.

Posted by: Dave | June 29, 2008 8:23 PM

#41

I have a toy Dalek on my desk for years. I would pounce it around exclaiming "Exterminate! Exterminate!"

I had a lot of quite time in my office as a result.

Posted by: Doc Bill | June 29, 2008 8:33 PM

#42

Yeah, stan's exactly the kind of psychopath that God likes: Belligerent, unintelligent, fanatical, foul-mouthed, and foul-tempered.

Of course, once they die, they're no longer of any interest to him at all... Believe me, I saw it happen with the various terrorists and the freedom fighters and the religious warriors, and the Crusaders, and the heretics, and the schismatics, and the martyrs, and on and on.

And of course, it also happened to me. It took a while for me to get over being a zealot.

I can barely remember how naive I was, those many centuries ago: "But God, I suffered and died for you!"

And God said: "So? What do you want from me, a cookie?" (actually, this was before cookies — what he actually said was "some almonds and raisins")

But after complaining for a bit, and getting utter indifference back from God, I met up with my forefathers, and all of the great scholars and teachers and scribes and judges. And they were all unanimous in their assessment:
"God is basically an asshole. Always has been, always will be."

Of course, modern psychologists have come up with the lingo to describe various personality traits more scientifically, so they talk about sociopathy, and narcissism, et cetera.

But we all know what all that boils down to.

Posted by: Jesus, called Christ | June 29, 2008 8:36 PM

#43

My thankless son Jesus wrote:

God is basically an asshole.

Actually, I prefer to be called assholy.

Nyuk-nyuk-nyuk-nyuk.

Oh, I slay myself sometimes.

Oh, wait. No I don't!

Bwahahahahahaha!

Posted by: God | June 29, 2008 8:41 PM

#44

Well, with that in mind, how about:

Assholes for Jesus™
That 'forgiveness' shit is for pussies

Posted by: Wowbagger | June 29, 2008 8:42 PM

#45

My thankless son Jesus

I am so not related to you.

Posted by: Jesus, called Christ | June 29, 2008 8:43 PM

#46

Heck...got any controlled scientific studies/experiments proving natural selection's ability to adapt an animal population genetically?

Why yes we do. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html

Posted by: Kel | June 29, 2008 8:45 PM

#47

Assholes for Jesus™

Please, leave me out of this. We all know that stan and Ken Ham, and all the other fundy fucknuts are worshipers of the jealous and raging and mass-murdering God of the original books of Moses and the Prophets.

Posted by: Jesus, called Christ | June 29, 2008 8:52 PM

#48

I just watched that episode today, twice. Squealed with glee each time I saw Dawkins. I was spoilered for pretty much all of it, and it still had me on the edge of my seat the whole time.

Doc Bill, you do know you can get a Dalek for your office desk that actually does stuff, right? ThinkGeek used to sell them, but I can't find it right now.

Posted by: Carlie | June 29, 2008 8:53 PM

#49

To be honest, I was kinda disappointed.

I mean, we hear about this months ago, I expected he'd have a much bigger role. I mean, how about actual dialogue with the Doctor? Or how about the Doctor and the newly-mentally-capable Donna sitting in a Dawkins lecture?

To have it turn into a few-second spot where (as has been mentioned above) is merely him discussing astronomy...

... sigh. I mean: yay, Professor Dawkins made it onto the greatest TV show of all time and IDists are still scrabbling for donations (unless you live in Louisiana, I suppose)... but... sigh. The TV screen in my head is much bigger than the one in my lounge.

Posted by: Troff | June 29, 2008 8:54 PM

#50

Creotards for Yahweh™
The Flintstones was a documentary

Posted by: Wowbagger | June 29, 2008 8:56 PM

#51

My thankless son Jesus

I am so not related to you.

Posted by: Jesus, called Christ

Sounds like trouble in paradise. I advice everybody seek shelter.

Posted by: Janine, Disingenuous Jackass | June 29, 2008 8:57 PM

#52

the jealous and raging and mass-murdering God

Hey, I never actually killed anyone. Well, not directly and personally, anyway.

Is it My fault that some weather systems can so easily be perturbed into storms?

Is it My fault that certain bacteria can be so easily engineered to be pathogens? And that these bacteria just so happen to reside inside fleas that live on rats that live near humans?

Is it My fault that killer apes can be so easily manipulated into killing other killer apes?

Really, if I had hands, they would be completely clean. Not that I care, anyway.

Actually, I'm just messing around. Truth of the matter is, sometimes I'm just full of Holy Shit.

Posted by: God | June 29, 2008 9:05 PM

#53

Has anyone seen the rc daleks, Me Want, well that and a rc bb firing tank http://tinyurl.com/4939v4

Posted by: Ray Mills | June 29, 2008 9:08 PM

#54

Damn it, where did I put that blasted Babel Fish?

Posted by: Wowbagger | June 29, 2008 9:09 PM

#55

Hey! God! You can tell everybody that this is your song.

Posted by: Janine, Disingenuous Jackass | June 29, 2008 9:12 PM

#56

Sounds like trouble in paradise.

I seem to recall someone here once calling the crucifixion a daddy-son scene gone horribly awry. Are we on the tracks for something similar here?

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 29, 2008 9:16 PM

#57

Sounds like trouble in paradise. I advice everybody seek shelter.

Huh? No, once you figure out that you don't have to be afraid of God, he pretty much doesn't give a rip about what you say about him or to him.

Sometimes he likes messing with the newbies, but for the most part, everyone in the afterlife is unanimous in their contempt for (and/or indifference to) the big old windbag.

There are a few who think that the whole thing is just some sort of extreme test, and if they hold out long enough, they'll be granted access to the real God, and the true Heaven. It may take a while, but eventually, they usually snap out of it.

Posted by: Jesus, called Christ | June 29, 2008 9:19 PM

#58

I seem to recall someone here once calling the crucifixion a daddy-son scene gone horribly awry. Are we on the tracks for something similar here?

*snort* No.

God has no penis, and does not fuck.

Well, except for fucking with human minds. That's the only pleasure that he really has.

Posted by: Jesus, called Christ | June 29, 2008 9:24 PM

#59

The most pathetic thing about Stain's (Stein's?) schtick is his cockamamie idea that evolution would spontaneously result in "novel body parts" rather than acting to modify existing structures.

Stain, the appearance of "novel body parts", such as gossamer wings of candy floss appearing on a magic pony, would be great evidence for Creationism.

Here's a little experiment that even you could engage in: pray every morning for your dog to develop an organ that allows it to piss high-octane gasoline so you can fill up your Hummer for free. If you can provide proof that this has happened, I will join your megachurch and start tithing.

Posted by: Longtime Lurker | June 29, 2008 9:29 PM

#60

That's the only pleasure that he really has.

That is not true!

Sometimes you apes come up with some reason to hit each other with sticks and rocks without any interference from Me at all, for reasons having nothing to do with Me! I swear to... Well, to Me.

I take pleasure in that conflict as well.

Posted by: God | June 29, 2008 9:30 PM

#61

I bet Dawkins only got the gig because his wife's a Time Lord.

Posted by: Zarquon | June 29, 2008 9:31 PM

#62

Jesus, are you saying that big sky daddy is just a demiurge?

Posted by: Janine, Disingenuous Jackass | June 29, 2008 9:37 PM

#63

Zarquon, #61, wrote:

I bet Dawkins only got the gig because his wife's a Time Lord.

Dawkins got the gig 'cause his wife's a hot Time Lord.

Posted by: Wowbagger | June 29, 2008 9:39 PM

#64

Janine, did I miss the thread where you were inducted into the Order of the Disingenuous Jackass? Accept my late congrats!

I understand that most people who get it don't display the trophy since it's called The Hovind, and is as ugly and useless as its namesake...

Posted by: pcarini | June 29, 2008 9:42 PM

#65

Since God's put in an appearance, I might as well ask... this one's been bothering me for a while now:

God, why haven't you put a stop to American Idol yet? Or M. Night Shyamalan? And which football team are you really for?

Posted by: pcarini | June 29, 2008 9:55 PM

#66

Pcarini, just go to comment #127. A very special person finally saw the truth about me.

But you are wrong about the trophy. It can be used as a paperweight and a door stop. Can you say the same about it's namesake?

Posted by: Janine, Disingenuous Jackass | June 29, 2008 9:59 PM

#67

Janine,

I had no idea I was among such illustrious company.

Posted by: SC, Stupid Fucking Hypocrite | June 29, 2008 10:13 PM

#68

You're right.. the best I can say about The Real Hovind is that he's worth about $2.50 in carbon, nitrogen and a few rare elements. (I don't think anyone would accept organs from such a diseased person.)

I'm surprised I missed TM's pronouncement of your Disingenuous Jackassery, he was being a monster dick all throughout that thread so it must have just blended in.

Posted by: pcarini | June 29, 2008 10:15 PM

#69

Jesus, are you saying that big sky daddy is just a demiurge?

Maybe. He might not even be that. He does lie a lot. We hope that he isn't as powerful as he pretends.

On the other hand, if there's anything bigger and more powerful than him, it hasn't shown up to kick his assholy around.

And he knows that by any standard of fairness and justice, he deserves a good kicking.

Posted by: Jesus, called Christ | June 29, 2008 10:16 PM

#70

God, why haven't you put a stop to American Idol yet? Or M. Night Shyamalan?

Excuse Me? You want Me to stop anything that makes you apes miserable, angry, and violent?

And which football team are you really for?

All of the ones that result in hooliganism and rioting.

And he knows that by any standard of fairness and justice, he deserves a good kicking.

"Fairness" and "justice" are just notions that you apes came up with to not fight. Inasmuch as they are necessary for you to not EX-TERM-I-NATE yourselves, I suppose that I can concede that they are not entirely useless ideas, for you.

But I have never, in all of my timespan, ever been in danger of EX-TERM-I-NA-TION, so for me, those concepts are useless.

Posted by: God | June 29, 2008 10:25 PM

#71

Carlie, knowing about your love of things Doctor and Torchwood, I hope you enjoy this. AronRa, like Thunderfoot, has a very good youtube series where he takes apart creationists. He has a thirteen year old son who wanted to be a Dalek for Halloween last year. Watch as a Dalek is made!

SC, Stupid Fucking Hypocrite (This will be the only time I call you by that title!), I think by this time, about half of the regulars here has been called out by the truthiness machine.

Posted by: Janine, Disingenuous Jackass | June 29, 2008 10:29 PM

#72

God, you seem to like conflict and mayhem. Are you a fan of WWE and ultimate fighting?

You seem to like blood sports, so why did you not leave the Roman Empire pagan? Was it not pagan Rome that had gladiator contests?

Posted by: Janine, Disingenuous Jackass | June 29, 2008 10:36 PM

#73

Ooh, Edward Current put out a new video (5 days old) that pretty well sums up where stanton is coming from.

Posted by: pcarini | June 29, 2008 10:39 PM

#74

I had no idea TM had such an impact as to cause people to actually change their chosen handles.

No wonder he won a Molly.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 29, 2008 10:40 PM

#75

God, you seem to like conflict and mayhem. Are you a fan of WWE and ultimate fighting?

based on this thread, I'd love to see a Father-Son WWE matchup.

I bet it would be on a Sunday...

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 29, 2008 10:42 PM

#76

No wonder he won a Molly.

A Molly he claimed he didn't want, and then trotted out as soon as he deemed it useful to bolster a weak argument. There's a word for a person who displays such contradictory behavior...What would it be, now...?

Posted by: SC | June 29, 2008 10:50 PM

#77

God, you seem to like conflict and mayhem. Are you a fan of WWE and ultimate fighting?

I'm a fan of all fighting.

You seem to like blood sports, so why did you not leave the Roman Empire pagan? Was it not pagan Rome that had gladiator contests?

You forget how much violence came from the religious factions fighting each other. After the rise of Christianity, theology became a blood sport!

Posted by: God | June 29, 2008 11:00 PM

#78

#44 - Wowbagger - you just used the only term in the English language that offends me. Silly cow that I am, I get all up on my high horse when one man calls another a 'pussie'.
You can call him a bollocksless-dickhead or a mommas boy & I'm OK with it. You can even call me a five titted sow - shy of a dozen & I won't flinch - but that 'p' thing irks.
On the other hand, it could be that the moon is moving from Taurus to Gemini tonight and I am moody.

Posted by: Patricia | June 29, 2008 11:03 PM

#79

You forget how much violence came from the religious factions fighting each other. After the rise of Christianity, theology became a blood sport!

If you matched yourself in a no-holds barred fight to the "demise" with your boy, what weapons would you choose?

I've got to start getting the press packets together if we're gonna do this.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 29, 2008 11:11 PM

#80

JonD":
"It appears as if you merely troll the comments threads around here without actually paying attention to anything that has been said.
If you actually read any of the posts, you might have noticed a number of entries very recently that provided the examples you asked for.
For example, new structures:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/still_just_a_lizard.php
where a population of lizards introduced to a new environment evolved wider, deeper and longer skulls with stronger bites, as well as cecal valves in their guts because of the change in their diets.

Or if you like, the more recent entry:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/historical_contingency_in_the.php
where E. Coli evolved the ability to metalobize Citrate.

So perhaps you should engage your brain before you shoot your mouth off next time."

ok hotshot...#1: show me the mutation involved with the lizards...

#2 is not a structure. nice try, screwball.

Posted by: stan | June 29, 2008 11:14 PM

#81

Wowbagger: "Yeah, and he's an expert in goalpost-shifting. At first he was just asking for evidence of beneficial mutations"

never have I said that. by the way -- please show me one of these mystical duplications that lead to a new structure or part of a structure.....science, please -- not evo-dreaming bullcrap.

Posted by: stan | June 29, 2008 11:16 PM

#82

stan: "Heck...got any controlled scientific studies/experiments proving natural selection's ability to adapt an animal population genetically?"

Kel: "Why yes we do. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html"

nice try, numbnuts; no mutation...no genetic change. Try again, losers.

Posted by: stan | June 29, 2008 11:18 PM

#83

Patricia, #78

I'll bear that in mind. It's not an expression I use other than when I'm projecting my inner fundy asshat.

Unfortunately, the nature of such insults means that there isn't really a substitute that isn't going to offend someone - e.g. Schwarzenegger's 'economic girly men' comment was seen as misogynistic, which i don't think was what he intended.

Maybe 'wusses' will suffice - though I don't like the sound of it as much.

Posted by: Wowbagger | June 29, 2008 11:19 PM

#84

Hold it, you're saying that the addition of a new structure, the cecal valve, and the modified shape/musculature of the head is not a mutation?

Posted by: pcarini | June 29, 2008 11:22 PM

#85

#2 [evolved ability to metabolize citrate, in E. coli] is not a structure. nice try, screwball.

But it answers one of your first questions at #12.

Heck...got any controlled scientific studies/experiments proving natural selection's ability to adapt an animal population genetically?

Posted by: mona | June 29, 2008 11:23 PM

#86

show me the dang science, geez. Show me natural selection's ability to adapt a population of animals genetically. Also, show me an observed mutation -- science, of course (no fairytales) -- that adds a new non-duplicated STRUCTURE or part of a structure. (you people DO believe we evolved structurally from a bacteria via changes in genes, do you not?)....so show me even ONE stupid mutation that does so, freaks..it's not that hard.

And I guess nobody's even trying to present a common ancestor, as those entities are about as scientific as God and his magic.

Posted by: stanny | June 29, 2008 11:25 PM

#87

So which Doctor Who episode is that clip from? I haven't seen it yet - but I think SciFi is a week or two behind BBC America (not to mention the original Beeb itself), which I don't have access to. We just had the decond half of the two-parter about the library.

Oh well, now I know I've got something extra super-cool to watch out for.

And I'm not a bit surprised to see the Dawkins "interview." He's probably the most famous living British scientist.

Posted by: themadlolscientist | June 29, 2008 11:25 PM

#88

based on this thread, I'd love to see a Father-Son WWE matchup.

I said, he's so not related to me. Really.

After the whole "son of God" thing came up, I started having people talk with my parents — you know, the human beings who raised me — and my mom gives them the Look.

"Believe me, there was nothing miraculous about his conception or birth. No, there was no angel of annunciation. No, there were no wise men or kings. No, there was no miraculous star. Yes, I'm sure his father was human — this man [and she points at my father]; I knew how to calculate missed periods. Besides, that giant stinking fart doesn't have a penis."

Posted by: Jesus, called Christ | June 29, 2008 11:26 PM

#89

Pcarini, #84, wrote:

Hold it, you're saying that the addition of a new structure, the cecal valve, and the modified shape/musculature of the head is not a mutation?

No, he's saying it's still a lizard. Anything short of that isn't (apparently) going to meet his definition of 'new structure', 'mutation' or 'genetic change'.

Posted by: Wowbagger | June 29, 2008 11:28 PM

#90

Seeing RD on Dr. Who is as much fun as this wonderful music video about automating the pipetting process. Makes me want to buy one. http://www.eppendorf.com/int/hawkpopup.php?contentid=13

I reference Amanda at http://skepchick.org/blog/ for providing the link. Enjoy it.

Posted by: Hal in Howell MI (not far from Hell, MI) | June 29, 2008 11:29 PM

#91

pcarini: "Hold it, you're saying that the addition of a new structure, the cecal valve, and the modified shape/musculature of the head is not a mutation?"

link? show me the observed mutation...(this is not merely a re-expression, is it?)

Posted by:

Pharyngula

Search this blog

Profile

Random Quote

Recent Posts

A Taste of Pharyngula

Recent Comments

Archives

Blogroll

Other Information

Subscribe via Email

Dr Who? Dr Dawkins!

Comments