Pharyngula

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

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: SEF | June 29, 2008 6:21 PM

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: Al | June 29, 2008 6:26 PM

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

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

I saw it, and it was beautiful.

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

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: pcarini | June 29, 2008 6:49 PM

"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: Chelonian | June 29, 2008 6:57 PM

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

@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: pcarini | June 29, 2008 7:09 PM

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 7:12 PM

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: Dave | June 29, 2008 7:13 PM

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: amk | June 29, 2008 7:23 PM

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: Dave | June 29, 2008 7:37 PM

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: LisaJ | June 29, 2008 7:43 PM

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: Peregrine | June 29, 2008 7:49 PM

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: SEF | June 29, 2008 7:52 PM

How exciting for Dr. Dawkins.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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: Wowbagger | June 29, 2008 8:42 PM

Well, with that in mind, how about:

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

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

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

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

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: Wowbagger | June 29, 2008 8:56 PM

Creotards for Yahweh™
The Flintstones was a documentary

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

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: Wowbagger | June 29, 2008 9:09 PM

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

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

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

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: God | June 29, 2008 9:30 PM

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

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

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

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

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: pcarini | June 29, 2008 10:15 PM

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: God | June 29, 2008 10:25 PM

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

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: Ichthyic | June 29, 2008 10:40 PM

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: SC | June 29, 2008 10:50 PM

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: Patricia | June 29, 2008 11:03 PM

#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: stan | June 29, 2008 11:14 PM

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 11:18 PM

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: pcarini | June 29, 2008 11:22 PM

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: stanny | June 29, 2008 11:25 PM

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

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

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: raven | June 29, 2008 11:31 PM

Already answered stan the mall shooter wannabe's question. He just ignores the threads while babbling incoherently like the seriously disturbed loon he is. He is very predictable, he will just Move the Goal Posts again and get drunk and threaten to kill people.

A better question for him. What is your diagnosis, how many times have you been arrested for pointless stupid stuff, and what drugs are you supposed to take and never do so?

stan the mall shooter wannabe: show me a scientifically-verified random mutation that adds a new bodily structure or a new part of a bodily structure.

raven predicting stan's mental slowness: Why bother. You will just Move The Goal Posts. Creos don't have enough imagination to even be interesting and crazy, just crazy.

Scientists have discovered that rarest of things: a chicken with teeth - crocodile teeth to be precise. Contrary to the well-known phrase, 'As rare as hens' teeth,' the researchers say they have found a naturally occurring mutant chicken called Talpid that has a complete set of ivories.

The team, based at the Universities of Manchester and Wisconsin, have also managed to induce teeth growth in normal chickens - activating genes that have lain dormant for 80 million years.

So predictable. You asked for a mutation that produces "a new part of a bodily structure." Extra toes are certainly new parts. You also ignored my other three examples, teeth in chicken, furry humans and tailed humans.

As usual stan will Move The Goal Posts again. Or get drunk and threaten to kill people again. He isn't bright enough to even come up with his own excuses or craziness.

This is why the creos will lose. They have lost in the domains of educated people and science a century ago. All that they have left are Death Cultist fanatics with mental illness, no education, and low IQs. Like stan.

Posted by: stan | June 29, 2008 11:32 PM

Wow: "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'."

show me the genetic change:....in order to prove an animal has added to its phenotype via changes in genes, you have to actually show a genetic change. Let's go man, this is easy stuff.

Posted by: stannnn | June 29, 2008 11:33 PM

"The cecal valve was non-existent in the parent populations.
it was indeed a novel structure."

show me the observed mutation. Geez

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 29, 2008 11:37 PM

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

the link was provided multiple times for you in the other thread. Again, no, it was a novel trait, which did not exist in the parent population.

Moreover, there is an entire thread devoted to the original paper on this forum.

see if you can figure out how to find it (betting you are simply unable to, 'cause you're just that dumb).

seriously, though...

what color curtains do you like?

Posted by: pcarini | June 29, 2008 11:42 PM

stan: (this is not merely a re-expression, is it?)

What do you mean by re-expression and what's the mechanism behind it? Is this something that, by your logic, can happen to an entire population? Most importantly, how does it fit the observed facts better than ToE/NS?

If you're asking for the genetic differences between the new population and the parent population, know that sequencing a genome takes a lot of fucking time. They're getting faster at it, but I'd imagine we still have a fair amount of time to wait before we know the exact differences.

If you're doubting that changing the genotype can change the phenotype, there's an abundance of science demonstrating exactly that.

See the below article for intentional genome changes and their effects on lab mice:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/09/the_hox_code.php

Posted by: Tophe | June 29, 2008 11:44 PM

Stan-
Halteres

Posted by: Ghazala Khan | June 29, 2008 11:45 PM

Interview Request

Hello Dear and Respected,
I hope you are fine and carrying on the great work you have been doing for the Internet surfers. I am Ghazala Khan from The Pakistani Spectator (TPS), We at TPS throw a candid look on everything happening in and for Pakistan in the world. We are trying to contribute our humble share in the webosphere. Our aim is to foster peace, progress and harmony with passion.

We at TPS are carrying out a new series of interviews with the notable passionate bloggers, writers, and webmasters. In that regard, we would like to interview you, if you don't mind. Please send us your approval for your interview at my email address "ghazala.khi at gmail.com", so that I could send you the Interview questions. We would be extremely grateful.

regards.

Ghazala Khan
The Pakistani Spectator
http://www.pakspectator.com

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 29, 2008 11:47 PM

Ichthyic, I don't care if it's a novel trait or not

really?

If it's so unimportant to you, then why are you even bothering to ask if it was a "re-expression"?

are you looking for "beneficial mutations"?

I'm sure someone has pointed you to the issue of polyploidy?

Is there actually ANYTHING you do know about genetics?

show me the observed mutation

already explained. You apparently have serious reading comprehension issues.

oh, and...

what color curtains do you like?

Posted by: pcarini | June 29, 2008 11:51 PM

How about you explain to me how it was that the Pod Mrcaru-island lizard didn't change via phenotypic plasticity.

I personally don't know the limits of phenotype plasticity, but I'm under the impression that the cecal valve is out of the question for it, seeing as how no other observed member of that species has one. If I'm wrong, well, I'll find out once they've sequenced these lizards.

On a funny note, UD's response to this quotes a physorg.com article for support. Even their quotes say the opposite of what they're trying to say.. it's great.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 29, 2008 11:52 PM

which is not evolution

Darwin would disagree with you.

(so would the rest of us, btw.)

simply a plastic response

do you actually understand what that means?

How would you go about testing between the two alternative explanations (novel mutation vs. plasticity of expression)?

What's that you say, you don't know?

shocker.

Posted by: stan | June 29, 2008 11:54 PM

Ich: "are you looking for "beneficial mutations"?

no...read my challenge next time -- don't make up your own.

Posted by: Nicole TWN | June 29, 2008 11:57 PM

It fits so well, too... 1 gazillion people going "ZOMG planets appeared overhead!" and Richard Dawkins calmly going "Actually, it's us that have appeared somewhere else..."

I was reeeeeeally hoping for a Romana II cameo. And I still am. It can be in flashbacks! Come on, Grand Moff! You can do it!

Posted by: stan | June 29, 2008 11:58 PM

Ichthyic, surely you are not saying phenotypic plasticity is the same as "evolution?" Geez, man....are you completely dilbert about this? Plasticity is a nonrandom, purposeful response to the environment. Your theory says traits arise randomly and non-biased towards the environment or even improvement...only selection adapts populations, not the variation itself. Plasticity is not a genetic change -- it's just change. not only that, but if one animal adjusts itself plastically, all other like-organisms in the same environment will do the same....therefore the population will evolve all at the same time -- individually, not via selection.

I challenge you to show me one link -- one outside source -- that will confirm that phenotypic plasticity is the same as darwinian "evolution."

Posted by: Nicole | June 30, 2008 12:00 AM

Finally got to see the episode... Doctor Who, and Dawkins talking about astronomy, talk about the trinity of nerdgasm. Yes, I was hoping it would be a bigger part too, but it was an important part because he was playing the scientist who said, "hey, the evidence suggests this, pay attention!"

Douglas Adams would have been proud.

Posted by: Longtime Lurker | June 30, 2008 12:04 AM

Leaping Lysenko, I just had to leave troll-ignoring mode to remark that our resident mall-shooter seems to be arguing for Lamarckism!

Commie bastid!

WTF does this mean? "only selection adapts populations, not the variation itself"

Up your meds, Stain.

Posted by: pcarini | June 30, 2008 12:05 AM

Whether the changes are genetic or epigenetic, they're still heritable traits which are being selected for by the environment.

The evo/devo debate is big among biologists right now and again I'm nowhere near qualified to have an opinion on it. Regardless of how it plays out (I'm guessing it's a matter of both methods, in concert) the criteria for evolution by natural selection are met.

Present a better alternative or go home.

Posted by: stan | June 30, 2008 12:06 AM

LL....so you think variation -- which is supposed to be random -- is in itself adaptive?...that natural selection is not needed to adapt a population? Please explain and back up your explanation with a link.

Posted by: stan | June 30, 2008 12:07 AM

Wow...give me an example of what you're talking about. Link?

Posted by: stan | June 30, 2008 12:10 AM

Mona: "I see nothing about plasticity being "purposeful."

so when an animal generates an adaptive trait during its lifetime to cope with a specific environmetal challenge, how could that no be purposeful? For example, snakes can alter the size of their jaw in response to eating bigger prey.....likewise waterfleas can grow new defensive spines in response to predators. how is that not purposeful?

Posted by: mona | June 30, 2008 12:11 AM

Which isn't what he originally asked; his distaste for duplication is a recent development - dare I say he's evolved in an attempt to protect his argument?

Posted by: stan | June 30, 2008 12:15 AM

Hey guys, I actually have a piss-poor grasp of evolution and population genetics. I keep asking for proof, but because I can't understand the material in the links you have provided me, I can only resort to playground taunts like "loser" and "screwball."

And I like teal curtains, thank you.

Posted by: stan | June 30, 2008 12:17 AM

Stan: "Only selection adapts population."

Ichthyic: "only selection adapts [acts to increase individual fitness within] populations

...man, so much to fix in that sentence there really wasn't much point trying to rewrite it. better start over. You appear to have less grasp of evolutionary theory than can be garnered with a 10 minute read of the Wiki article on the subject."

wrong, of course:

http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/campbl23.htm

Acting on phenotypes, selection indirectly adapts a population to its environment by increasing or maintaining favorable genotypes in the gene pool."

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/evolution/work.php

"Natural selection is a mechanism by which populations adapt and evolve"

you probably need to re-read your theory

Posted by: stan | June 30, 2008 12:19 AM

stan: "Only selection adapts populations."

Ichthyic: "You appear to have less grasp of evolutionary theory than can be garnered with a 10 minute read of the Wiki article on the subject."

so if selection is not the only mechanism that adapts populations, what else does? link?

Posted by: Owlmirror | June 30, 2008 12:20 AM

Did I even ask you to prove randomness on the molecular level? How can you random mutation be scientific if you can't even prove the randomness part? How can you be so sure that the organism isn't just responding to an environmental challenge by altering its genetic code? Everything your silly theory rests on is an unprovable assumption....not science.

Hey Bolshevist Comrade stan,

When are you going to prove your own silly theory by diving into the ocean and growing gills? When are you going to go to Antarctica and magically develop blubber and protective fur? When are you going to go to the Sahara and magically develop black skin and water retention?

When are you going to at least magically grow an extra arm, and an extra finger?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Get cracking!

(for the sane people following, stan aka supersport aka guzman last spammed Pharyngula in February 2008)

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 30, 2008 12:22 AM

Acting on phenotypes, selection indirectly adapts a population to its environment

it's poorly stated, but do note there is a qualifier there:

INDIRECTLY.

do you comprehend why they added that qualifier?

because selection acts on individuals, not populations.

try reading a real textbook on the subject sometime.

what color curtains do you like?

Posted by: stan | June 30, 2008 12:23 AM

"When are you going to prove your own silly theory by diving into the ocean and growing gills?"

why should I have to prove something that's impossible and that I don't believe in?

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 30, 2008 12:27 AM

Stan is the goalpost shifting, argument from personal incredulity breed of troll, no one will ever get anywhere with him.

oh, that's not why I'm dragging this on.
nor why I keep asking him what color curtains he likes.

mmm, call it "red flagging".

...

teal, you say, Stan?

I'll pass that along to PZ.

We always like to properly decorate dungeon cells before tossing trolls in them.

Posted by: stan | June 30, 2008 12:28 AM

#139, ick.

Posted by: stan | June 30, 2008 12:31 AM

"And stan, you've yet to explain how an heritable epigenetic trait is different from an heritable genetic trait, as far as ToE/NS are concerned"

you'll have to do your own research. I'm not here to be teacher...I'm here to expose the pig that's propped up as "science."

Posted by: Owlmirror | June 30, 2008 12:32 AM

why should I have to prove something that's impossible and that I don't believe in?

So now you assert that "an animal generating an adaptive trait during its lifetime to cope with a specific environmetal challenge," is impossible, and you don't believe in it?

You're specifically and clearly contradicting your own argument! Whee! 25 troll bingo points to me!

Why am I not surprised?

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 30, 2008 12:34 AM

you'll have to do your own research. I'm not here to be teacher...I'm here to expose the pig that's propped up as "science."

but, stanley, you've been trying to teach us all week!

this thread is loaded with your attempts at instruction.

or was that your attempt at becoming a good gardener by tossing around much fertilizer?

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 30, 2008 12:37 AM

yea, and traits are not genetic...and not random...two requirements for ToE

oops, wrong again, on both counts.

do recall you are on the blog of a developmental biologist.

...and weren't you just mentioning your initiation into the world of "plasticity"?

can't keep your bullshit straight, even over such short time spans?

for your sake, I really do hope you're just playing at trolling, 'cause if not...

*damn*

Posted by: ndt | June 30, 2008 12:39 AM

Stan is also known as supersport. No one else has quite his argument style. But what gives it away is that no one else alive is promoting Lamarckism.

Posted by: stan | June 30, 2008 12:41 AM

stan: "yea, and traits are not genetic...and not random...two requirements for ToE"

you: "oops, wrong again, on both counts."

-----

prove it, hotshot.

Posted by: mona | June 30, 2008 12:41 AM

Stan, to your post #151: Many does not mean the same thing as all. Just thought I'd point that out. That means that dismissing one observed novel strusture as the result of plasticity, does not negate, say, all of the rest of the evidence for evolution by natural selection.

Posted by: pcarini | June 30, 2008 12:42 AM

"(since he obviously has a PhD in subject and has published numerous articles on it in scientific journals - right Stan?)"

Cue misguided blather about "argument from authority" in 3.. 2.. 1..

Posted by: amplexus | June 30, 2008 12:44 AM

Stan, Evolution has withstood 150 years of peer review by millions of people, many religious themselves with an interest in disproving evolution. What you aren't doing is integrating the aspects of evolution as it is understood today together. You are partially right that there is such a thing as phenotypic plasticity which helps organisms adapt to their environment. The ability to reach various adaptaions is limited by the structure,shape and number of proteins avaliable.

These proteins are ultimately synthesized from coding regions on DNA. Individuals with proteins that allow for the possibility of ANY structure or physiological process that represent an adaptation will be favored.(re-read that sentence until it sinks in)

Melanin the skin pigment and ultraviolet protector is coded for on DNA. Some populations are more or less able to produce the protein melanin in response to ultraviolet radiation. People of irish descent are known for very light skin. But they have lots of freckles. Those freckles are small regions of higher than average melanin production. When one of these people goes out into the sun for a while they don't gain a tan as much as say, Latinos like myself. Instead those freckels grow in size or "Bloom".
Other places on the skin will produce very little or no melanin. THIS IS CODED FOR IN DNA!!

Features that contribute to increased reproductive success will become more represented in populations. If in 800A.D. you put 1000 Scots into an African village and left them there and they interbreed with the general population their descendents over time will gain the ability to synthesize melanin more and more. This will likely be derived from the native African genomes. Those who get skin cancer early and die will be less represented in the gene pool that those who don't.

The opposite scenario is also plausible. Vitamin D is synthesized from Chloesterol in the skin from contact with UV rays. If a bunch of africans went north farther away from the more direct rays of sun at the equator, because their skin protects them, they will have to get more vitamin from dietary sources. Those with slightly lighter skin will more readly make vitamin D.

This is not racism it is chemistry. There is no "best" skin color. Now days in the era of cheap synthetic vitamin D or getting vitamin D from milk or egg products light skin may be slowly selected against.

Posted by: stan | June 30, 2008 12:47 AM

amplexus....well thanks for the lesson, but why should I expect selection to select people based on skin color? Do you see 15-30 year olds dying in masse from skin cancer caused from the sun?

Posted by: stan | June 30, 2008 12:48 AM

mona: "Stan, to your post #151: Many does not mean the same thing as all. Just thought I'd point that out. That means that dismissing one observed novel strusture as the result of plasticity, does not negate, say, all of the rest of the evidence for evolution by natural selection"

such as?

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 30, 2008 12:51 AM

amplexus....well thanks for the lesson, but why should I expect selection to select people based on skin color? Do you see 15-30 year olds dying in masse from skin cancer caused from the sun?

ROFLMAO!

*wipes tear from eye*

Well, that's enough entertainment for me.

*counts posts made to thread in response to demented fuckwit*

...looks like 16 including this one.

My job is done.

I look forward to seeing a new resident in the dungeon tomorrow.

'nite all.

Posted by: pcarini | June 30, 2008 12:53 AM

I love that stan will not back up a single assertion, yet will ask for a reference for any of our comments... great debate tactic there, bubba.

So where again was your reference telling me that epigenetic traits somehow disprove ToE/NS?

While I'm posting:
... dying in masse from skin cancer ...
Way to massacre two languages in as many words, champ.

Posted by: Owlmirror | June 30, 2008 12:56 AM

I bet Stan loves him some AiG and Hovind.

No, no. Like good Bolshevist, Comrade stan believes in teleological mechanism of organism self modification.

Oh, except when he doesn't. Ha ha!

Posted by: stan | June 30, 2008 12:57 AM

"So where again was your reference telling me that epigenetic traits somehow disprove ToE/NS?"

the generation and heredity of epigenetic traits are proven -- your ToE isn't. It's an alternative biological mechanism that's been supressed for decades....it shows traits come about as a response from the interaction of the organism with its environment, and in order to pull such a thing off (generate its own adaptive traits) the organism must have the intelligence to guage the environment and then act appropriately and adaptively to it...this would require intelligence, which effectively confirms what evos have been to disprove.

But to answer your question: nothing will disprove ToE because ToE is a fairytale. just as God can never be disproven, neither can ToE.

Posted by: XQZ Dalek | June 30, 2008 12:58 AM

Ignorant troll detected!

EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE!

Posted by: Steve_C | June 30, 2008 1:04 AM

Wow. So the common cold and the flu have intelligence. Awesome.

Wtf.

Posted by: XQZ | June 30, 2008 1:05 AM

"in order to pull such a thing off (generate its own adaptive traits) the organism must have the intelligence to guage the environment and then act appropriately and adaptively to it...this would require intelligence, which effectively confirms what evos have been to disprove."

Wow! I wish I had this amazing teleogical ability that allows me to think out my evolution! That's it. I'm going to make my descendants into super-elves with pointy ears, magic powers. And we can fly, shoot lightning from our hands, and instantly upload rebuttals to Pharyngula's servers. All of this, of course, allowing us to survive better in our world.

Thanks for enlightening me Stan! You're an amazing super-elf...right?

Posted by: Owlmirror | June 30, 2008 1:06 AM

it shows traits come about as a response from the interaction of the organism with its environment, and in order to pull such a thing off (generate its own adaptive traits) the organism must have the intelligence to guage the environment and then act appropriately and adaptively to it

So when are you, an organism, going to enter the environment that is the ocean, and show the appropriate and adaptive trait of gills come about as a response from the interaction of your body in the ocean?

You loser pig!

Posted by: stan | June 30, 2008 1:11 AM

amplexus...fine....but the thing is, it's people (generally) between the ages of 15 and 30 around the world who have kids...therefore it is up to selection (according to your theory) to eliminate those people who have "unfit" skin colors. Is there any evidence of world-wide destruction via melanoma skin cancer in 15-30 year-olds?

And even so...even if selection eliminated the people with the wrong-colored skin, that still is only an elimination, which I don't disagree with (at least philosophically.) What I disagree with is that traits arise randomly/genetically. Skin color, for example, may or may not be genetic, but either way, it most certainly doesn't change randomly....it's almost certainly a response to the environment on behalf of indiviudal organisms, who then (may) pass on this environmental information to their progeny.

Posted by: amk | June 30, 2008 1:11 AM

I think by this time, about half of the regulars here has been called out by the truthiness machine.

tm seems to be the bastard offspring of flame warriors compost and kung-fu master, surely a unique combination. I've never seen anything like it. I don't think any new caricatures have been made for years, which is a shame as tm needs one.

Posted by: chrisD | June 30, 2008 1:12 AM

I don't mind it when people come to debate evolution. When they come from an educated background on the subject, I especially like it. As an armchair biologist I can glean insight into evolution when both the question and answer, argument and rebuttal, are worded clearly with no hostility between either side, and the topic is well-defined.

Well along comes someone with shifting goalposts, egregious insults, and an argument style which devolves into "LA LA LA NOT LISTENING, LOSER" type argumentation (someone should come up with a word for that.) In such cases, I thank Dawkins for greasemonkey killfile scripts!

Posted by: Janine, Disingenuous Jackass | June 30, 2008 1:16 AM

Tom and Lalla. You never fucking know the answer, don't ya!"

Posted by: Patricia | June 30, 2008 1:20 AM

Is it late enough in the evening, in a Brenda observing world, for me to descend into obscenities? When does PZ ring the ships bell for the name calling to begin?
Oh, now? Excellent!
"Stan, you idiotic bullshit puking fool."
Nexxxt - boom de yaddah!

Posted by: Janine, Disingenuous Jackass | June 30, 2008 1:24 AM

I have no idea why but here is David Tennant dancing to The Smiths.

Posted by: Wowbagger | June 30, 2008 1:25 AM

Stan,

We're done - you may go.

Posted by: stan | June 30, 2008 1:29 AM

by the way...Talk origins nor anyone else has ever "observed speciation." Speciation, according to ToE, involves numerous genetic changes and long periods of time...(long enough for natural selection to adapt the population.) Not only that, but the "new" species no longer should no longer be able to breed with the parent species. But If you look at talk origins' list of supposed "speciation" events, none of them fit the bill. Either there is no observed mutation at all, or there is simply no basis for calling the "new species" NEW at all, as the evos seem to be afraid to actually test to see if the two "species" can mate and produce viable offspring. Of course evos never test their theory because they don't want to know the results.

Posted by: Janine, Disingenuous Jackass | June 30, 2008 1:31 AM

Here his David Tennant singing along with Should I Stay Or Should I Go. Was Blackpool a cooler version of Cop Rock?

Posted by: pcarini | June 30, 2008 1:33 AM

Stan @ #176

the generation and heredity of epigenetic traits are proven -- your ToE isn't.

Right, the ToE is a scientific theory that is consistent with the observations of both epigenetic and genetic transfer of traits. You're confusing observations with theories here. The method of inheriting traits doesn't matter in the ToE, as long as they're heritable and cause phenotype changes which are subject to selection. (Please correct me if I'm wrong, biologists...)

... and in order to pull such a thing off (generate its own adaptive traits) the organism must have the intelligence to guage the environment and then act appropriately and adaptively to it...this would require intelligence...

This is where I think you disagree with the scientific community at large (or "in masse" :P ). Is there any biologist you can reference who says that the creature's intelligence is involved at all in the developmental adaptation to its environment?

But to answer your question: nothing will disprove ToE because ToE is a fairytale. just as God can never be disproven, neither can ToE.

Rabbits in the precambrian... it's cliche, but it would do the trick.

Posted by: Janine, Disingenuous Jackass | June 30, 2008 1:35 AM

Patricia, i doubt even the slutty Bride Of Shrek could keep Stan from talking out of his billabong. But it would be fun reading. We have to wait till morning when PZ sees that Stan has wrecked the lobby and gets sent to his room without breakfast.

Posted by: amplexus | June 30, 2008 1:40 AM

Stan, I don't expect you to know the krebs cycle Aka Citric acid cycle. In fact I spent most of the day today trying to learn it (I've got a general biology class). The fact is that the ability to metabolize citrate and get it into the cell and then into mitochondria to be broken down involves the coordination of literally dozens of cell process I.E. Endocytosis/pinocytosis/phagocytosis. And a bunch of protein channels that are actual structures, you can't visit them because they are so small but you might be able to use x-rays to see the proteins. OR you could use a centerfuge and isolate the novel structures.

I can't say much beyond that because I really don't know... I am in the process of learning these things. I'm making and effort all the while thinking critically about this. If I find something that I don't understand or think is suspect I ask the professor or a TA. If i'm not satisfied i'll do research on my own. Maybe chasing down the answer will give me a greater understanding, or maybe if im still not satisfied i'll formulate an experiment. If I write a decent research proposal even as an undergraduate the University can give me a few thousand dollars to chase down the answer.

Even in the University doesn't give me money there is always a way. Some nutbars like Behe get things like templeton grants or liberty university regent grants. But to date no one in the ID community has come up with any quantitative date OR a reproducable experiment OR a workable hypothesis OR a falsifiable theory. Any one of those would get someone a noble prize and probably the famous noble laureate groupies that come with it.

Posted by: Owlmirror | June 30, 2008 1:42 AM

Those who get skin cancer early and die will be less represented in the gene pool that those who don't.

Actually, what I remember reading from a more recent hypothesis about the evolution of melanin is that skin cancer usually occurs in those who are already past breeding age, and thus is less likely to affect reproduction immediately.

However, UV also breaks down folate, which is a nutrient vital for neural tube formation in the developing fetuses. In other words, under strong direct UV radiation, women with darker skin (greater expression of melanin) will have more babies and fewer miscarriages.

Let me see...

  http://dx.doi.org/10.1054/mehy.1997.0697

  A possible link between neural tube defects and ultraviolet light exposure

The protective role of folate in preventing neural tube defects is now well established. The hypothesis is advanced here that photolysis of folate by ultraviolet (UV) light may, in some women, precipitate a folate deficiency sufficient to cause a neural tube defect (NTD) during the first few weeks of pregnancy. This hypothesis is supported by the demonstration of in vitro photolysis of folate by simulated strong sunlight (1), a decline in folate levels in light-skinned subjects exposed to UV light for dermatological conditions (1), and the occurrence of NTDs in the offspring of women who exposed themselves to high levels of UV light on the sunbeds of tanning salons (2). If established, a connection between in vivo folate photolysis by UV light, clinical folate deficiency and NTDs would suggest that intense or prolonged periconceptual exposure of women to UV light for recreational or therapeutic reasons should be avoided.

and also:

  http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jhev.2000.0403

  The evolution of human skin coloration

Skin color is one of the most conspicuous ways in which humans vary and has been widely used to define human races. Here we present new evidence indicating that variations in skin color are adaptive, and are related to the regulation of ultraviolet (UV) radiation penetration in the integument and its direct and indirect effects on fitness. Using remotely sensed data on UV radiation levels, hypotheses concerning the distribution of the skin colors of indigenous peoples relative to UV levels were tested quantitatively in this study for the first time.

The major results of this study are: (1) skin reflectance is strongly correlated with absolute latitude and UV radiation levels. The highest correlation between skin reflectance and UV levels was observed at 545 nm, near the absorption maximum for oxyhemoglobin, suggesting that the main role of melanin pigmentation in humans is regulation of the effects of UV radiation on the contents of cutaneous blood vessels located in the dermis. (2) Predicted skin reflectances deviated little from observed values. (3) In all populations for which skin reflectance data were available for males and females, females were found to be lighter skinned than males. (4) The clinal gradation of skin coloration observed among indigenous peoples is correlated with UV radiation levels and represents a compromise solution to the conflicting physiological requirements of photoprotection and vitamin D synthesis.

The earliest members of the hominid lineage probably had a mostly unpigmented or lightly pigmented integument covered with dark black hair, similar to that of the modern chimpanzee. The evolution of a naked, darkly pigmented integument occurred early in the evolution of the genus Homo. A dark epidermis protected sweat glands from UV-induced injury, thus insuring the integrity of somatic thermoregulation. Of greater significance to individual reproductive success was that highly melanized skin protected against UV-induced photolysis of folate (Branda & Eaton, 1978, Science201, 625-626; Jablonski, 1992, Proc. Australas. Soc. Hum. Biol.5, 455-462, 1999, Med. Hypotheses52, 581-582), a metabolite essential for normal development of the embryonic neural tube (Bower & Stanley, 1989, The Medical Journal of Australia150, 613-619; Medical Research Council Vitamin Research Group, 1991, The Lancet338, 31-37) and spermatogenesis (Cosentino et al., 1990, Proc. Natn. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.87, 1431-1435; Mathur et al., 1977, Fertility Sterility28, 1356-1360).

As hominids migrated outside of the tropics, varying degrees of depigmentation evolved in order to permit UVB-induced synthesis of previtamin D3. The lighter color of female skin may be required to permit synthesis of the relatively higher amounts of vitamin D3necessary during pregnancy and lactation.

Skin coloration in humans is adaptive and labile. Skin pigmentation levels have changed more than once in human evolution. Because of this, skin coloration is of no value in determining phylogenetic relationships among modern human groups.

Posted by: pcarini | June 30, 2008 1:47 AM

amplexus @ #208

Any one of those would get someone a noble prize and probably the famous noble laureate groupies that come with it.

But is there a Nobel laureate version of the Plaster Casters?

Posted by: amplexus | June 30, 2008 1:52 AM

@ stan #203 Yes and no. Evolution is just small changes added up overtime.

A smoking gun for the power of selection would be novel structures, this rarely happens. Most of the time evolution is the changes in gene expression.

Does anyone have a link to the complete lizard study for me to read please?

Posted by: amplexus | June 30, 2008 2:11 AM

ah, thanks ichthyic but that's just a paragraph

Posted by: OctoberMermaid | June 30, 2008 2:21 AM

Oh, yeah, I remember Stan. Wasn't he the guy who was supposed to drown himself to prove his wacko claim that he could adapt to any environment miraculously? He doesn't seem to be adapting to an intellectual environment too well, though...

Posted by: amplexus | June 30, 2008 2:27 AM

BTW if stan wants to aquire an adaptation to water i'll volunteer to hold his head under :)

Posted by: mona | June 30, 2008 2:41 AM

BTW if stan wants to aquire an adaptation to water i'll volunteer to hold his head under :)

Maybe that's why George Bush thinks waterboarding isn't torture? After all, the victims can just purposefully change their phenotype so that they can't think they're drowning!

Posted by: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood | June 30, 2008 2:46 AM

I imagine that one reason why they could not get Patrick Moore onto Doctor Who, even if they wanted, is that he's a very frail old man. It seems as if he cannot leave his house or travel far; they currently film the Sky At Night in his study. I imagine the haul from Selsey to Cardiff would be a bit rough on him.

Though I enjoyed last year's meteor shower episode, filmed in his garden, that included guests such as the astronomer Dr. Brian May (formerly of Queen) and Terry Pratchett.

Posted by: Wowbagger | June 30, 2008 2:51 AM

that included guests such as the astronomer Dr. Brian May (formerly of Queen) and Terry Pratchett.

That would have been an awesome party - in a nerdy kind of way.

So May finished his doctorate? I remember, as a young Queen fan, reading about him being a maths/science prodigy in his youth - as illustrated by the fact that his famous red guitar was hand-built by him and his father out of spare parts and bits of an old fireplace.

Posted by: Helioprogenus | June 30, 2008 4:41 AM

As usual, I'm late for a debate tearing apart some idiots ignorant notions of evo-devo and biology. We're giving fuel to this stupid ignorant troll pandering for attention and asking for some kind of masochistic jarring whilst knowing that a sane rational person cannot think so obtusely. So stan superficially glances at a topic he doesn't understand, and suddenly, as an expert in the field, he proclaims evo-devo to be completely baseless. Yet, does he have a better explanation that fits the evidence for what we observe? He injects some imaginary deity to occupy the role of natural selection that his ignorant mind cannot wrap around. The evidence is around you asshole, and if you cared to actually research it, you might find that you're pushing yourself into fantasy land.

Posted by: SEF | June 30, 2008 5:00 AM

@ #26

Dawkins holds the Charles Simonyi Chair ...

... he is holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair ...

Posted by: Dave | June 30, 2008 5:21 AM

Holy crap. This thread is out of control. I've only gotten to #103, where in between all the bad deity impersonations Stan asks for an identified mutation underlying some evolutionary change. Here is an example:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/297/5585/1336
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7034/abs/nature03444.html

Note that these are just two of a series of papers on the subject, and the tip of a literature iceberg regarding ion channel toxins and toxin resistance. It's a way better example than the lizard thing people keep trotting out. It doesn't satisfy Stan's criteria that there be a novel structure, really (unless you count a teeny shape change in a protein as 'structure', which it is, but which I'm sure Stan won't count. But for that see my other examples way at the beginning of this thread (which I think Stan is ignoring).

Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 30, 2008 5:27 AM

Hey - I've just read through the thread. Congratulations to all who joined in actually forcing stan to commit himself to a (ludicrous) alternative to MET. Fine work!

Posted by: Dutch Delight | June 30, 2008 5:56 AM

Next thing we know Stan will be back claiming that the suppressed "science" of alchemy is actually true and physicists are trying to keep a lid on it.

For once it would be fun if the creotards would argue from the same century as scientists.

Posted by: CosmicTeapot | June 30, 2008 6:15 AM

Ichthyic @93

We're back on the coloured curtains again. Please explain.

Posted by: David Bradley | June 30, 2008 6:46 AM

It's just possible that a researcher was actually thinking of asking Stephen Hawking...but thought it was Stephen Dawking and then mis-guessed he was at Oxford and got through to Hawkins, I mean Dawkins, and he jumped at the chance.

Posted by: CosmicTeapot | June 30, 2008 6:53 AM

OK, just read comment 114, now I understand the curtain reference.

Curtains in dungeons, what will they think of next?

Posted by: CosmicTeapot | June 30, 2008 7:01 AM

That should be post 144.

Posted by: alex | June 30, 2008 7:08 AM

stan: well, I don't have a PhD but I do know more about evolution that most PhDs....and I can out-debate all of them, including PZ.

Posted by: maureen | June 30, 2008 7:14 AM

Way back when - you don't really want me to read the whole thread again, do you? - someone was on about most melanomas occurring in people past peak reproductive age.

In many societies having ones grandparents alive and in reasonable health makes a significant difference - a positive one - in the survival of children. Just think of all the AIDS orphans in Africa. Believe me, the ones with at least one grandparent extant are doing significantly better than the ones without.

Somehow we have to encourage the Stans of this world to think on a slightly longer timescale than comes naturally to them.

Posted by: Ray Mills | June 30, 2008 7:26 AM

If there was an award for auto fellatio, stan would win it. He is obviously very experienced at blowing his own horn.

Posted by: Orac | June 30, 2008 7:39 AM

he 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).

Yeah, I wondered about that too. It didn't fit very well.

Posted by: Wowbagger | June 30, 2008 8:18 AM

Phrenology coming back?

Of course you would say that, Feynmaniac - you have the brainpan of a stagecoach tilter!

Posted by: Mez | June 30, 2008 8:50 AM

"Do you see 15-30 year olds dying [e]n masse from skin cancer caused from the sun?" (#166)

Here in Australia there's a reasonably high rate of melanoma (which is still fatal in too many cases, despite operations and other treatments) at fertile ages. This even tho' with clothes, and a more indoor lifestyle than I would have expected for very early humans. Certainly enough to make a difference in breeding success in a primitive type of lifestyle.

My ancestry is Scots and Northern English, and like very many Australians I live with vastly more UV in the environment than my ancestors. Now we know to use precautions from childhood onwards, so the rate is starting to decrease after some years of using them.

Posted by: negentropyeater | June 30, 2008 9:35 AM

Feynmaniac,

hmmm, new species ? or just the usual one defending magic ?

so when an animal generates an adaptive trait during its lifetime to cope with a specific environmetal challenge, how could that no be purposeful? For example, snakes can alter the size of their jaw in response to eating bigger prey.....likewise waterfleas can grow new defensive spines in response to predators. how is that not purposeful?

Posted by: Carlie | June 30, 2008 10:05 AM

Here is David Tennant singing along with Should I Stay Or Should I Go.

Janine, I think I love you.

Posted by: Dan Warren | June 30, 2008 11:10 AM

Dawkins had already made it - he's appeared repeatedly in South Park as a major character. That's a much bigger deal as a pop culture phenomenon than showing up for a few moments in a show that most people only see the last five minutes of while waiting for Battlestar Galactica.

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | June 30, 2008 11:47 AM

Thus spake pcarini @#22:

So which American tv show is cool enough to give PZ a cameo?

Posted by: Janine, Disingenuous Jackass | June 30, 2008 12:41 PM

The new troll, trollius lamarckius , does have much in common with the the creationist troll, trollius retardius . The two however are distinct species as they do not interbreed for the simple reason that it would gross the fuck out of absolutely everyone.

Since when does the consideration of the aesthetics of non trolls enter into the actions of any species of troll? I think they would mate simply to spite all of us. Much like Stan sunk into Lamarckian slime in order tp "prove" that no one answered his challenges.

Posted by: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood | June 30, 2008 1:07 PM

So May finished his doctorate? I remember, as a young Queen fan, reading about him being a maths/science prodigy in his youth - as illustrated by the fact that his famous red guitar was hand-built by him and his father out of spare parts and bits of an old fireplace.

Yes, May completed his doctorate and seems to be starting a new career as a popular astronomy writer.

http://www.banguniverse.com/

Posted by: Feynmaniac | June 30, 2008 1:30 PM

Janine,
I think they would mate simply to spite all of us.

A scary thought. However even if they do mate (nearly vomited just thinking about it) the spawn will religiously believe in its ability to alter its genetic code to survive. It will likely drown trying to develop gills or jump out of a plane and try to create wings. Thus the hybrid will be infertile and, in the biggest irony of all, will end up winning a Darwin Award!!!

Posted by: Holbach | June 30, 2008 1:36 PM

Holy freaking crap! The response to the Richard Dawkins fiasco by the creotards, especially the video with that bullshit Shroud of Turin crap as a header, the cretin with the goatee around his cesspool mouth talking about "original sin" in the gene structure and it's eventual fucked up causes! Can you believe this! "Original Sin and genes"! Wow, we are in this deeper than we can ever imagine! New Zealand, reserve a spot for me, if at all possible, on Stewart Island, as I am sure that beautiful island does not have any creotard residents yet!

Posted by: astroande | June 30, 2008 3:00 PM

Stan: "science, please -- not evo-dreaming bullcrap."

Someone may have said this already (it's a long thread and I haven't gotten all the way through because I'm supposed to be, you know, working), but dude, I don't think you really understand what science is.

Posted by: astroande | June 30, 2008 3:10 PM

Stan the Stupid: " 'The cecal valve was non-existent in the parent populations.
it was indeed a novel structure.'

show me the observed mutation. Geez"

What do you think, that someone just shoved the thing into one of the lizards? Geez, indeed.

Posted by: travc | June 30, 2008 3:57 PM

Dr Who is getting to be a bit of a Muppet Show... A program that, while ostensibly very niche and not exactly high-brow, is so cool that everyone with a clue wants to be on it. All good IMO.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 30, 2008 4:30 PM

Henry Gee,

Tell me - how many more times more books than you has Dawkins sold?

I enjoyed "Shaking the Tree", by the way.

Posted by: Henry Gee | June 30, 2008 5:03 PM

Tell me - how many more times more books than you has Dawkins sold?

The Dickie D's early books are masterpieces. The Selfish Gene was a genuine paradigm-shifter. Climbing Mount Improbable is a work of breathing genius, much better than anything I could ever write, or ever will. I wouldn't mind that The Dog Illusion sold so much if it were a good book, but it isn't. Dickie D, with his profile, had a golden opportunity to write a careful, measured case for atheism, but he blew it - what we got instead was a tendentious rant, full of basic logical errors. And that's a shame, in my view. So, I don't care that The Dog Illusion sold a lot of copies. But I do care that such a dreadful book sold such a lot of copies.

And by the way, don't be so fucking impertinent.

Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | June 30, 2008 6:04 PM

What's a matter Henry, you sound as if you are suffering a dose of sour grapes. If you can dish it out but can't take it then I suggest you not bother commenting on open blogs.

Posted by: Henry Gee | June 30, 2008 6:28 PM

What's a matter Henry, you sound as if you are suffering a dose of sour grapes.

Read my comment #282. Correction - just try and read. It's an improving pastime, you know.

Mr Gee, have you published your review of the dog illusion?

No, I have not reviewed it, but I have read it and discussed it in detail (including with PZ).

My main problem with it is the contention that the existence of God can be couched as a scientific hypothesis that can be falsified. This is a simple categorical error.
Once that is realized, nothing else in the book makes very much sense as a coherent argument. We know that Dickie D doesn't like religion, but we knew that already, and the book generally boils down to statements that you either agree with or you don't -- much like, say, the Book of Mormon.

Of course, one might argue that the existence of God as a bloke with a beard and a nightie sitting on a cloud, who answers one's every personal prayer, can be couched as a scientific hypothesis that can be falsified. Of course - that's easy.

But that's the kind of theology that people teach to children. It bears little relationship to what adult theologians think, or to the conception that most intelligent adults have about God - in the same way that most of the science that gets taught to small children doesn't have much relationship to the real thing as practiced by scientists.

However, throughout The Dog Illusion the Dickie D criticizes religion and theology at very much that first-grader level. It's impossible for him to get much further than this as he declares, as an axiom, that religion is bunk and theologians are stupid, and that he, Dickie D, knows best. Which is, I have to say, a very surprising attitude from a scientist (though sadly all too familiar from Dickie D, whose arrogance knows no bounds, it seems).

Posted by: Doc Bill | June 30, 2008 6:54 PM

Thank you all! My radio controlled Dalek is on order!

Exterminate!

ThinkGeek - very cool stuff.

Posted by: Owlmirror | June 30, 2008 7:14 PM

My main problem with it is the contention that the existence of God can be couched as a scientific hypothesis that can be falsified.

That's just silly. Or Courtier-like.

Every religion in existence posits God as doing or having done real things in the real world. At some of these things can indeed be rephrased as scientific hypotheses that have been falsified.

The only sorts of Gods that can't be falsified is the sort of Neo-Platonic Deity that hasn't done anything since creating the universe, or the Pantheistic God-as-representing-universal-order (which Dawkins explicitly states is not what he has a problem with).

Oh, and this guy:

  http://grimbles.comicgenesis.com/d/20030103.html

Posted by: Wowbagger | June 30, 2008 7:49 PM

Forgive my ignorance, but was Dawkins' intent to write an ironclad, unassailable attack on religion - or was it simply to get some more attention paid to atheism, and give 'fence-sitters' something to think about?

If it was to any extent the latter then he achieved what he set out to - whether or not some of his arguments were pedestrian.

Posted by: Owlmirror | June 30, 2008 8:08 PM

The preface of The God Delusion:

  As a child, my wife hated her school and wished she could leave. Years later, when she was in her twenties, she disclosed this unhappy fact to her parents, and her mother was aghast: 'But darling, why didn't you come to us and tell us?' Lalla's reply is my text for today: 'But I didn't know I could.'
  I didn't know I could.
  I suspect - well, I am sure - that there are lots of people out there who have been brought up in some religion or other, are unhappy in it, don't believe it, or are worried about the evils that are done in its name; people who feel vague yearnings to leave their parents' religion and wish they could, but just don't realize that leaving is an option. If you are one of them, this book is for you. It is intended to raise consciousness - raise consciousness to the fact that to be an atheist is a realistic aspiration, and a brave and splendid one. You can be an atheist who is happy, balanced, moral, and intellectually fulfilled.

Posted by: negentropyeater | June 30, 2008 8:32 PM

Of course, one might argue that the existence of God as a bloke with a beard and a nightie sitting on a cloud, who answers one's every personal prayer, can be couched as a scientific hypothesis that can be falsified. Of course - that's easy. But that's the kind of theology that people teach to children. It bears little relationship to what adult theologians think, or to the conception that most intelligent adults have about God - in the same way that most of the science that gets taught to small children doesn't have much relationship to the real thing as practiced by scientists.

Men like Henry Gee live on some kind of british elite cloud, where what they view as the conception of "adult theologians and intelligent adults" is what is representative of Christianity throughout the world.

Posted by: Ragutis | June 30, 2008 8:41 PM

Why was Dawkins on Doctor Who? Well, RTD is a fan of his, and he does fit the part of "scientific expert type". Also, there's the whole link Dawkins has to Whodom via Douglas Adams and Lalla. (Actually the cameo is fueling a fair bit of speculation on whether this is a subtle clue to a possible return of a certain Timelady.)Perhaps someone else would have been more appropriate, but maybe Hawking couldn't be arsed and Phil Plait refused unless he got a scene with Billie Piper. :p

And Henry, don't let your obvious distaste for the man distort your perceptions. I'm quite sure that the main (if not only) reason Dawkins chose to do the cameo was that he thought it would be fun.

Anyway, thought the episode was great and I'm really looking forward to next week. (Although making it through to Summer 2010 with only 5 specials is going to suck)

Someone mentioned Queen? Yes, they are still active. AFAIK, a new album is expected this year and a tour in the fall. Also, they just played at Nelson Mandela's 90th birthday bash in Hyde Park this past weekend.

Lamarckism as Intelligent Design? Am I reading that right? Hoo-boy... I was going to watch "Michael Palin and the Mystery of Hammershøi" but might have to to just sit here a while, munching popcorn and hitting F5.

Posted by: Owlmirror | June 30, 2008 8:46 PM

Chapter 1 of The God Delusion

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 30, 2008 9:01 PM

It's impossible for him to get much further than this as he declares, as an axiom, that religion is bunk and theologians are stupid, and that he, Dickie D, knows best.

funny, I missed that having read the book myself.

can you point to the chapter where D lays down the law for us?

...or are you just projecting what you WANT to think he's doing?

In fact, I've never read anything by Dawkins of any kind where he starts off axiomatically.

Instead, he builds from evidence and premise; he cites others before he makes a conclusion himself. if you want to criticize his conclusions, you have to criticize the sources for those conclusions in the same fashion.

If you need a quick refresher, Owlmirror just re-posted the first chapter.

Why don't you break that chapter down for us to support your contentions?

Frankly, I'm not seeing much support.

Posted by: Wowbagger | June 30, 2008 9:07 PM

I've glanced at the RD page - I've always found it hard to navigate. But I'll see what I can find.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 30, 2008 9:11 PM

I've glanced at the RD page - I've always found it hard to navigate. But I'll see what I can find.

sorry, I recall some of the things he has said on the subject, but simply don't have the time to search for the specifics to help you out.

assume the question you are asking has been asked of him before (it has), and you should be able to find something.

Posted by: Patricia | June 30, 2008 9:27 PM

In my neck of fundieland, 'impertinent' = face slap. Fucking impertinent about took my breath away. :(

Posted by: SC | June 30, 2008 9:47 PM

Fucking impertinent about took my breath away. :(

Yeah, mine too. A "Who the fuck do you think you are?" would've been the mildest response it would've elicited from me. Then again, I'm a thug. :)

Posted by: Eliza | June 30, 2008 10:14 PM

now that he's done it, he'll lose what shred of credibility he still has among the credulous (present company excepted, naturally), rather in the same way that George Galloway, that other tin-pot little demagogue did, when he appeared on Big Brother.

Oh, come now, Henry. You can hardly compare the sight of a rotund, middle-aged man wearing a leotard, crawling about on all fours, whilst (very earnestly) pretending to be a cat and licking imaginary milk from the cusped hands of his 'owner' with Dawkins apperaring on a fake news program, properly dressed, and not uttering a single mew. Can you?

Posted by: Wowbagger | June 30, 2008 10:40 PM

I think the term they're trying very hard not to use - but which illustrates their attitude perfectly - is 'uppity'.

Posted by: Patricia | June 30, 2008 10:56 PM

I'm going to buzz off out of respect for PZ's request above. But I honestly think Nick didn't deserve that shot. He clearly sports the well filled trouser compared to the other 'gent'.

Posted by: Wowbagger | June 30, 2008 11:11 PM

The discrepancy has always bothered me.

'God created the whole universe and everything in it - including the earth and all the animals - for humanity' doesn't exactly sound humble to me.

Posted by: Damian | June 30, 2008 11:44 PM

To be fair to Mr Gee, The God Delusion was hardly the best defense of atheism, naturalism, etc, that has ever been written, but I hadn't considered it be even attempting that, anyway. From the moment that I first read it I thought of it as more of a call to arms, if you will, than a scientifically and philosophically rigorous tome that would end all arguments about the existence of God.

And here's the thing: no book is ever going to do that. No matter how good the arguments are, those who want/need to believe in God are going to find reason to do so, regardless of how unconvincing we find them. If you want to read a measured, philosophically rigorous book about these issues, read "The Miracle of Theism" by J.L. Mackie, "Atheism: A Philosophical Justification" by Michael Martin , "Sense and Goodness without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism" by Richard Carrier, or any of the other far, far better defenses of the world view that many of us adhere to, in one respect or another. There are probably 20 or so excellent books that, in my mind, reflect an outstanding case against the existence of God. Heck, just read the essays at The Secular Web.

Whether by accident or design (I genuinely don't know), Dawkins produced a book that has had a far greater impact than all of those other books together, and I happen to be grateful for that -- not least because it lead me to read those other books, as well as many others, and while it became quite obvious that TGD is hardly likely to persuade a philosopher, or anybody else who has really thought about these issues (or in other words, constructed an amazing labyrinth of God-fuzz in their own minds), the general public does not consist of many philosophers and they are generally quite lazy when it comes to reading through, and attempting to understand, carefully constructed arguments.

That is the reality, and Dawkins book taps in to that by presenting people with one of the most simple arguments against God that there has ever been, but particularly in the modern age -- where is all of the evidence, and why do you hold different questions to different standards of evidence? Whether some people like it or not, that question has persuaded a number of people to snap out of their delusion. I have come across quite a few of them on the internet, and it has even worked for a professor of astrophysics in Norway.

I think that at times scholarly individuals become so used to the need for rigorous argument that they don't realize that a simple, but forcefully argued case can often be all that is required for great many people. After all, if nobody has ever dared to even ask why you hold different questions to different standards of evidence, is it any wonder that so many manage to blind themselves to the simple logic of that question?

So, I can understand those who have criticized Dawkins for not writing a better book, but whether he meant it or not the book that he did write has really put atheism on the map, particularly in the US. That has to count for something, and it has given others the opportunity to take advantage of the ground that has been made. I have to say that it puzzles me why Mr Gee would consider that Dawkins believes that he speaks for evolutionary biology? I can't say that I would turn down work, just so that nobody gets the wrong idea. I really don't know what to make of that, to be honest.

Posted by: Wowbagger | July 1, 2008 12:55 AM

Henry Gee wrote:

and most grown-ups, at least, those who have a mental age of about fifteen and who are still in the Nobody Understands Me phase) have a more nuanced view of religion than Dawkins does

This might have more to do with the company you keep, Henry, then it is true of the general public. The majority of religious believers I've encountered are far more likely to base their beliefs on exactly the things that Dawkins was attacking - if they've even bothered to give it a second thought.

A nuanced view of religion? Either they believe in some version of a supernatural entity or they don't. Not really a lot of nuance there from a scientific perspective.

Posted by: pcarini | July 1, 2008 1:17 AM

Wow, over a day old and this thread still has some life in it!

Mr. Gee, you'll admit that your entrance could have been a bit more graceful, right?

We've seen hundreds of posts combining the same type of ad-hominem attacks with the same lack of justification as your first post here. Your second post didn't improve the situation too much, it read more like a conspiracy theory than any reasoned inference -- shunning the obvious explanations in lieu of some sort of "mastermind behind the scenes" hypothesis. Your tone throughout was condescending, as was the instant assumption that people who didn't agree with you hadn't/couldn't have read your post.

As I mentioned, we get this all the time, but usually from people like stan (above) who is actively arguing for Lamarckism, and who calls science "a pig". Doctorate or no, don't come in here spouting the same invective as the creationists do, backed up by the same lack of reasoning that they use without expecting to be treated similarly. While PZ may have a great deal of respect for you, many of us don't know who you are and have to take your rant at face value.

Just be thankful Holbach hasn't seen you and flagged you for a christer yet...

Posted by: pcarini | July 1, 2008 1:40 AM

I do find it interesting, and maybe Mr. Gee is alluding to this, that I come across many more people in their teens and early twenties who self-identify as atheists than I would expect, here in the US, at least.

I started noticing this well before the most recent round of "New Atheist" books came out. I feel ambivalent about it, though, because many of them don't have any reasoned explanation of or argument for their atheism. I also get the feeling that most of them don't like to read books. I'm all for an increasing number of atheists, but I'd rather not they be thoughtless followers.
</elitist>

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 1, 2008 1:55 AM

and maybe Mr. Gee is alluding to this

it sounded more like an insult than an argument to me.

be careful you don't read more into his rant than was there, which was precious little, surprisingly.

Frankly, I'm more than a little disappointed that Gee would choose to "summarize" the over 40 responses to his initial post as being equivalent to the very first response.

If he doesn't wish to present any legitimate arguments to support his contentions, that's fine, but he certainly can't expect to garner any respect for it.

I don't respect the office of the President, if the man installed in it makes the kind of arguments Chimpy McGrin does, either.

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 1, 2008 2:07 AM

I suspect the number of Pascal's Wagerers is far greater than the religious would care to admit.

now that would be an interesting question for Gee...

I wonder if he would agree, considering he evidently considers most atheists to be little more than rebellious teenagers.

shift the frame of reference to the "gray generation", and I suspect those accepting Pascal's Wager becomes much, much larger.

Posted by: pcarini | July 1, 2008 2:24 AM

Wowbagger:

I admit to atheism being the default position for me, the religion thing just never took. And it wasn't until much past my adolescent years that I found firm scientific and rhetorical logic to back up what I'd always felt, or not felt. So maybe I'm being harsh on the kids for no reason at all.

At the same time, I sometimes see people embrace atheism for little better reason than shocking their parents, or because it's as far removed from their former belief as possible. I can't relate to either so, of course, I think they're wrong. The first seems silly, but perhaps it can keep a person interested until reason kicks in. The second, well... some people _need_ to dive headfirst into beliefs, and when they get disillusioned with one they make a beeline to its opposite and jump in just as unquestioningly. As much as we'd hate to admit it, there are people that are as gung-ho for atheism as Tom Cruise is for Scientology.

Posted by: Jesus, called Christ | July 1, 2008 2:38 AM

Just come over here and spit in my pint

If I were able to affect the corporeal world, I'd be strongly tempted to replace your pint with flat skunked Budweiser. Because fakes do not deserve Real Beer.

Posted by: Wowbagger | July 1, 2008 2:48 AM

pcarini,

Sometimes it's a bit hard here at Pharyngula when so many of the posters are deconverted Xians who have an amazing knowledge of both religion and science (while I can't claim much familiarity with either - at least not here anyway), and use the combination to tear would-be trolls apart.

It doesn't mean it's not entertaining and illuminating, though - I've learned so much in the last few months.

But it tends to make me feel like my own, easily-achieved atheism is rather ineffectual in comparison, and that I have to go to extremes to be noticed and respected. But I've managed to resist the urge and can just post on the things I feel strongly about, rather than try to fling poo (thank you Brenda) just for the sake of it.

Trolls like The Stan, though, bring out the worst in me.

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 1, 2008 2:56 AM

grown-up theologians

Like, say, Hector Avalos, Gee?

Posted by: pcarini | July 1, 2008 3:04 AM

So, yes, fucking impertinent, and worse. Just come over here and spit in my pint, and you'll see what you get.

Well, I'm in Warwickshire, so this could be arranged...

My deepest apologies, but I can't think of a disagreement between Brits without thinking of the following:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzOBlPKZjxE&feature=related

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 1, 2008 3:15 AM

And what we need for you is the ectoplasmic transcendental ineffable equivalent of a straitjacket and a rubber room, you daft old psychopathic fart.

when is the cage match between you two scheduled?

did you decide on which weapons to use?

still gotta get those press packets out!

Posted by: God | July 1, 2008 3:35 AM

when is the cage match between you two scheduled?

What part of us both being incorporeal and invisible did you not understand?

Although....

Now I think about it, I can see some real potential here. Lose the whole father-son things; the vast population of suckers think that we're best buddies. They just wouldn't spring for it.

But announce a God vs. Satan tournament, and they'll probably geek like mad, especially the pro-Armageddon crowd.

Then, announce that since the conflict will be on another plane of existence, no-one will see anything anyway. You'll just read through the script of what "we" do, and maybe rig up some special effects to freak the audience out at certain points.

It'll be great!

The best part, from my point of view, is that people with form factions and fight over what "really" happened. Some will argue that I beat the devil in the first round, and the rest was you faking it. Others will insist that despite what you say about who "wins", it was actually the other way around. They'll start hitting each other, and the audience will dissolve into a riotous violent conflict!

And that way, I will win!

Posted by: Jesus, called Christ | July 1, 2008 3:42 AM

when is the cage match between you two scheduled?

Will you please stop encouraging him?!? I mean, really now.

a God vs. Satan tournament

Just so you know, "Satan" is one of God's many sockpuppets. So his staged fight scenario is just an update on a very old idea.

Posted by: CosmicTeapot | July 1, 2008 4:39 AM

Henry

I found the God Delusion thought provoking. I hope it does the same for others who would not care to read a more philosophically rigorous book. After all, not every one is as intellectual as yourself.

Carlie @289 adequately answers your view on the book so I won't.

I would like to answer a few points of your initial post though.

"How dare the producers stoop so low to admit Dickie D on one of my favorite shows"? Forgive my impertinence, but they don't write it for you.

"Perhaps, now that he's done it, he'll lose what shred of credibility he still has among the credulous". You really think he only has a shred of credibility? Well, I suppose we're all entitled to an opinion.

And who are these "credulous" that you speak of? You're not being an elitist tit are you?

Posted by: Henry Gee | July 1, 2008 4:56 AM

I found the God Delusion thought provoking. I hope it does the same for others who would not care to read a more philosophically rigorous book. After all, not every one is as intellectual as yourself.

Thank you, CosmicTeapot, for encapsulating the problem I have with The Dog Illusion: that is, the implication in your comment that a book cannot be both popular (or populist) and philosophically rigorous. Why not? Any argument (yeah, OK, even mine) should make logical sense, irrespective of the audience to which it is directed.

"How dare the producers stoop so low to admit Dickie D on one of my favorite shows"? Forgive my impertinence, but they don't write it for you.

Of course they do. The secret of a good show, especially a cult show, is that every individual viewer thinks it is written for him or her alone.

Posted by: negentropyeater | July 1, 2008 6:03 AM

But wait a second Mr Gee, you are not being rigourous either, you are making completely unwaranted assumptions too :

This comment for instance shows that you are completely detached from reality, living on some kind of "intellectual british cloud";

Of course, one might argue that the existence of God as a bloke with a beard and a nightie sitting on a cloud, who answers one's every personal prayer, can be couched as a scientific hypothesis that can be falsified. Of course - that's easy. But that's the kind of theology that people teach to children. It bears little relationship to what adult theologians think, or to the conception that most intelligent adults have about God - in the same way that most of the science that gets taught to small children doesn't have much relationship to the real thing as practiced by scientists.

So, may I ask, what percentage of Christians do you believe are represented by those "adult theologians and intelligent adults" in the USA ? In south America ? In Africa ?
You seem to have a conception of the way religion is being practiced throughout the world which is very much influenced by the comfortable benches of the churches in Norfolk. Maybe a slightly more detailed analysis would be appropriate wouldn't it ?

So of course, on your cloud, the God delusion is just an illusion, it doesn't really exist, well stay happy, all is fine in Norfolk.

Posted by: Henry Gee | July 1, 2008 6:12 AM

You seem to have a conception of the way religion is being practiced throughout the world which is very much influenced by the comfortable benches of the churches in Norfolk. Maybe a slightly more detailed analysis would be appropriate wouldn't it?

I'm Jewish. What goes on inside Norfolk churches is not mine to judge. Neither is the way that other people practice their religion, even if their religion is no religion at all. But if the way that religion is being practiced is full of cruelty, prejudice and illogic, why should Dawkins stoop to that level? As I say, I expected better from Dawkins. I felt I deserved better. I daresay you deserved better. If The Dog Illusion was good enough for you ... well, I won't say any more.

While enjoying this friendly intercourse I've been reading Harry Potter to my youngest, and the two kind of merged together overnight

"The next recollection I wish to show you," said Dumbledore, uncorking a vial of that same, strange silvery matter, and stooping over the pensieve, "is perhaps the most significant of any I've shown you."

Harry felt a chill grip his arms. "Who's it from?"

"I gathered it at great personal risk," continued Dumbledore, "from a house-elf called Becky, who works for a very rich and calculating literary agent called Mephistopheles Fleece. We'll be transported to his office for a meeting with Professor Dawkins, who as you know applied to be the Defence Against The Dark Arts teacher at Hogwarts."

"You ... turned him down?" said Harry.

"Yes, I did. I felt that he would use his position to build himself an army and overturn the magical world, inconveniencing a lot of muggles too, no doubt. However, let us continue. After you, Harry."

Harry stooped low over the basin of ethereal fluid, neither liquid nor gas, and felt the now-familiar wrenching sensation of being whirled through nothingness. He came to rest in a brightly lit, expensively furnished office. Dumbledore was standing next to him.

"So, Dickie? How's it going?" The voice came from a rotund, dark-suited figure seated across the biggest desk Harry had ever seen.

"Not as well as I'd hoped," came the reply. "I've tried everything, from The Selfish Gene to The Ancestor's Tale, but world domination continues to elude me, alas." Harry turned to see the speaker--a handsome man in middle years, with piercing blue eyes which, despite their prominence, seemed to be devoid of humanity. Harry was uncomfortably reminded of Lucius Malfoy.

"You know your problem, Dickie?" said the suited man--whom Harry realized was Mephistopheles Fleece--who paused to clip and light an enormous cigar.

"Enlighten me."

"Demographics, Dickie. Demographics. Your audience is too small. Writing highbrow sience books for a lot of limp-writed Oxbridge academics--no offence, Dickie--is never gonna shift units. Science? Schmience! What really floats their boat is sex, cookery and religion. With you? I'd say, try religion. A bit of God-bothering really pushes the buttons. And there's a whole new market coming on stream. Ripe to be tapped."

"New Market? Tapped? What do you mean?" Professor Dawkins looked a little lost, flustered.

"Look at it this way. More than a decade has passed since Kurt Cobain shot himself ..."

"Who?"

"Rock singer? Nirvana? Ring any bells? No, thought not. Never mind. Anyway, all the teenagers who wasted their time feeling angsty and angry have grown up, and are now angsty and angry adults. It's as if the My-Parents-Don't-Understand-Me generation has grown up, anxious for a new rallying call, a new figurehead. These people have never had sex, and they wouldn't understand a good meal if you shoved it under their snouts. But religion, though. That's a winner."

"That's a thought..." Dawkins sat back, lost in inner contemplation.

"Yeah, isn't it?" said Fleece. Blue cigar smoke filled the room. "Doesn't have to be a very good book, either. No need to waste time researching anything. After all, what did The Selfish Gene get you in the end? Bupkes! An a man like you could probably knock it out over a weekend, in between re-reading The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and highlighting memorable passages of Mein Kampf."

This time the glint in Dawkins' eyes was unmistakable. "I'll do it," he said. "I'll have the manuscript to you on Monday. But that's not why I'm here. Not really."

"No?"

"Well, it's ... you know, Fleece ... it's always been my desire to have a part on Dr Who. Nothing very big, you know. Lalla always said I'd enjoy it, and ..."

"No problem," said Fleece. "Just leave it to me. There will be one condition, though."

"You have only to name it."

"Sure. well, I'd like you to read the Torah portion on Saturday. And be a witness at my grandson's bris."

"Bris?"

"Sure, you'll love it. You might even get a few tips."

Posted by: andyo | July 1, 2008 6:44 AM

The question still remains, though. How exactly more "philosophically rigorous" can you get about "God" and theology? First, I think there needs to be established that there's anything that's worth being "philosophically rigorous" about. As far as I know "theologians" have always been asked to clarify themselves, but it seems all they can do is muddle the waters so there's nothing concrete to talk honestly and clearly about.

Posted by: Wowbagger | July 1, 2008 7:26 AM

Hmm, I suspect we're going to have to come up with some specific variation on the Courtier's Reply to encompass Henry Gee's particular perspective.

How about the Gentleman's Admonish?

Because I think that's what Henry's problem with Dawkins is - that he's exhibiting poor form by being so mean and nasty to all the oh-so-harmless theologians, who've never really done anything bad to anyone.

Yes, it's fine on an intellectual level to be an atheist, as long as one has the decency to keep it to one's self and not going and spoil everyone's fun by being so crass and obvious about it.

Like a jolly good tennis match, that's what it all should be like between theists and atheists. After a good hard slog we can all go back to the clubhouse and have a nice gin & tonic and all remain friends.

What say you Henry, old boy?

Posted by: Henry Gee | July 1, 2008 7:42 AM

This is all very chortlesome, and if you want me to come over the English Milord that you seem to think I am, then I will. To this nice Jewish boy and descendant of recent immigrants, I'm about as aristocratic as bagels and lox. That aside, my idea of Judiasm these days is taking matzos to munch in my beach hut, and enjoying a collegial game of Scrabble with the vicar's wife.

I think you chaps (might I use 'chaps'?) labour under the misperception that there's a kind of zero-sum game, that the more rigorous your arguments, the more of an audience you'll capture. This is piffle, as Dawkins' own books show. His earlier books on evolution were as revolutionary in science as they were in popular culture. Need I say more? Jared Diamond's books are rigorous to a fault, and sell truckloads. Stephen Pinker's books are so witty they make me laugh out loud.

And as for rigour -- well, I find theology as baffling as anybody (truly, I do wonder, sometimes, if Jesus wants me for a tapeworm) and I take your point, andyo, that it's hard to wrestle clouds. And that's the point I made above about categorical errors -- you can't dismiss the existence of God simply by asserting that God is a scientific hypothesis to be falsified. In my own experience as a Jew, the existence of God is a complicated topic to be considered at many different levels, none of which seem to be related to the kind of intercessionary God that many Christians find so homely (I think this last concept is silly, but, frankly, that's none of my business).

And, yes, there is a problem in the US about the millions of Americans who do believe in this kind of primitive faith (one that my ancestors abandoned about 2000 years ago as practically and politically unworkable, but which Dickie just harps on about in The Dog Illusion, as if bugger all has happened since). I discussed this with PZ at SciFoo last year, and he made it plain that to profess atheism in the US was political suicide. But I say again - is it the right thing to stoop to the level of one's critics?

It's just not cricket, what? Tally Ho? Yoicks?

Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 1, 2008 7:54 AM

the existence of God is a complicated topic to be considered at many different levels - Henry Gee

Indeed, as is the existence of fairies. I mean really, serious faerieologians don't believe in winged moppets in Victorian costume flitting from flower to flower or dancing around toadstools. As if faeries would spend their time cursing individual human beings, or kidnapping children, when they have the serious task of sustaining the existence of the universe to deal with!

Posted by: CosmicTeapot | July 1, 2008 8:09 AM

Henry

You said "My main problem with it is the contention that the existence of God can be couched as a scientific hypothesis that can be falsified".

Any god who can not be proved to exist, can not be worshipped. After all, this god may not want us to just believe, maybe it wants us to eat goat cheese every alternate Wednesday or be eternally damned. Or it may just not exist. Either way, what is the point of worrying about this highbrow, philosophical kind of god.

Your old man and a beard god was answered by Carlie in post289, as well as Dr Dawkins in the God Delusion. It is the people who worship these ludicrous, imaginary beings who are the ones who fly planes into towers; kill people for changing to a different religion; treat women as second class citizens; want to inject superstition into science class; to kill people, just because they don't believe; or plant bombs in the London underground.

Let the theologians waste their time with what the triune nature of the christian god really means, or what music angels listen to while dancing on a pin. You could join them instead of trying to defend your initial rant.

Posted by: Wowbagger | July 1, 2008 8:15 AM

I'm an Australian (the descendant of immigrants and convicts!), Henry - as a Brit you probably don't want to talk to me about cricket. I used the old boy's club analogy because that's how you were coming across to me.

But you've made your point - considering god's existence outside of science - clear, and that's all I need.

Posted by: Henry Gee | July 1, 2008 8:25 AM

the existence of God is a complicated topic to be considered at many different levels - Henry Gee. Indeed, as is the existence of fairies. I mean really, serious faerieologians don't believe in winged moppets in Victorian costume flitting from flower to flower or dancing around toadstools

Go study some Talmud, Nick, and appreciate the very Jewish concepts of argument, debate and doubt. Then come back when you know what you're talking about.

Any god who can not be proved to exist, can not be worshipped

That's a complete, 180-degree misunderstanding of faith, and what it means. Sorry, CosmicTeapot, if you cannot understand that, then no-one is ever going to convince you.

It is the people who worship these ludicrous, imaginary beings who are the ones who fly planes into towers; kill people for changing to a different religion; treat women as second class citizens; want to inject superstition into science class; to kill people, just because they don't believe; or plant bombs in the London underground.

Sure, but to blame religion for the acts of these people is to commit the same logical error as the person who damns the internet because some people use it to download child pornography. Sorry, wrong again.

I thought the invasion of Iraq was silly.
That's funny - I thought it was wicked.

Just my typical Olde Worlde Englishe Understatemente. Would 'ridiculous' be any better? I didn't mention the Iraq War -- you did.

But you've made your point - considering god's existence outside of science - clear, and that's all I need.

Thank you, Wowbagger, for encapsulating it. That's precisely what I mean. Now, please excuse me, I have to go an do some work.

Posted by: Damian | July 1, 2008 8:59 AM

Henry Gee said:

Damien - after your riposte above (#329) I do wonder why you're even asking me to make a clarification. My answer to your comment about Dawkins' logical error can be found in comment #288.

Well, no, that wasn't a complaint about logical inconsistency. I suppos