…and this is a 
You've probably noticed that as a soap bubble thins, it acquires a rainbow of iridescent colors across its surface. Or perhaps you've noticed that a film of oil on a mud puddle shows beautiful colors. These are common physical properties of thin film interference.
The way it works is that light entering a material with a higher refractive index is both reflected and transmitted. Some of the light bounces back with a partial phase shift, and some of it passes through. In a thin film, it passes through but doesn't travel far before it hits another boundary, for instance between the film and the water underneath it, and again, some of it is reflected and some transmitted. This second reflected beam of light, though, is out of phase with the first, by an amount that depends on the thickness of the film. What that means is that certain wavelengths will be shifted in such a way as to reinforce the first reflected beam, generating constructive interference that will make that wavelength brighter. Other wavelengths will be shifted the same amount, but they will be out of phase with light in the first reflected beam — there will be destructive interference, and that wavelength will be damped out.
The net result: the light reflecting off the film will be colored, and the color will depend on the thickness of the film. It's a simple physical process. Cephalopods use it to generate their colors — just by shifting thin reflecting membranes by a tiny distance of a fraction of a wavelength of light, they shift which wavelengths constructively and destructively interfere with each other, and thus change their color. Now engineers are exploiting the same principle to build television screens: they use a thin film that can be expanded by fractions of a wavelength of light by applying a voltage to build reflective color screens. This will be very cool. If you've got a Kindle or one of the other e-book readers, you know they use a reflective screen with no backlight that depends on ambient lighting to be visible…and that right now you only get shades of gray. With this technology, we'll be able to have color electronic paper. I'll be looking forward to it.
Unfortunately, we'll also enable incomprehending gomers. Case in point: Casey Luskin thinks that thin-film interference patterns implies design. Well, actually, it's stupider than that — he actually thinks that because TVs are being designed to use thin-film interference, and because cephalopod skin uses thin-film interference to generate color, that implies that cephalopod skin is also designed. I kid you not.
So we may soon have affordable, energy-efficient, cuttlefish inspired flat screen TVs and computer monitors everywhere. But of course, there's no design overtones to see here folks. None whatsoever.
Right. And because trebuchets were designed to use gravity to generate force, and because rocks on mountains will tumble down due to gravity, avalanches are therefore designed. We make fire by design to produce the release of energy by rapid oxidation of carbon compounds; cells also oxidize carbon-containing compounds to produce energy; therefore, cells must have been set on fire on purpose. This is what the IDiots are reduced to: if something designed and something evolved make use of the same properties of our common physical universe, that means the evolved object must be designed, too. It's ridiculous, but it's all they've got.
Comments
Posted by: Bone Oboe | June 9, 2009 1:14 PM
Does that mean that since the sushi I'm going to eat for lunch is artfully arranged on the plate that the fish was designed?
Posted by: Lynna | June 9, 2009 1:17 PM
Well, if nothing else, Luskin's comments will inspire our own Cuttlefish -- and nothing's better than an inspired Cuttlefish.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 9, 2009 1:17 PM
they got nuthin
Posted by: Brock | June 9, 2009 1:21 PM
Wow. Straight-up logic fail. How much do they pay Luskin to succeed at nothing? I'm curious as to what bad arguments are worth.
Posted by: Mike | June 9, 2009 1:22 PM
*facepalm* - it means TV's evolved, dumbass!
Posted by: Josh | June 9, 2009 1:23 PM
Ahhhh...logic.
Posted by: whitebird | June 9, 2009 1:25 PM
Meh. After hearing the "look at a painting, you know there must be a painter...so look at anything, you know it must have a designer!!1" argument, the stupid no longer surprises me.
Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | June 9, 2009 1:26 PM
What a waste of time, money, and oxygen that Luskin guy is... I'd say he has the cognitive capacity of a slug, but that'd be an insult to slugs.
Every time I read that stuff I try to follow how they arrived at such a conclusion, and all it does it make my head hurt.
Posted by: Bryn | June 9, 2009 1:28 PM
Just further proof, as if any were needed, that Casey Luskin is, in fact, an idiot. "Iffen I don't unnerstands it, it gots to be GAWD!!!" Great argument there.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 9, 2009 1:34 PM
*facepalm, headdesk*
Maybe a spell. Out, out demons of stupidity (waves swizzle stick). Nope, he's just as non-intelligent as he was before.
Posted by: BigMKnows | June 9, 2009 1:36 PM
Birds have aerodynamic wings. Planes have aerodynamic wings. Birds evolved. Therefore, planes evolved.
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
June 9, 2009 1:36 PM
Huzzah! A mention of trebuchets.
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | June 9, 2009 1:38 PM
Interestingly enough, I just got done reading an article about the newest candidates for First Critters on Earth, and it mentioned that it looks like nervous systems must have evolved into existence at least twice -- which is not at all unusual as there are twenty-five known instances of the eye's having done the same.
You'd think that an infallible Designer would have got it right from the start, eh?
Posted by: norm! | June 9, 2009 1:39 PM
Conversational geometry FAIL
Posted by: Stephen Wells | June 9, 2009 1:39 PM
Let's just cut to the chase. Everything designed is made of atoms. Therefore atoms are designed.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 9, 2009 1:40 PM
SQUEEEEEEEEEEEK!!!
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
June 9, 2009 1:45 PM
It's doubly stupid because we do what does not occur in nature, we steal "designs" from it with no hereditary or genetic constraints.
This is the bird wing all over again. The Wright brothers, and the Chinese with their airfoil kites preceding them, copied bird wings to a degree (not bat, not insect, neither of which would have informed early 20th century inventors much).
But do we get anything like this in evolution? No, we do not. Pterosaurs existed when birds evolved, but birds wings were adaptations of dinosaur forelimbs, not adaptations of working wings. Same with bats, mammalian forelimbs were turned into wings.
We, being designers, copy working "designs" in nature because we are intelligent. Nature cannot do this, instead it keeps turning vertebrate forelimbs into wings, no matter that these are not very well suited to becoming wings. Evolution can't use anything else, though.
So yes, Casey, there is a design argument here, which is that if a designer were responsible for nature, designs would be copied without regard to ancestry. Thin film interference had to be evolved from unpromising materials and structures, because intelligence wasn't involved. Just as intelligence wasn't involved in making bird and bat wings, while intelligence was involved in adapting bird airfoils to the Wright brothers' plane.
What an idiot.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Posted by: MPG | June 9, 2009 1:46 PM
"ERV" Abbie picked up on another couple of choice Luskin gems a couple of days ago. The man really is a one-trick pony, isn't he?
Posted by: Bone Oboe | June 9, 2009 1:48 PM
Ofttimes I have yearned for someone to develop a device into which creationist/fundamentalist windbags of any stripe, (And this Luskin chap would seem to be a prime candidate.) could be placed in, broken down a'la the Star Trek style transporter, and reconstituted in the pod nextdoor as apes/monkeys. Or other any other endangered or tasty animal as the situation, or device operator dictates.
I'd love to see the conversion table.
1 creationist douche= 1 Gorilla, or
1 Orang-utan, or
1 large chimp, or 2 small chimps or bonobos, or a baker's dozen worth of capuchin monkeys.
Would need to be very precice on the math, one misplaced decimal point and you'd wind up with chimp-change.
Hmmm, Soylent Chimp.
Posted by: ckitching | June 9, 2009 1:49 PM
It all comes down to the fact they have virtually no sense of wonder, and "why does that work" to them. "Goddidit" is the answer for everything. All sense of imagination has been preached out of them.
This isn't universally true for all believers, but it does seem to be true for all biblical literalists. It's really amazing how hard you have to work to insulate yourself from allowing your literal interpretation of an ancient man-made document to be damaged.
Posted by: Justin | June 9, 2009 1:51 PM
Wait a second! Paper weights weigh down paper just like rocks do which means rocks were designed as well...I think I just proved both intelligent falling AND that rocks were created by the "gods of falling" at once! ITS CALLED LOGIC PZ!!
Posted by: Erevan | June 9, 2009 1:51 PM
How did thin-film interference for colour changing evolve? It seems like too big an adaptive change the happen all at once, and I can't think of any developmental pathway that could lead to this adaptation, so how did cephalopods go from regular skin to skin with this adaptation?
I don't mean to suggest that this couldn't happen; I'm just quite curious and can't think of how it could.
Posted by: Sastra
|
June 9, 2009 1:52 PM
Surely Luskin already knows from reading his Bible that God deliberately created rainbows -- and the properties of light refraction -- as a pinky-swear promise to Noah that He wouldn't drown most of mankind in a global flood again. So of course thin-film interference was designed. It's like little low-hovering rainbows.
Posted by: ctenotrish | June 9, 2009 2:07 PM
Well the next time I blow bubbles I am going to throw my head back, laugh madly in the 'bwah ha ha' style, and proclaim myself an almightly designer. According to Casey, I'll be right!
Posted by: Dahan | June 9, 2009 2:09 PM
One of the (very few) things that is cool about living as far north as I do is being able to go out on nights when it's below about -15 F and blow bubbles. They freeze into crystalline sculptures, fall, then sort of shatter.
I know this is a bit off topic, but observing this is really frigging' cool! Way cooler than making up crap to try to justify one's reality-rejecting beliefs.
I'd rather stand out in my pajamas making frozen bubbles at six in the morning any day than listen to drivel like this.
No faeries needed for me to enjoy MY garden!
Posted by: natural cynic | June 9, 2009 2:09 PM
Yeah, Casey, but who got designed first - cephalopod's chromatophores or mollusk's iridescent nacre. Abalones are yummier than squid.
Posted by: natural cynic | June 9, 2009 2:14 PM
Abalones are even yummier than squid wrapped in bacon.
Posted by: Larry | June 9, 2009 2:15 PM
Things would have been some much simpler in my college freshman physics course when we studied optics if the entire chapter read "god done it" instead of those darn mathematical equations about index of refraction, wave fronts, and other such nonsense.
The final exam would have been a breeze, what with only one answer required.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
June 9, 2009 2:20 PM
But it's not such a big change, at least not at once. Iridescence and other forms of thin film interference arise easily and naturally, from soap bubbles, oil on water, in opals, etc.
Skins (and other tissues) are usually made up of thin films, so how hard would it be for thin-film interference to set up in cephalopod skins? It has happened in bird feathers, guppies, beetles, and in many other organisms. Cats' eyes "glow" from the tapetum lucidem, a thin-film interference "mirror," while tarsiers were unlucky not to evolve such a wonderful boost for night sight, hence their enormous eyes (or maybe they'd still evolve enormous eyes, yet see rather better at night than they do).
And all you have to do to shift colors with thin-film interference is to stretch the films a bit, and voila, a color shift. The fact is that it would be difficult for a cephalopod not to shift colors as it moved. Maybe they evolved a color display for mating, one that could be hidden the rest of the time, and dazzled females with their light-shifting colors.
We have muscles in our skin, however, and apparently so do cephalopods. Supposing just for the sake of argument (and not a just-so story of how it did arise) that cephalopods have their shifting color displays for mating, their muscles would eventually evolve in order to control the display, just by using various muscles to stretch the skin a bit, or allow it to relax. Over time, they might evolve a high level of control of their iridescent colors.
Again, I don't know that it all evolved that way, but I see no show stoppers there. The whole thing could evolve step-wise, and yes, likely cephalopods evolved thin-film color changing due to the fact that skin grows in layers, and these layers can relatively easily evolve to create thin-film interference of light.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Posted by: whitebird | June 9, 2009 2:23 PM
Woah, Dahan @ 25, that does sound friggin' cool!
Posted by: Rick McWilliams
|
June 9, 2009 2:24 PM
Do octopi really use thin film interference for color changes? I have observed a juvenile cephalopod argonata argonatide noury under a microscope. This creature has muscle like structure that collects tiny pigment dots into a concentrated tiny dark mass, the overall color appears as white. When the pigment is spread as a thin membrane the red orange color of the pigment dots dominates and the color is rather international orange. There is some other process that allows the color to appear light irridescent blue. The blue cast is of much larger scale and very directional suggesting interference colors. The rapid changes in color and pattern appreared to me to be due to the pigment carring dots. I would think that a biologist would not have to look far to find similar color changing structures in many animals. I wonder if our own retinal pigment bleaching is similar.
Posted by: Chayanov | June 9, 2009 2:25 PM
I'm always saddened by those who must resort to magical thinking to explain why the world is the way it is. I pity their lack of imagination and sense of wonder that they feel the need to make up simplistic, superficial explanations instead of taking the world as it is and exploring its wonders and mysteries.
Such people always remind me of Douglas Adams' line, "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Posted by: Fred the Hun
|
June 9, 2009 2:28 PM
KemaTheAtheist @ 8,
I'd say he has the cognitive capacity of a slug, but that'd be an insult to slugs.
Especially since your average slug is quite capable of learning. Something Casey Luskin seems to be incapable of doing.
Not to mention that slugs are much more interesting.
Posted by: Raikoala | June 9, 2009 2:28 PM
I get it now. It's not like HUMANS copy cool stuff from nature like parachutes (seeds!), nylon (silk!) and aerodynamics (birds!) - it's nature copying FROM US. Yes, that's right folks - God is copying from us, that bastard. He's even copying our FUTURE inventions. Damn uncreative, that God-guy.
Posted by: knathon
|
June 9, 2009 2:28 PM
To say that ceph change color by thin film interference is slightly misleading. Chromatophores don't operate in this fashion. Instead they employ bags of pigment (to be somewhat oversimplified) that can be expanded by several order of magnitude to display the color, or collapse to hide it. This is why cephalopods have a limited color pallet, there are limited #s of pigments in their chromatophores. There are two other structures, however that also affect color: Leucophores and iridiphores. Leucophores provide a white backing and iridiphore reflect the ambient light. It is the iridiphores that it is HYPOTHESIZED to use thin film interference to help modulate the overall tone to help match the surroundings. Reflectin proteins in the iridophores have been shown to be arranged in such a way to cause thin film intereference, but to my knowledge it is still poorly understood who it contributes to the coloration of the animal. Either way, it is the chromatophores that do the bulk of the work in cephalopod color changes.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
June 9, 2009 2:32 PM
All that I can do is to consult sources for a possible answer. This I found quickly on the web:
So they claim both reflection and iridescence in cephalopods coming from thin-film interference. If they're wrong, I have no way of knowing it.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Posted by: James Sweet | June 9, 2009 2:32 PM
I would like to thank Luskin, actually. I'd like to thank him for inspiring PZ to give this straightforward and understandable explanation of how cephalopods change their color. I'd heard about it before, but only on some TV show, and either they were too vague or I didn't grasp what they were saying. Now I get it, and damn, that's really cool! Thanks, PZ!! And thanks, Luskin!!! ;p
Posted by: Lauren Cocilova | June 9, 2009 2:35 PM
Are Casey Luskin and Crazy Sprinkler Lady (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIYZvr3ueGw) the same person??
Posted by: SteveM
|
June 9, 2009 2:37 PM
To me it seems they have too much "wonder" and too little "why" and "how", as in the phrase "I wonder why that is, let's find out how that works". These people seem to think there is some virtue is stopping at "I wonder".
Posted by: DPSisler | June 9, 2009 2:42 PM
I propose that PZ refer to Casey as CaseyTits just like ERV does on her blog
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 9, 2009 2:42 PM
Only this morning I head an interview with a scientist on Radio 4 who was starting research into the silk spun by tarantulas. It seems there is not much known about it. If there is a pratical way of manufaturing the silk there seems to be great promise for new lightweight but strong materials. That was the justification the scientist gave, but I imagine she was just full of curiorosity and delighted to have to the chance to find out stuff no one knows.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | June 9, 2009 2:44 PM
"One of the coolest animals on the planet has got to be the cuttlefish. "
I shoulda stopped reading right there.
Posted by: mck9 | June 9, 2009 2:45 PM
Nowhere in the cited page does Luskin infer that cephalod skin was designed. In fact he explicitly denies such an inference: "But of course, there’s no design overtones to see here folks. None whatsoever."
I am well aware that Luskin is almost certainly being ironic. I am also aware that he has a history of insistent wrong-headedness.
Still, it seems unfair to ridicule him for saying something that he didn't actually say.
Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | June 9, 2009 2:55 PM
No pun intended, right?
That does sound really awesome though. I'll have to try that this next winter.
Posted by: TomS | June 9, 2009 3:01 PM
@ Glen Davidson #17
One of the better responses.
I see it as pointing out that, once again, the creationist central argument from analogy is:
Design is so much unlike such-and-such that such-and-such must be designed.
I realize that analogy is a weak argument, but it takes a creationist to argue from dis-analogy.
Posted by: Geoff | June 9, 2009 3:01 PM
Wow. How many logical fallacies are there? I lost count.
Posted by: knathon
|
June 9, 2009 3:04 PM
To say that ceph change color by thin film interference is slightly misleading. Chromatophores don't operate in this fashion. Instead they employ bags of pigment (to be somewhat oversimplified) that can be expanded by several order of magnitude to display the color, or collapse to hide it. This is why cephalopods have a limited color pallet, there are limited #s of pigments in their chromatophores. There are two other structures, however that also affect color: Leucophores and iridiphores. Leucophores provide a white backing and iridiphore reflect the ambient light. It is the iridiphores that it is HYPOTHESIZED to use thin film interference to help modulate the overall tone to help match the surroundings. Reflectin proteins in the iridophores have been shown to be arranged in such a way to cause thin film intereference, but to my knowledge it is still poorly understood who it contributes to the coloration of the animal. Either way, it is the chromatophores that do the bulk of the work in cephalopod color changes.
Posted by: knathon
|
June 9, 2009 3:08 PM
didn't mean to do that twice...my bad...
Posted by: WRMartin | June 9, 2009 3:18 PM
Casey, this one's for you:
He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot.
-Groucho Marx
Posted by: WRMartin | June 9, 2009 3:20 PM
Casey, this one's for you:
He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot.
-Groucho Marx
Posted by: WRMartin | June 9, 2009 3:22 PM
Casey, this one's for you:
He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot.
-Groucho Marx
Posted by: Brian | June 9, 2009 3:26 PM
Ugh. This is only the 1,000,001 time of creationists/ID people glooming onto someone else's discoveries, innovations and so on.
Maybe if they once increased our understanding of anything, we could take them seriously.
Brian
Posted by: Robin Z
|
June 9, 2009 3:38 PM
<driveby>
I am reminded of The Parable of the Pawnbroker. We've seen so many bad arguments - it's not even a surprise every new one is fake.
</driveby>
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | June 9, 2009 3:39 PM
There is a sort of intellect—an odd and stunted kind—
Which casts about, and claims that what it’s seeing was designed;
It matters little what was seen, although that may seem odd,
For everything is evidence the world was made by God
From Plato on through Cicero, Aquinas, Berkeley, Paley,
(It seemed, among philosophers, the list was growing daily)
There was no watch that did not show its purpose had been planned—
To tell the time, and testify to God’s Designing Hand.
The use of probability to argue has been tried
To argue such unlikely outcomes must have had a guide—
The Strong Anthropic Principle finds overwhelming odds
Which lead naïve observers to conclude the work is God’s.
The arguments have come and gone, with little left to show;
Complexity is not enough to prove design, you know.
Since Darwin showed complexity could build up by selection
The theory of design has seen a drop-off in affection
But there are some, a faithful few, who will not let it drop;
They ply their ancient arguments; they’ll likely never stop;
Like silly Casey Luskin, who has got a simple wish—
All he wants to do is prove that God designed the cuttlefish.
Now engineers and scientists have made a sort of screen
That’s different from the sort of thing we’ve previously seen—
Controlling iridescence through the thickness of the layers,
A neat design (and what is more, it answers Casey’s prayers)!
But cuttlefish are different—even Luskin could deduce;
To take the first example—TV sets don’t reproduce!
While color was a problem that the laboratory solved,
Such was not the case with cuttlefish; that process just evolved
And their skin contains chromatophores (and photophores, for some)
Along with the iridophores—comparisons are dumb.
It’s a way to sell technology, a way to make it cool,
But an argument for God’s Design? Well, only for a fool.
Oh! Somewhere on the internet, stupidity is rare
And Casey Luskin’s “News & Views” are never spotted there.
He never will admit it; he’ll deny it with a pout;
But there is no joy in Dumville—flighty Casey has Struck Out.
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2009/06/one-of-coolest-animals-on-planet.html
Posted by: WRMartin | June 9, 2009 3:40 PM
Post, get error, close browser, re-open, review page, I've posted 3x. Or was that designed?
My apologies. And, whooo, am I going to look more the fool if this posting triples. And away we go...
< fingers crossed >
Signed,
Casey Luskin
(that's only for duplicates numbered >=2)
Posted by: Kubenzi | June 9, 2009 3:43 PM
The posts have been really good all week long.Thanks PZ.
Posted by: Qwerty
|
June 9, 2009 3:45 PM
Patricia OM @ # 14
"Huzzah! A mention of trebuchets."
Yea, there was a PBS program I've seen in which a working trebuchet was recreated from middle age drawings. Very interesting.
Of course, Casey Luskin probably doesn't think avalanches are designed because the trebuchet is no longer cutting-edge technology 'cause god is cutting-edge baby! *laughs at own Luskin joke*
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | June 9, 2009 3:46 PM
Does this mean we can call Luskin Bubble-boy?Posted by: genesgalore | June 9, 2009 3:48 PM
oh no, my indigo bunting is really black.
Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | June 9, 2009 3:49 PM
I nominate Cuttlefish for a Molly for his post at #54.
Awesome... just awesome. Can't say more than that.
Posted by: Hank Fox | June 9, 2009 3:51 PM
Had an epiphany: Creationists are so nutty, so defensive, so offensive, because of simple projection.
Knowing their own fairy story is made-up, to make it defensible as something to believe in they must insist that not only is everybody else's favorite story also made-up, but that everything that exists is made-up.
Creationism is the insistence that nothing can be real, that everything has to be made-up — and in accord with their own particular fairy story.
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | June 9, 2009 3:58 PM
@ MPG:
To call Luskin that implies he has a talent of some sort. Epic failure does not a talent make. And take it easy on ponies, will ya?Posted by: ctenotrish | June 9, 2009 4:00 PM
Kema @ #60, Cuttlefish, OM, October 2007. And well deserved!!! Then and now. Just when I think Cuttlefish can't top the last poem, I turn out to be wrong! Loved this one.
Posted by: Deepak Shetty | June 9, 2009 4:07 PM
Pretty incompetent (and malicious) designer, who designed Casey, but then again fits right in with Yahweh's description.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 9, 2009 4:13 PM
I am well aware that Luskin is almost certainly being ironic.
Still, it seems unfair to ridicule him for saying something that he didn't actually say.
*sigh*
I do hope you yourself were attempting irony.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 9, 2009 4:15 PM
Had an epiphany: Creationists are so nutty, so defensive, so offensive, because of simple projection.
welcome to my world.
still, to clarify a minor point, projection is a symptom, not a cause.
I'm still thinking a basic form of cognitive dissonance underlies the projection and denial.
makes sense.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 9, 2009 4:18 PM
Another well designed Cuttlefish poem.
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
June 9, 2009 4:25 PM
Is this thing ever going to get fixed? What did Seed do, hire a bunch of christians to pray the intertubes to work? Sheesh.
Posted by: frog | June 9, 2009 4:28 PM
PZ: And because trebuchets were designed to use gravity to generate force, and because rocks on mountains will tumble down due to gravity, avalanches are therefore designed.
You think you're parodying the ID'ers -- but you're not.
They do believe that God designs avalanches. Like Newton, they believe that every last atomic motion and wave-function collapse is decided on by God. He's a very, very busy guy.
Once again, didn't you grow up with these folks? I guess, fortunately for you, you weren't really paying attention to what they said.
Posted by: Muzz | June 9, 2009 4:36 PM
I have a need to tell the world that ten-odd years ago I wrote a bit of a sci-fi short wherein you could get wallhangings that used cuttlefish camo-style colour changing. They also had tensing fibres in them to simulate paint and canvas texture. They were used to display digitised versions of the great masters in virtually indistinguishable detail(as I surmised the response time would be too slow for real time display)
Story was juvenile, dull, fan fic that went nowhere. But I'm suddenly thinking better of its gadgets.
(nb: I doubt very much that I'm the only one to have thought of this after watching the odd sea creature documentary over the decades. But hey, I take my smugness where I can get it.)
Posted by: frog | June 9, 2009 4:36 PM
icthyic: I'm still thinking a basic form of cognitive dissonance underlies the projection and denial.
It's the same cognitive dissonance underlying fascism: you simultaneously believe that you are "blessed" or "superior" while believing that you are "sinful" or "oppressed".
That leads to authoritarianism -- it's ok to crush outsiders while kowtowing to the lord/Lord. It's a weird sado-masochistic impulse underneath it all, that drives most social relations in cultures that are influenced by such religions.
Posted by: Wirelizard | June 9, 2009 4:39 PM
Especially since your average slug is quite capable of learning. Something Casey Luskin seems to be incapable of doing.
One of these things leaves a trail of disgusting slime everywhere it goes, has no apparent ability to learn, and is generally just disgusting. The other is a common garden slug.
Also, trebuchet!
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
June 9, 2009 4:42 PM
Qwerty @57 - Do you remember the name of the PBS show? I'd love to see it, perhaps it's on YouTube.
In the movie Kingdom of Heaven there's a scene with the Persian circular trebuchet. I was stunned to see it because I've read that no one has ever figured out how it actually worked.
Posted by: daveau
|
June 9, 2009 4:49 PM
Frog is right. It only makes sense; if god didn't design them, then how could he control who gets smited* by them?
*smitten? smote?
Posted by: Kraid | June 9, 2009 4:50 PM
ooh, I want to play the ID analogy game too!
The human retina has its photoreceptor cells located behind the axons that project out of them, which attenuates the light signal that reaches the receptor (this is also responsible for the "blind spot" in your vision). Solar panels are designed so that the photoreceptor is in front of the wiring, which is a much smarter idea than piling all the wiring on top where it would block the light. Therefore... er... God sucks at his job?
OK, that one was maybe a fluke, but this one will proclaim the glory of the heavens: The human trachea is located ventrally with respect to the esophagus, meaning that material has to pass over the airway every time you eat or drink. Cars are designed so that the fuel goes through one line, and the air intake is completely separate. Therefore... well shit, this just isn't God's day.
Let's try another: the human urogenital system is... aw fuck it.
Posted by: mck9 | June 9, 2009 4:53 PM
To Ichthyic at #65, referrring to my post at #43:
No, I am attempting fairness.
It is manifestly true that this board is ridiculing Luskin for supposedly saying something that he did not in fact say, at least not literally, at least not on the web page cited.
Are you suggesting that it's fair to ridicule someone for saying something that he didn't say?
Or are you suggesting that his irony was so obvious and undeniable that his words can only be construed as meaning the exact opposite of what they say?
I think you probably mean the latter. And I agree that, if his words are reversed in accordance with his presumed irony, they become an asinine absurdity, like many other pronouncements from the same source.
I contend that it is pretty lame to attack a man not for what he says, but for your own interpretation of what he must mean, when that interpretation is at odds with what he actually said.
He set you up. That's why he was ironic. Now he can point and laugh at the silly atheists who blatantly misrepresent him.
Better targets are available.
In public debate it is easy enough to be fair to your allies, but it is more important to be fair to your opponents, lest you stoop to their level.
Posted by: David Wiener
|
June 9, 2009 4:56 PM
Luskin may or may not be stupid. I understand he pulls in six figures (I read that a while ago...).
Now, what is true is that those who believe what he writes really are idiots. The priestly class has always known that the whole thing is a crock, but its also a great living: Free food, board, strange clothes, sex with minors. Hey, they've got it made! (course, if they turn out to be right, then they're all going to hell - which I find *very* funny).
So - Luskin is either a bumbling idiot (very possible) or a sick, twisted liar (more possible). Either way - sucks to be him.
Regards,
David Wiener
Posted by: Kraid | June 9, 2009 4:56 PM
Smote. I don't think "smited" is a proper word, and being "smitten" means being deeply infatuated/in love.
Posted by: Erevan | June 9, 2009 4:58 PM
Re: #29
Thanks, Glen. That was quite helpful.
Posted by: bybelknap, FCD | June 9, 2009 4:58 PM
@ natural cynic in #27.
FLUNK. There is nothing that is better than something else when that something else is wrapped in bacon.
Posted by: Arnold T Pants | June 9, 2009 4:59 PM
Kraid @75:
Or you could compare the lack of coronary anastomoses to old Christmas lights wired in series! Oh, how the list goes on.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 9, 2009 5:00 PM
No, I am attempting fairness.
bullshit.
Are you suggesting that it's fair to ridicule someone for saying something that he didn't say?
again, your argument is specious. You yourself acknowledge exactly what is meant by irony.
Or are you suggesting that his irony was so obvious and undeniable that his words can only be construed as meaning the exact opposite of what they say?
umm, that WOULD be the very definition of irony.
I contend that it is pretty lame to attack a man not for what he says, but for your own interpretation of what he must mean,
you mean the very thing you yourself concluded?
He set you up.
you set yourself up, moron.
Posted by: Annold T Pants | June 9, 2009 5:03 PM
Sorry for the serial posting, but if the arterial system supplying the heart muscle is like a system of Christmas lights that all go out with one bad circuit interruption, you could therefore infer that God is Clark W. Griswold.
Posted by: daveau
|
June 9, 2009 5:07 PM
Kraid @78
Nope. Enflattened. Looked it up.
Thanks anyhow.
Posted by: Andrew | June 9, 2009 5:07 PM
In the movie Kingdom of Heaven there's a scene with the Persian circular trebuchet. I was stunned to see it because I've read that no one has ever figured out how it actually worked.
A quick Google reveals no helpful information whatsoever - what is this "Persian Circular Trebuchet"? Do you have a reference picture, or perhaps a link to the difficulty of analysis? My interest, it is piqued.
Posted by: Maezeppa | June 9, 2009 5:08 PM
I tell creationsts that the reason humans get artifacts manufactured a whole lot faster than nature can evolve them is because that's the difference between design and nature evolving blindly.
Posted by: Sastra
|
June 9, 2009 5:12 PM
Cuttlefish are amazing, and Cuttlefish is amazing.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 9, 2009 5:12 PM
Patrica, check out this Google page:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=trebuchet+making+video&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
Posted by: SC, OM | June 9, 2009 5:13 PM
But of course, there're no moronic overtones to see here folks. None whatsoever.
Posted by: Intelligent Designer | June 9, 2009 5:15 PM
Planes did evolve and that evolution was guided by intelligence.
Posted by: Geds | June 9, 2009 5:16 PM
Cuttlefish's poems are always exquisitely intelligently designed. Therefore it stands to reason that Cuttlefish is god.
I for one praise our...something, something...internet meme...overlords...
Posted by: wasd | June 9, 2009 5:18 PM
Speaking of Casey Luskin, he just got served, again, by Jerry springer and a bunch of snails in bling. Must see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vjm64g3VRuE
Posted by: J_w23 | June 9, 2009 5:33 PM
I feel rather bad for the IDiots... Being a biochemist, I'm kinda familiar with homologous DNA/protein sequences. I'm also familiar with protein structures being homologous although their sequence doesn't quite seem so at first sight.
Sometimes I wish for IDiots that there ar indeed some, if any, signs of design in the world of molecular biochemistry... It just isn't and it's sad to see they try to take refuge in other completely obsolete observations.
So far for my English... 23:32 I go to bed.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | June 9, 2009 5:33 PM
Smoggy Batzrubble’s Daily Doggerel
(with genuflection to the great bard Cuttlefish)
CASEY LUSKIN KNEELS TO PRAY
(might be sung to the tune of ‘Mary Had a Little Lamb’)
Casey Luskin kneels to pray,
To his designing god.
And every day that Casey prays,
He gives his lord a prod:
“Please help me beat the atheists!
I’m getting real frustrated!
Show me one thing that now exists,
That You alone created!”
Upon his knees, our Casey’s pleas,
Echo around the void.
But god has gone for therapy,
In hell, with Sigmund Freud.
Then something Casey heard about
Restores his brave appearance.
“Thank Christ!” he cries, with joyous shout,
“It’s thin film interference!”
“The chameleon cephalopod
Can verify creation!
Who needs a telly more than God,
For watching fornication?”
“On high-def screens of giant squid,
God views our evil deeds.
On those bad things we thought were hid
His Holy anger feeds.”
At once Casey begins to send
A mass communication,
But his great insight won’t survive,
A brisk Pharyngulation.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 9, 2009 5:39 PM
Planes did evolve and that evolution was guided by intelligence.
planes reproduced did they?
did they bud asexually?
...or did they do the nasty?
*sigh*
more fail from Stimpy.
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
June 9, 2009 5:46 PM
Andrew - I'm searching like mad for a clip of the siege of Jerusalem from the film Kingdom of Heaven. The name of the particular trebuchet escapes me. Damn!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 9, 2009 5:55 PM
Then show physical evidence for that intelligence. No circular reasoning allowed.Posted by: Selcaby | June 9, 2009 5:58 PM
PZ, that was a really nice explanation of a phenomenon I didn't understand before. I don't think I'm likely to forget it, and I expect I could now explain it to somebody else if required.
And I want one of those screens. But given how long it's been since I first heard about OLED, I'm not holding my breath.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 9, 2009 6:01 PM
No circular reasoning allowed.
aw, be fair.
Stimpy is incapable of understanding why you are putting this restriction on him.
Otherwise, he never would have mentioned "planes evolve" to begin with.
I just wish STIMPY would evolve his arguments. They never do seem to incorporate any new information.
must be no intelligence behind them.
Posted by: TomS | June 9, 2009 6:03 PM
Poems are made by fools like me
But only God can make a tree
The difference between poems and trees being that poems are designed.
Posted by: Qwerty
|
June 9, 2009 6:03 PM
Patricia, OM @ # 68 and # 73
"Is this thing ever going to get fixed?"
Are you refering to the fact it takes about 2 minutes (but it seems like 10) to post lately and then you still have to backtrack and refresh each time? Yea, it's efffing annoying.
I'll try to remember, but I believe the PBS series is also the one in which they made a small pyramid to show off ancient technology. (They called that show "This Old Pyramid" and it's interesing and amusing at the same time.)
I honestly can't remember the name, but I remember seeing it. They even reconstructed a bit of castle wall in order to knock it down.
Posted by: Qwerty
|
June 9, 2009 6:09 PM
The program was "Nova Builds a Trebuchet" and you can find it by going to www.pbs.org and searching on "trebuchet."
Patricia, hope you can find a copy or that it's on youtube as it's an interesting program.
Posted by: eddie
|
June 9, 2009 6:13 PM
@mck9
Such lack of context-awarenes on your part is unforgivable.
To have no apparent awarenes of the disingenuity institute is one thing. But to come on here and lecture people as if the argument from apparent design wasn't luskin's 'one trick' (apologies to ponies) is deeply insulting. Are we goldfish here?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 9, 2009 6:22 PM
Patricia,
Nova Secrets of Lost Empires 2 Medieval Siege Engine is the full title.
Posted by: Qwerty
|
June 9, 2009 6:23 PM
Patricia, I have found a video at the PBS website. Here's a link to it:
http://www.shoppbs.org/product/index.jsp?productId=1863457&cp=&kw=nova+medieval+siege&origkw=nova+medieval+siege&sr=1
There is a trebuchet on the cover; so, this may be the program I remember. I can't see enough information on this page to verify it's the same. The "Nova Builds a Trebuchet" area of the PBS website does show some still pictures from the program I saw.
Hope you find what you're searching for.
Posted by: Qwerty
|
June 9, 2009 6:27 PM
Yea, that's the title for the link. Thanks Nerd of Redhead, OM!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 9, 2009 6:39 PM
The Secrets of the Lost Empires series, five shows, were all very interesting.
Posted by: Paul Burnett | June 9, 2009 6:42 PM
Patricia, OM (#96) wrote: "I'm searching like mad for a clip of the siege of Jerusalem from the film Kingdom of Heaven. The name of the particular trebuchet escapes me."
There's good-looking trebuchets in the last "Lord of the Rings" movie, and briefly in the early part of "The DaVinci Code."
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 9, 2009 6:49 PM
And for those who like cute sized ancient weapons:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYskeE0haik
Posted by: Qwerty
|
June 9, 2009 7:09 PM
Patricia, you seem to have an inordinate interest in trebuchets. I believe you live in Oregon and Casey Luskin works at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Washington.
You're not planning a siege, are you?
Posted by: ckerst | June 9, 2009 7:47 PM
Explanations about how things work take time to learn and make your brain hurt, that's wht they cling to religion.
Posted by: James F | June 9, 2009 8:11 PM
Cuttlefish hits another one out of the park.
I wonder if "Dumville" is a nod to Bugs Bunny's quip in Operation: Rabbit, "And remember, 'mud' spelled backwards is 'dum.'"
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | June 9, 2009 9:15 PM
"But do we get anything like this in evolution? No, we do not. Pterosaurs existed when birds evolved, but birds wings were adaptations of dinosaur forelimbs, not adaptations of working wings. Same with bats, mammalian forelimbs were turned into wings.
We, being designers, copy working "designs" in nature because we are intelligent. Nature cannot do this, instead it keeps turning vertebrate forelimbs into wings, no matter that these are not very well suited to becoming wings. Evolution can't use anything else, though." Glen D #17
Hence, the silliness of Cameron's 'crocoduck' or Coulter's question 'why didn't man evolve wings because they might have been useful sometimes?'
ALL invertebrates developed a from a basic body type - 1 head, 2 forelimbs, 2 hindlimbs. In all flying vertebrates (bats, birds, pterosaurs, even flying squirrels) the forelimbs evolved into wings. For humans to get wings, our arms and hands (with those opposable thumbs!) would have become wings and lost much of their versatility
Only fictional creatures - angels, dragons and the 'crocoduck' have forelimbs AND wings.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 9, 2009 9:18 PM
More trebuchets just for Patricia:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wVADKznOhY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bFTw95pJp8
Posted by: Intelligent Designer | June 9, 2009 10:11 PM
I rarely read creationist literature so I don't know if my ideas are new or not. I think the simulation that am going to do will be unique though. I am collaborating with Paul W here on requirements for the simulation and I am open to suggestions from anyone else. I think it will also shed some mathematical light on some papers I have read in Nature.
Posted by: MadScientist | June 9, 2009 10:30 PM
That almost inspires me to build an interference filter driven by piezoelectric nanopositioning actuators. If you have a few million bucks we can make a large-ish cephalopod model with hundreds of these filters on it and we can make it change colors while grooving to some funky music.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 9, 2009 10:54 PM
I rarely read
creationistany literature so I don't know if my ideas are new or not.fixed that fer ya, Stimpy.
Posted by: JackC
|
June 9, 2009 10:58 PM
I have not read through everything yet - but have searched and don't think it was noted... In Feynman's book on QED (Quantum Electro Dynamics), he has some very interesting discussion on the rainbow effect from oil, soap bubbles, etc. I remember it being quite elegant, and somewhat variant from that described here. More like light was actually scattered in ALL directions, but the probability of MOST of the light of a certain wavelength approaching your eye from a specific angle was greater for specific colours at specific angles.
It really was quite cool and I can't even see rainbow patterns on anything without thinking of it these days.
JC
Posted by: Aquaria | June 9, 2009 11:25 PM
Planes did evolve and that evolution was guided by intelligence.
And when did a Papa Plane meet a Mama Plane and make a Baby Plane?
Like most Christard thinking, it might make a cute children's fiction story, but it's hardly an explanation for life on this planet. Aren't you a bit old to be playing make-believe at a 3-year-old's level?
Sheesh, if you're still into make-believe, go cosplay, or take up D&D. At least those make sense.
Posted by: EagleAZ4
|
June 9, 2009 11:49 PM
It's gotta be a contest we're not allowed to enter...
"Who can be the most Dumbassiest Dumbass on the Planet."
Otherwise, it's just too scary to contemplate.
I need bacon...
Posted by: JAMSHED MOIDU | June 10, 2009 12:52 AM
So…soap bubbles must be designed --like your fingers, eyes, eyelid, lens in your eyes, tympanic membrane in your ear, mitochondria in your cell,7nth cranial nerve, twelth rib, teeth, taste bude in your tongue, seminiferous tubules in your testis, nephrones, occipital lobe area 17 18 19.....so on....on....on
Posted by: Intelligent Designer | June 10, 2009 12:53 AM
I suspect that there is someone here that will know the answer to this question: when a cell divides, will both daughter cells have mutations or just one?
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 10, 2009 1:18 AM
when a cell divides, will both daughter cells have mutations or just one?
Mutations are replicated faithfully along with the rest of all the DNA in any given cell during mitosis. Unless you get something like a flipped base pair on one strand that isn't fixed during mitosis (rare), or you even manage to get a mutation that occurs during mitosis.
are you perhaps thinking about meiosis instead? Where you start getting recombination?
when you ask questions though, I always have to ask myself:
why do you want to know?
also: didn't you cover basic mitosis/meiosis in biology?
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 10, 2009 1:40 AM
oh, and for an interesting example of errors that occur during mitosis that can produce different daughter lines:
MOSAICISM
http://www.medgen.ubc.ca/robinsonlab/mosaic/intro/mos_how.htm
which can result in things like this:
http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/science/assets/mosaicism.jpg
Posted by: Kaz Dragon | June 10, 2009 6:09 AM
The joy of Intelligent Design is that you don't need to test for design. After all, *everything* is designed, so there's no possible way for the test to return false.
*rolls eyes*
Posted by: Kendo | June 10, 2009 7:56 AM
Patricia @96. Bad Neighbour?
Posted by: Kendo | June 10, 2009 8:01 AM
Qwerty @101. Try counting to ten after hitting "Post". Then refresh the page.
Posted by: Anri | June 10, 2009 8:16 AM
...and for those still on the subject of siege engines, I would suggest dropping by your local SCA group, and then heading on down to Gulf Wars. There, you can not only watch a trebuchet (also a ballista or three), but you could even get shot at by it...
*heh heh heh*
Posted by: skylyre | June 10, 2009 8:47 AM
Anyone know where I can find a video, or even a picture, of one of these new reflective screens?
I tried looking on youtube but nothing so far.
Posted by: Hurin | June 10, 2009 9:05 AM
The cdesign movement is undergoing apoptosis. They aren't even trying anymore.
Posted by: IST | June 10, 2009 9:37 AM
By Luskin's reasoning, Fir and Spruce trees are designed because they have the same features as the artificial Christmas tree my parents bought when I was a kid... Are these people seriously that stupid?
Posted by: SteveM
|
June 10, 2009 9:41 AM
re #118:
That is how you would explain the effect when light is modeled as photons. What PZ described is when light is modeled as a wave. Both will give the same answer, just that one model is usually easier mathematically than the other depending on the particular experiment (or phenomenon).
Posted by: jay | June 10, 2009 10:40 AM
The human retina has its photoreceptor cells located behind the axons that project out of them, which attenuates the light signal that reaches the receptor (this is also responsible for the "blind spot" in your vision). Solar panels are designed ...
It gets more interesting (the bio folks can correct me if I have my facts wrong here but...)
I understand the cephalopod eyes are 'designed' correctly in that the blood nourishes the retina from behind. The explanation is that their eyes evolved from skin (nourished from behind) whereas vertebrate retinas are part of the brain (nourished from outside)
Looks like Gawd screwed it up with his crown of creation/
Posted by: Steven Dunlap | June 10, 2009 11:35 AM
More off-topic Trebuchet trivia:
In the preview for a bad medieval movie (I think it was a Joan of Arc one with Mila Jovovich) I saw a single fixed-arm trebuchet on a fixed platform fling a big rock at a castle. I saw the same PBS documentary as mentioned by others. I recall that the early foot high models of the fixed arm design tipped when they fired. Built full size such a treb would tip over the first time it threw a projectile. Crunch.
They designed and built two full-sized functioning trebs according to remnants of two descriptions/drawings and their own tinkering with models. The fixed arm one had to be on wheels in order to cope with the back and forth residual energy after the throw. The static platform treb had an articulated throwing arm with a "pale" containing rocks and dirt as the counterweight to power the throw. After the throw the energy would dissipate as the arm and pale parts swung in opposite directions. The treb I saw in the preview had to be a product of special effects.
The point is that a movie version of a treb does not have to conform to reality at all. Neither the one I saw in the preview nor the one Patricia mentioned seeing in Kingdom of Heaven show anything that would necessarily work in reality or correspond to a historical artifact that did. CGI is as CGI does. A fixed arm treb on a static platform that does not tip over the first time you use it is as much science fiction as warp drive and artificial gravity.
-- pointless trivia end ---
Posted by: BillCinSD | June 10, 2009 12:25 PM
There also was a British show called "Building the Impossible" that built a Roman ballista. Not a trebuchet but still pretty impressive
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jn2wbZow8cw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Rab1PD8a60
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
June 10, 2009 1:14 PM
This is still driving me crazy.
My brother tells me I loaned the book with the name of the trebuchet in it to one of his pals. (great) I'll keep looking.
Thanks everyone for the wonderful & interesting links!
Posted by: AJS | June 10, 2009 2:32 PM
Hmm ..... Looks like I'm going to have to update my "television" metaphors now .....Creationism is like the idea that there are little people inside a television set who act out the programmes, evidence for this being an old TV set dumped by the side of the road: the front of the tube was broken and there were no little people in it, so they must have escaped.
The argument that we can kill a living thing but we can't bring non-living matter to life, therefore God exists is like the idea that a caveman with a stone axe could break a television set but could not assemble one from parts, therefore God exists.
Posted by: Elwood Herring | June 10, 2009 4:31 PM
While onm the subject of soap bubble, can anyone explain this to me?
Ordinary soap will destroy bubble bath bubbles. I understand that part - soap destroys the surface tension of the bubbles. But in that case, what are soap bubbles made of? It must be something different. Soap bubbles are like "antiparticles" to bubble bath bubbles. You can't have both in the same water. But why?
Posted by: Paper Hand | June 11, 2009 3:46 AM
@Kraid #78
Actually, "smitten" is the correct form. "Smote" is the preterite form of "smite", "smitten" is the past participle, although "smote" is also acceptable in that form. One of the meanings of "smite" is "to captivate, to take", and this is where the use of "smitten" in the sense of "love-struck" comes from.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/smite
Posted by: Brock | June 11, 2009 9:52 AM
@Elwood Herring (#138): I'd guess it's the difference between soap and detergent.
Posted by: Elwood Herring | June 11, 2009 10:34 AM
Thanks Brock. Interesting stuff on those links.
Posted by: Kraid | June 11, 2009 1:16 PM
@PaperHand #139:
In highschool I was taught that smitten was used exclusively in the context of love. My life up to this point... has been built upon a foundation of lies!
*sob*