…and this is a 
You've probably all heard by now that Ray Comfort is coming out with his own butchered version of Darwin's Origin, with big chunks cut out of it, and a deeply stupid introduction slapped on. It's within his rights to do that, since the book is in the public domain now (as is, say, the KJV Bible), but it's also a metaphor for the sleaziness of creationism. They have no original ideas, so all they can do is steal the work of real scientists; their ideas are contradicted by the evidence, so their only strategy is to delete the parts that make them uncomfortable, and put a false spin on what's left. Ray Comfort also has a lot of gall; he doesn't understand the concepts Darwin discussed, so he's got no foundation on which to base his editorial decisions. What next? Will he decide to put out a special creationist edition of Relativity: The Special and General Theory with the math chopped out and his own clueless introduction that calls it all bunk?
Anyway, Ray Comfort tries to defend his act of intellectual vandalism online in a written debate with Eugenie Scott, who shreds him. This is going to be interesting, since what's up so far is only part 1; next week, they're going to reply to each other's initial argument.
Comments
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter
|
November 1, 2009 9:01 AM
Ahh, I love Eugenie. Not only does she know her stuff, but she writes in a clear, breezy style and pulls no punches on calling out the IDiocy in CreoID movement.
Posted by: Barb
|
November 1, 2009 9:07 AM
"Ray Comfort is coming out with his own butchered version of Darwin's Origin, with big chunks cut out of it, and a deeply stupid introduction slapped on."
Thanks for posting this, PZ. The story has been talked about many times, but, people didn't seem to know that Origins is "edited", and no doubt artfully. People are thinking they can take the book, rip out the intro, and have a perfectly good book left.
Posted by: cheetahhead
|
November 1, 2009 9:10 AM
Did anyone see the poll on that page:
Is increasing access to healthcare a moral or faith-based cause?
Yes
No
That doesn't sound like a yes/no question to me. I do like that moral and faith-based are contrasted, though.
Too bad it is probably unintentional and the question was presumably meant to conflate them, as usual.
Posted by: Goheels | November 1, 2009 9:18 AM
@cheetahhead #3
Yea I saw that absurd poll and thought the same thing you did.
Also, Eugenie Scott vs. Ray Comfort, what an intellectual mismatch.
Posted by: David B | November 1, 2009 9:25 AM
I liked the end of Scott's piece.
'Comfort's take on Darwin and evolution is simply bananas.'
ROFL
David
Posted by: black-wolf72
|
November 1, 2009 9:27 AM
And like the little wind-up toys they are, the creos spout all the usual nonsense about explosions, and how Jesus told us everything we need to know in person and therefore is a reliable source of information on
being a zombieliving on after you die.Still, I just can't resist replying to creotards here and there, so I left a comment at Scott's article.
Posted by: Zeno
|
November 1, 2009 9:29 AM
Creationism used to be simply a primitive religious conviction. It still is, but now it's descended into parasitism.
And creationists like Comfort treat their brains like vestigial organs.
Posted by: Alessa Mendes | November 1, 2009 9:36 AM
I didn't know that Comfort had actually REMOVED chapters from the copies he would be distributing! Are you serious?
Wow, I mean, I knew he was lower than low, but isn't that the epitome of manipulative. What if we'd done the same thing for the Bible and conveniently removed all of the nice fluffy passages?
And just when I thought I couldn't be more disappointed in the man...
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 1, 2009 9:38 AM
Or to quote Rowan Atkinson, his head is just something to put his hat on.
Posted by: Copernicus | November 1, 2009 9:40 AM
Bloody Amazon!
I attempted to post a review of Comfort's edition on Amazon on October 20th but with no success and after a couple of weeks of back and forth with their "customer service" I finally received their emailed response... but first, the review (unashamedly borrowing PZ's blog title "Ray Comfort is a Parasite""
this was their response:
WTF? Isn't a review supposed to be a critical evaluation? And are they saying that Ray Comfort's dishonest intention of his own should not be called out? Or is it because Amazon so totally got taken (they didn't even add the word "abridged" until after our noise here), mangled the reviews, failed to separate the differing editions, but are happy to sit upon the noise as "any PR is better than none at all"?
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 1, 2009 9:49 AM
Someone is going to have to explain to Ray what all of that means. Maybe Kirk can look up "Bowdlerize" in his abridged (by Ray Comfort) version of Websters dictionary with apologetic introduction by Ray Comfort....that is if words that begin with the letter "B" are still included.
Posted by: Trekkinbob | November 1, 2009 9:49 AM
Is there really more fossil evidence for Ardi than T-Rex ? This was a brilliant piece, I'm just wondering if this is factual.
Posted by: skeetar
|
November 1, 2009 10:03 AM
We should hand out copies of the Jefferson Bible at Churches.
Posted by: SciencePundit
|
November 1, 2009 10:05 AM
I thought maybe he would take on Gray's Anatomy and add a 50 page introduction explaining how the book is all wrong and human males are actually missing a rib because the bible says that gØd took it to make woman.
Posted by: Bob O'H | November 1, 2009 10:08 AM
From the comments, it looks like things are a bit murkier:So it was too expensive to give away the whole book. But they're giving away the full version (free) to students. Hm.
Posted by: defective robot
|
November 1, 2009 10:10 AM
From Comfort's ridiculously aggressive reactionary essay:
There are several potential paths one could follow with this argument:
1) Agree with him. There's nothing to worry about for exactly the reasons he puts forth.
2) Recognize that the only people who are going to agree with Comfort's edition of the book are those inclined to agree with him anyway.
3) Recognize that there's nothing to worry about because it's a rather optomistic view to believe that anyone's going to read the book anyway. What--college students put aside beer to spend their free time reading a 150-year-old science text? Unlikely!
4) Worry. If, as PZ contends, Darwin's text has been edited to remove those parts that are troubling to cretinists, then that creates a problem. If people who are unfamiliar with either Darwin or Comfort don't recognize the dishonest approach he's taken with his edition of the book, those who do read it may fall into Comfort's trap.
I tend to fall into the 1 thru 3 spectrum.
Posted by: David | November 1, 2009 10:18 AM
Trekkinbob #12
My understanding is that there are about 30 (many virtually complete) specimens of Tyrannosaurus rex.
According to several sources, including this article from the Houston Museum of Natural Science, having unearthed the first Ardipithicus remains in 1992, by the end of 1993 scientists had identified the bones of 17 hominid fossils retrieved from a cluster of localities West of the Awash River, within the Afar Depression in Aramis, Ethiopia.
Over the next several years a further 125 fragments of skulls, teeth, arms, hands, the pelvis, legs and feet were collected; additionally, a further 110 other catalogued specimens representing body parts of at least 36 other Ardipithecus individuals were retrieved.
Posted by: raven | November 1, 2009 10:21 AM
If the truth value of claims is decided by how many people are frightened, we have a problem. The most credible viewpoints would be in no order, Al Qaeda, Moslem terrorists, Xian terrorists, serial killers, the Taliban, the GOP, Darth Cheney, and whoever is currently pointing a gun at your head.
Posted by: Malachi Constant
|
November 1, 2009 10:23 AM
We shot an hour-long interview with Eugenie for Skepchick about a month ago. You can find the first part here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZkksYdgtr8&feature=related
She talks a lot about the history of her struggle against creationists and such. You can also find the interview we just did with Neil DeGrasse Tyson there on the Skepchick channel.
Posted by: defective robot
|
November 1, 2009 10:25 AM
I liked that alomst all of Comfort's article was an attack on athiests (as if only athiests might object to this book), while Scott's response was an authoritative refutation of Comfort's introduction--with not a personal attack to be found.
Posted by: JackC
|
November 1, 2009 10:26 AM
I imagine so, based on this Press Release
Summary:
Ardi: 125 bits of a single individual, 110 bits of up to 36 individuals.
From ths Wiki entry
T-rex: "more than" 30 specimins, some nearly complete. (The last I had heard, there were only something like 5 "complete" T-Rex specimens, but that could be way old)
Not to mention that Ardi is probably quite a bit easier to study, but that is my personal supposition.
JC
Posted by: Lynna
|
November 1, 2009 10:28 AM
Eugenie Scott did a great job reviewing the Comfort-abridged Darwin. She plucked a few examples that highlight Comfort's usual modus operandi, for example:
Posted by: JackC
|
November 1, 2009 10:30 AM
Damn. David beat me by a whole 8 minutes!
JC
Posted by: Maggie Moo | November 1, 2009 10:32 AM
ummm Jack #21, did you happen to read David @ #17?
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 1, 2009 10:33 AM
Eugenie Scott vs. Ray Comfort on evolution?! That's like a boxing match with Mike Tyson vs a toddler. It's gonna be brutal, but you have to watch.
"You ever notice that everyone who believes in creationism looks really unevolved?...'I believe God created me in one day.' Yeah, looks like He rushed it." - Bill Hicks
Posted by: David (on behalf of Maggie Moo) | November 1, 2009 10:35 AM
LOL Jack! (Would have been quicker except for this href attribute stuff!)
Posted by: RagingBullwinkle
|
November 1, 2009 10:45 AM
I don't get how someone who doesn't seem to understand evolution so little, as many people claim of Comfort, to know to remove those three vital chapters.
He must understand much more than he's letting on. I think blatant dishonesty is Comfort's problem, more than hubris.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 1, 2009 10:47 AM
If you use Firefox there is a toolbar add-in that has shortcuts for HTML (and BB and Wiki) codes. Can save a lot of time typing all the formatting commands by hand.
Posted by: Michelle | November 1, 2009 11:07 AM
This:
"We should hand out copies of the Jefferson Bible at Churches." -Skeetar (#13)
Oh, there's a joke about Protestants and the Apocrypha in here somewhere, but it's too early the day after Halloween for me to find it. Someone else want to have a go?
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
November 1, 2009 11:11 AM
Is there any evidence that Ray's second printing is abridged or edited? I'd love to find out. I know the one he's trying to sell on Amazon (which is weirdly never in stock) is missing several chapters, but what about the ones he was handing out for free? (Oh, and Amazon could use a few more one star reviews. Ray's little goonlets finally showed up a few days ago to try to rescue the ratings. Versions of the intro are all over the net for free for anyone wishing to criticize specific points and rub it in their faces that we're not afraid to read Ray's drivel.)
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
@ Copernicus (#10)
I'm having trouble getting a review posted as well. Yet they're allowing all sorts of bullshit five stars from Ray's lackeys that say really nothing more than, "Oh, Ray's just presenting both sides of the debate and that's why the atheists are complaining in their reviews." (Which is against their review rules since you're not supposed to reference other reviewers!) What addy did you use for contacting CS, if you don't mind? I need to yell at them a bit.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 1, 2009 11:12 AM
From Ray Comfort's article:
***facepalm***
As opposed to being miraculously created, of which there is no evidence.
Man, Comfort is taking on 150 year old biology and losing badly.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | November 1, 2009 11:13 AM
I agree with #3: Stop reading Scott for a second and get a load of that dog pile of a poll question in the right margin. Talk about false positives. That thing may be un-Pharyngulatable.
Posted by: David | November 1, 2009 11:14 AM
Thank you Matt- some comfortable intelligent design there...
Posted by: SEF | November 1, 2009 11:16 AM
@ Barb #2:
How confusing: Pharyngula has sprouted another Barb - and it does seem to be a new one rather than the old one back again! Not enough unique names in the world, even with recombination.
Posted by: Copernicus | November 1, 2009 11:27 AM
A Noyd #30
Actually I just clicked through the "Your Account" and "Help" tabs on my [now cancelled] Amazon account.
In their emails to me they offered this direct URL:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/rsvp/rsvp-mi.html?q=acc1
Posted by: amphiox | November 1, 2009 11:27 AM
Hahaha. In "The Greatest Show on Earth", in the chapter on biogeography, Dawkins notes that anti-evolutionists almost never address this issue, gloss over it, or ignore it. Now Ray Comfort comes along and confirms it.
They have no answer for it. Biogeography may well be the strongest evidence for evolution we have. If we had no fossils at all, and if the only thing we thought we knew about DNA is that as an acid it ought to be a liquid, biogeography alone pretty much proves common descent, and refutes all notions of special creation (with the exception of a trickster god). It is so strong, they can't even make up a retarded strawman argument like they do with fossils.
Posted by: David | November 1, 2009 11:32 AM
amphiox #36
Actually, I think biogeography speaks more strongly to speciation through natural selection rather than evolution per se...
Posted by: IanW | November 1, 2009 11:34 AM
Maybe atheists should respond by handing out versions of the Bible with our own preface, detailing all the contradictions, absurdities, cruelties, and falsehoods in that mistake-ridden book-of-blood. It would probably double the size of the Bible.
Posted by: TrekkinBob | November 1, 2009 11:36 AM
Thanks Dave @17 and JackC @21. Like most people I'd been well-versed in T-Rex via Hollywood and an occasional museum exhibit. Had no idea that there is actually more evidence for early human ancestry than there is a Jurassic dino. I should have known since ours is much younger.
Posted by: gbusch | November 1, 2009 11:43 AM
RE: Bananas
That final word 'bananas' was a touch of class on Eugenie's part. She saw no need to illuminate the articles audience on the indirectly related matters of Comfort's silly banana routine but firmly took a dig at his expense for those of us who are familiar. I certainly hope this doesn't typecast the literary genius of Comfort!
Posted by: SEF | November 1, 2009 11:47 AM
@ IanW #38:
It's really not necessary. Much of the evilness of the Bible is patently obvious to anyone who bothers to actually read it. We generally call those people atheists. The theists tend to be the ones who haven't genuinely read it - properly if at all! They've typically merely been taught to parrot the dogma that it's the bestest book ever, to save them the trouble of having to read it, let alone think for themselves. Such non-readers aren't likely to read a preface any more honestly or thoroughly than the rest of the book they've assiduously ignored so far.
Posted by: anova | November 1, 2009 11:59 AM
We should submit the following to all churches:
http://www.wordsoup.com/blog/Holy%20Bible.jpg
Posted by: Amy | November 1, 2009 12:07 PM
I have to say I'm disappointed (though not surprised) chapters and Darwin were omitted. I was almost looking forward to my free copy of the Origin of Species. On my limited student budget its one book my library doesn't have. I was intending to simply remove Comfort's introduction and handing it back to the Campus Crusade for Christ (I'll probably do it anyway...).
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
November 1, 2009 12:18 PM
@ Copernicus (#35)
Hmm, thanks for that. I tried finding a way to contact them via the help pages before and failed.
Posted by: Steven Mading
|
November 1, 2009 12:20 PM
You missed the most obvious one: The implicit claim that there is nothing to feel threatened about from ignorant fools is at the core of his statement, and it's clearly false. Ignorant fools are very very dangerous.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
November 1, 2009 12:21 PM
Next in line? That would be us, the smugly militant and trigger-happy New Atheists, holding our triple-barrel guns to the head of the triune deity of Christianity.Posted by: Mr T | November 1, 2009 12:28 PM
As I'm sure all of you have been waiting for with much anticipation, here is an abridged version of Ray Comfort's introduction to Einstein's Relativity: The Special and General Theory:
Posted by: $1.386sx ®
|
November 1, 2009 12:30 PM
Much of the evilness of the Bible is patently obvious to anyone who bothers to actually read it. We generally call those people atheists.
Not necessarily. Don't forget that lame apologists like Josh McDowell and fraud loony-birds like Saint Francis of Assisi are highly respected as intellectuals by millions upon millions of people. People will believe anything. You'd be surprised at the things people will let their god get away with.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | November 1, 2009 12:31 PM
I left a few comments containing caustic replies to the few Christians there. I think Gilgoff blocked me as a result; my last two comments were accepted but didn't show up.
Copernicus:
this was their response:
Your review was not posted because it focused on the author and their intentions rather than reviewing the item itself.
Our posted guidelines don't allow reviews that criticize author or their intentions. Our Customer Reviews are not intended to discuss the author's intentions.
Those cretins at Amazon are such a pack of liars. I had a similar go-around with them myself a number of years back. How many one-star "reviews" of books such as "Why Evolution is True" and "Your Inner Fish" are written by Christians, who admit blatantly to not having read the book, but down-rate it anyway because they "just know" that evolution can't be true? Yet Amazon doesn't touch those, even after they've been reported numerous times as being inappropriate .
I believe their main offices are still in Texas; that explains a lot.
Copernicus, you might try pointing that out to them, just to antagonize them if for no other reason. Feel free to use the paragraph above.
Posted by: SimonG | November 1, 2009 12:32 PM
I'm currently reading "The Origin...", (a legitimate version) and one of the most interesting parts has been Darwin's introduction. This gives a fascinating picture of ideas of evolution at the time. It's a real shame that Comfort would omit that but quite clear why he would do so, as it removes Darwin as the sole author of evolutionary theory and convenient hate figure.
Posted by: pdferguson
|
November 1, 2009 12:40 PM
Banana Boy blathered:
Because ignorant fools are often the most perverse, deviant kind of fools...
Posted by: David | November 1, 2009 1:05 PM
Amy #43
Please feel free to email me with your contact details at david.hilmy@dc.gov and I will arrange for you to get a full copy of Origin for your own library
Posted by: JackC
|
November 1, 2009 1:13 PM
Well, in my particular case, I read all comments above, found what I wanted to comment on, did a little research to insure my memory was not as faulty as it usually is, as well as get good references (nice to have that press release on Ardi be recent as well) and then post - never thinking to refresh first. Sigh. Took ... about 8 minutes all told.
The key thing is - we are out there looking this stuff up, it is available and only the most cursory of searches finds it. Clowns like Banana Boy refuse to do even that little work. Of course, if they did, it would blow their entire argument out of the water, so I suppose the lack of research is understandable.
I DO use FF (occasionally, though not currently - Chrome for me generally. NEVER IE on this system) but really don't have any issue with typing the formatting codes. I really should focus on FF more frequently though.
JC
Posted by: Reynold | November 1, 2009 1:19 PM
One has to be careful with evangelicals like Comfort: They are known to be dishonest.
I will note though that Comfort apparently has the other chapters added in and that there's a website where those chapters can be downloaded (for those who got the "abridged" version).
Posted by: Reynold | November 1, 2009 1:32 PM
I see that Bob O'H at #15 beat me to it about mentioning that Ray's later version is supposed to have all the chapters in it...
Posted by: SEF | November 1, 2009 1:39 PM
No-one much needs Ray Comfort's free version anyway - Darwin's "On The Origin Of Species" has long been available online in more than one place. Eg: at Project Gutenberg (whereas it seems the British Library has deleted its copy!).
Posted by: Biology Blogger | November 1, 2009 1:39 PM
I've always advocated making a Bible with a critical introduction, and critical commentary. I'm in the process of making one for myself.
Posted by: breadmaker | November 1, 2009 1:43 PM
to bad there's not any math to test and verify Darwinesque theories.
Posted by: Copernicus | November 1, 2009 1:44 PM
Reynold #54
You do realise that the admission of abridgement came after the fact ("every jot and tittle") and that the missing parts URL directs you via a Living Waters or NeedGod.com link?
Posted by: Dr. P | November 1, 2009 1:49 PM
"threatened" obviously used here as though there was some opposite theory posited to cause the high marble walls of science to crumble. He would just as likely walk in to the Louvre, pee on the Mona Lisa , then "add to its beauty" with a crayon then cry out in suprise at those guards oppressing his obvious genius.Posted by: glbrown | November 1, 2009 1:52 PM
Amy @ 43
Download it at http://darwin-online.org.uk/
They have txt and pdf. I have it on my HHPC along with the KJV and the Koran(sp).
Don't leave home without them.
Posted by: No BS | November 1, 2009 1:53 PM
breadmaker sez;
"to bad there's not any math to test and verify Darwinesque theories."
Radiometric dating, gene mapping...
Too bad you are either lazy, stupid or perhaps both.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 1, 2009 1:58 PM
Biology Blogger,
The Skeptic's Annotated Bible has some good commentary.
The LOLCat Bible Translation is also funny...for the first five minutes.
Posted by: latichever | November 1, 2009 2:02 PM
I't shameful that Gilgoff presents this so-called debate where there is nothing to debate, and I'm not sure how I feel about Scott dignifying it to make it seem like there's something to debate. What's next? Round versus flat earthers? And although it's not on the same moral plane--Holocaust deniers?
Posted by: amphiox | November 1, 2009 2:07 PM
#37:
A bit semantic, but since "speciation through natural selection" is a form of evolution, demonstration of the first must be demonstration of the latter. (The subset cannot exist without the set, assuming exclusivity).
But I would also say that biogeography is evidence for speciation from common ancestry (ie, common descent), but not necessarily speciation through natural selection, directly. The same pattern of distribution will occur so long as speciation occurs, regardless of the specific mechanism.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 1, 2009 2:11 PM
moron,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_phylogenetics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_game_theory
Posted by: Reynold | November 1, 2009 2:13 PM
Copernicus | November 1, 2009 1:44 PM
Reynold #54
You do realise that the admission of abridgement came after the fact ("every jot and tittle") and that the missing parts URL directs you via a Living Waters or NeedGod.com link?
Oh yeah. I've kept up with Ray's blog. The link that he gives has a download of the chapters he left out...it just has a link to "needgod" at the bottom.
Of course god'd have to exist first for me to get any use out of it...
Posted by: pcarini | November 1, 2009 2:17 PM
I thought I'd try to get a LOLCat bible by using a different method: Run the SAB through the Lolinator - What came out wasn't quite what I'd hoped for, but still entertaining.
Posted by: David | November 1, 2009 2:26 PM
But amphiox, the issue is not whether natural selection, or genetic drift, or mutation are "forms" of evolution (although I'd much rather use the term "mechanism"), nor was my argument that biogeography is only to do with speciation through natural selection because it is clearly one of several legitimate models- your argument was that biogeography "may well be the strongest evidence for evolution we have" when in fact I would argue that heredity and phylogenetics (your argument above) and genetic recombination would be better candidates- biogeography must involve the presence of geographic constraints or conditions, therefore your "setting theory" misses the mark somewhat... allopatric even...!
Posted by: pcarini | November 1, 2009 2:26 PM
The Lolinator improves Ray Comfort's site quite a bit, though.
Posted by: Ron Broberg | November 1, 2009 2:43 PM
skeetar: We should hand out copies of the Jefferson Bible at Churches.
Amen!
Posted by: Sleeper | November 1, 2009 2:53 PM
The King James Bible is not in the public domain in the UK.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | November 1, 2009 3:02 PM
Ray Comfort is actually, as Richard Dawkins says, "an ignorant fool". The problem is that (proving once again his ignorance) he mistakes "ignorant" for a mere insult. In fact it's an accurate descriptive term. Insults are easy to shrug off. But accurate descriptions, less so. Ray Comfort really knows and understands nothing about the theory he claims to refute. But he can still learn. Or he could, if he wanted to.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM
|
November 1, 2009 3:05 PM
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2009/11/how-not-to-treat-book.html
To pick and choose from Origin,
Although it feels like libel,
Is only treating Darwin's book
The way Ray treats the Bible;
Omitting chapters here and there
And redefining "fitness"?
He does the same with Holy Writ
And gladly bears false witness!
He makes his way through every book
A picker and a chooser;
With equal treatment everywhere--
Consistently a loser.
Posted by: Max W. | November 1, 2009 3:28 PM
-- From Ray's blog, the October 26th Entry....
"When I read On The Origin of Species (every laborious page after page), it was like reading the ravings of a man who truly believed that the sun was square, that it came out at night, and that it was made of ice.
The closest thing to truth that Charles Darwin ever said, was when he admitted to someone that a cold shudder came over him, because he thought that he may have devoted his life to a fantasy. He certainly did. But that in itself isn’t amazing. What is amazing is that so many believe the unbelievable fantasy. For me to believe every impossible miracle and weird thing that happened in the Bible is completely effortless, compared to believing the wild speculations that the average evolution believer swallows without question. And what's the magic word that makes the fantasy come true? Time. Lots of it. I can hardly believe that anyone could believe what Darwinian evolutionists believe, and what’s more--no one could begin to convince me to believe what they believe; not in a million years."
I don't think more needs to be said about where Mr. Comfort is coming from; he's a self-deceived, pretentious con-man; as disingenuous as they come.
Posted by: Leonardo Scott | November 1, 2009 3:34 PM
If bananas are created by god to fit the human hand then why doesn't my penis have more of a bend. It spends a lot of time in my hand :)
Posted by: Copernicus | November 1, 2009 3:41 PM
Your words cudele are most amusing,
Not far from the mark,
And Comfort’s nonstop reinforcing
Does keep him in the dark.
That he feels he can abuse the past
With wanton gay abandon
Reminds me of the Holocaust
Which he would gladly pardon.
The proffers on which he boldly stands
And on which he often harps
are not His words nor God’s demands
but Musaceae endocarps.
Posted by: Copernicus | November 1, 2009 3:45 PM
Leonardo, if your dong is straight
Then you are rare indeed,
But self-sex versus having a mate
Still wastes a lot of seed.
Posted by: Simon Howard | November 1, 2009 3:53 PM
Interestingly enough, the KJV Bible isn't public domain, at least in the UK. Over here we have the (somewhat outdated) concept of "Crown Copyright" which is copyright that never expires. Kind of like the rule that all work done for the US Government is placed in the Public Domain, except backwards.
Posted by: andrew | November 1, 2009 4:00 PM
Hahahaha, I love the little 'in joke' at the end.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM
|
November 1, 2009 4:08 PM
@Copernicus #78--
With millions of "seeds" in a single emission--
Of which, if they're lucky, just one seed will win--
One wastes, when one copulates (any position),
Just one more than Onan's particular sin.
The motive for sex, in a nutshell, is pleasure--
A powerful motive, not really a "waste".
So celebrate life, and enjoy nature's treasure!
(Specifically how, is a matter of taste.)
Posted by: MadScientist
|
November 1, 2009 4:12 PM
But .. but ... Genie's being uncivil saying that Ray is exhibiting what can most politely be described as "muddled thinking". So disappointed ... not accommodating enough!
@Alessa Mendes #8: Yes, a *huge* chunk of Darwin's book is torn out in the Comfort-Washed-up-actor edition. In the superficial tradition of liars for jesus, the Comfort edition has a beautiful cover but little substance. I saw the book in a shop and was attracted by the cover, but when I saw how slim the book was I thought "that can't be the real thing; the paperback edition I lost years ago was much thicker." Flicking through I could see that it was missing many important points in Darwin's theory. That is why I disagree with R. Dawkins when he wrote that folks should show up, take the vandalized copies being handed out for free by Comfort, tear out the Comfort introduction and redistribute the book. With only half the story told, someone reading the Comfort edition may get entirely the wrong ideas. The full text of Darwin's last edition is available on the internet; it would be nice to see a new free internet version with annotations explaining how ideas have changed since Darwin and also with new illustrations and photos. :)
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM
|
November 1, 2009 4:14 PM
Dammit--"One fewer" rather than "just one more" for #81. Grammatically better, and better meter.
Posted by: Copernicus | November 1, 2009 4:43 PM
I profess to be neither Bard nor poet
Nor versed in Judah’s ire
But doesn’t it really strike you odd
That God couldn’t light that “fire”?
Coital maladies aside
(and issues with motility),
Would not one want to boast with pride
That one had high fertility?
But sex for pleasure, surely not,
No matter what the species,
Or else poor Christians would be hot
With Scripture applied in pieces?
Perhaps some fifty pages
Would smooth over every doubt
Of what is right and purely Kosher
But should one still “pull out”?
To turn again to Onan’s crime
But not to pay homage
There does exist another thought:
That he played at frottage!
Yet we do believe, as research has shown,
That sex for pleasure is all that
Just as Bonobos and Chimps have known
As well as short-nosed bats!
Posted by: Sastra
|
November 1, 2009 5:18 PM
The obvious response to this is to point out that Comfort -- and other Christians -- are clearly "worried" about the popularity of books like The God Delusion, and yet consider atheists to be "fools."
I read Comfort's essay first, and was curious to see how Genie Scott would address Comfort's constant insistence that evolution is atheistic. I did expect her to trot out the usual reassurance that there are plenty of people who accept both evolution and God, but she pretty much ignored the whole religious issue, and focused only on the science.
I appreciate that. I think the tendency to harp on religion and science being pragmatically compatible is insulting to atheists (OMG you don't have to be an atheist!), is insulting to theists (I know you're so brainless and dependent that you won't accept anything in science unless you're assured upfront that you can still keep your faith), and is too likely to go from factual statements (religious people can reconcile their religion with evolution) to dubious philosophical statements (religion, properly understood, can never conflict with science.)
Did anyone else find the second comment to Comfort's article hilarious? It's a scold by a Mormon creationist who felt dissed by Comfort's comparison of "intermediate links" to the Angel Moroni's golden plates. Hey, the fight against evolution is so important that you can't afford to alienate allies! Save the arguments about religion for later, when the battle against evolution is over! Heh.
Posted by: Mobius | November 1, 2009 5:36 PM
I see that Comfort is still ranting against his pathetic straw man version of evolution. I find it sad that he really does not seem to understand where his version of evolution is wrong.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 1, 2009 6:06 PM
I read Eugenie's very un-accomodationist follow-up and love the way she ties the pieces of "Origin" that Comfort left out to the significance of their content. When I first heard that Comfort was doing this, it sounded like he was just adding a preface, but in fact it sounds more like he gutted the book.
Propagandists for jesus!
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 1, 2009 6:14 PM
amphiox writes:
They have no answer for it.
The devil shuffled all the species around. It took a huge fleet of schoolbuses but you know what a hard-working sumbitch he is.
Posted by: Maggie Moo | November 1, 2009 6:17 PM
Ha ha! Copernicus
#77
and #84
Holy fellatio, Batman! Fruit bats use oral sex to prolong actual sex
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
November 1, 2009 6:19 PM
Comfort ties evolution to atheism while Scott talks about science. That tells me what's important to each of them when considering evolution.
Posted by: IanW | November 1, 2009 6:25 PM
SEF #41: It's really not necessary. Much of the evilness of the Bible is patently obvious to anyone who bothers to actually read it. We generally call those people atheists. The theists tend to be the ones who haven't genuinely read it - properly if at all!
I don't think it's all that obvious to the people born and bred to believe it - those who have read it many times over in their lives, without really comprehending it. Try to think of it in these terms: In the Bible, God in his infinite wisdom says:
2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB: "Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'"
Would a real God of this grand universe actually say such vile and stupid things? Now imagine Rush Limbaugh or Newt Gingrich telling the president (as Samuel told David) that if he did not utterly destroy the infidel Afghans along with health care, and stop opposing the expansion of Israeli settlements, that Michelle Obama would publicly open her legs for Rupert Murdoch, Bill O'Reilly, and Osama bin Laden. It boggles the mind, doesn't it?
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 1, 2009 6:32 PM
That always confused me. If I believed I had access to words either inspired by or written by the creator of the universe I would sit down and read the entire thing twice over. Yet it's hard to find Christians who have even read a book of the Bible, let alone the entire thing.
Posted by: Mr T | November 1, 2009 6:56 PM
I have to disagree. A lot of Christians do read the Bible -- that's no longer just something for us pointy-headed atheist intellectuals in our ivory towers.
...they apparently would have to think it was a good idea, and perhaps even that it was inspired or written by some kind of benevolent creator deity.Although it does become something of a problem when Christians read that "King David" wrote, for example, in Psalms 137:8-9,
*The footnote to verse nine in my (Roman Catholic) New American Bible: "the infants represent the future generations, and so must be destroyed if the enemy is truly to be eradicated."
The love and forgiveness is almost palpable.
Posted by: Dawn
|
November 1, 2009 7:08 PM
@Matt Penfold (#28) Thanks for the Firefox addin info. Now I can use HTML tags! and it is very easy to do.
Posted by: David | November 1, 2009 7:15 PM
Mr T #93
Let's also be mindful of the fact that there is evidence that not all the Psalms should be attributed to David in the first place, and of those that are, he actually wrote none seeing as his court writer would have had that duty
(similarly, although I am sure that PZ was accurate in his live-blog synopsis of Neil Shubin's or Micahel Ruse's or Jerry Coyne's lectures, some of the language, grammar, implied context, metaphor, etc. would be a little different than a word-for-word transcript... translate that a few times over a couple of thousand years and without the benefit of spell checker, Google Maps, or protection from the bullying of Romans or 1st-century "Palestinians" and the like, you get my point...!)
Posted by: SEF | November 1, 2009 7:27 PM
@ IanW #91:
Don't forget that the traditional Christian (and Muslim!) way of reading is merely saying or mouthing the words rather than taking the trouble to comprehend the content. It's like a magic spell to them (quite literally believed to be that way in the case of the obsession with Latin!). Reading silently seems to have been a later and rarer phenomenon; and, I contend, reading for full comprehension (ie with brain properly engaged and in critical thinking mode) remains extremely rare among humans.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 1, 2009 7:28 PM
Feynmaniac writes:
If I believed I had access to words either inspired by or written by the creator of the universe I would sit down and read the entire thing twice over.
Preach it, brother!!! And, I'd get comfortable on the couch and wouldn't move except to go to the bathroom, eat, and repent and pray.
It's always amazing to me how fast and loose many "believers" play it with eternal damnation. I'd damn sure (so to speak) know my bible! What if you got to the pearly gates and there was a quiz??!
St Pete: Ok, please describe how Corinthians 1:14 applies to carbon sequestration in the Amazon rain forest. Be brief but complete - you have all the time you need.
Soul: um. uhm. uh. The workers control of the means of production? The (sound of trapdoor)
St Pete: Next?
Posted by: Mr T | November 1, 2009 7:30 PM
David #95:
Yes, that is a good point, hence my "subtle" use of scare quotes around "King David". For that matter, I'm pretty sure the various authors and editors of the Bible didn't speak the King's English.
Posted by: Copernicus | November 1, 2009 7:31 PM
St Pete: "what is the actual First Commandment and in which chapter is it located?"
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 1, 2009 7:32 PM
I'm just going on my personal experiences, but in general I find atheists tend to be better informed on the Bible than Christians (perhaps that is why they are atheists). Yes, many Christians do read certain passages assigned by their Bible group (and later use that to quote mine their own book). However, I haven't encountered too many reading entire books or the whole thing. Also, as some have mentioned here, they often read it without comprehending it. There are many who are surprisingly ignorant of their own book. They got most of their information based on what they were told in Sunday school or Mass.
To their credit it is a hard read. I have never read the entire Bible, just some books. Sure there are some good parts (e.g, the Sermon on the Mount), but there are a lot of bad ones ("As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly." - Proverbs 26:11) and a lot of boring parts ( all those damn begats). However, I don't think this is the work of a divine being.
Posted by: David Wiener
|
November 1, 2009 7:34 PM
David @95
What is your point? If one is a biblical literalist, then you would be considered blasphemous. If one were not, then all would agree with you that the babble is simply the scribbling of the ancient, pre-scientific, semi-barbaric inhabitants of the middle east.
Most people here lean towards the later. Which is why we give the babble no respect, save as an historic document. But really - if its not the word of god, then what the hell good is it?
So - which camp do you fall in to?
Posted by: Copernicus | November 1, 2009 7:39 PM
Ray: "I am the Lord your God... Exodus?"
[sound of trapdoor]
St Pete (thinking): "dummy, it's in Genesis 2:15, 'And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.'... guess they all forgot to study Strong's Hebrew definition for abad (dress) #05647, which also means to 'worship'"
Posted by: Mr T | November 1, 2009 7:43 PM
Marcus Ranum, #97:
Is that First Corinthians 1:14, "I give thanks to God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,..."; or were you referring to Second Corinthians 1:14, "...as you have come to understand us partially, that we are your boast as you also are ours, on the day of our Lord Jesus."? Both, perhaps? I'm sure it doesn't particularly matter. God works in mysterious ways, or something like that.
Posted by: David | November 1, 2009 7:51 PM
Ha, David #101! ("beloved of God"!)
I was merely pointing out that even via objective literary analysis, many so-called precepts or dogma are unfounded- take for instance the whole "Jesus turning the other cheek" as a sign of humility thing... no, "he" was not "meek and mild", he was a rebel- the Greek for the slap is actually a "backhand slap" and if one understands the cultural practice of 1st-Century Palestine, one would know that only the right hand was the hand of public use (note the ancient Roman practice of reclining on the left and eating with the right, or the modern Arab practice of also eating with right but only "wiping" with the left) and so by "turning the other cheek" one forces the aggressor to now use the open palm of the hand of public use and equate the victim a certain measure of equality... assuming of course that followers of the Essene tribe who lived in the hills actually ventured into town, but now we're delving into cultural history and not literature...!
Posted by: DeanFromBC | November 1, 2009 8:06 PM
Comfort is so deliberately and infuriatingly ignorant that it makes my brain hurt. That there are so many like him makes me worry for humankind.
Part of me can't help but believe that he is a complete fraud, and maintains what he knows is a completely false position simply because he can make money at it. Where is the money in evolution for an evangelist?
Posted by: Maggie Moo | November 1, 2009 8:29 PM
to Weeney 101- what's your point?
I thought David was responding to comments #91, 92, 93- sounded good to me or are you concerned that your latent theism might surface and he pricked a nerve?
Posted by: Biology Blogger | November 1, 2009 8:52 PM
Call me an idiot, but until today I thought Ray Comfort was a theistic evolutionist, but who thought humans were special creations.
Posted by: cafeeine
|
November 1, 2009 9:06 PM
I should also note that aside from the e-book versions of Origin mentioned above, there is also an audio book version here
http://librivox.org/the-origin-of-species-by-charles-darwin/
Posted by: David Wiener
|
November 1, 2009 9:17 PM
Moo @106
First - thanks for taking me back to 2nd grade. Good to know who I'm dealing with.
As for latent theism - that's not me. I was replying to what I was fairly sure was a theistic troll. And now I'm fairly sure it is.
Where do you see latent theism in my post?
Posted by: Aquaria | November 1, 2009 9:20 PM
To their credit it is a hard read. I have never read the entire Bible, just some books.
The whole thing is mostly bloody boring. I read all of it for the first time at at age 11/12. I didn't get some of the references then, but I'd say that 90% of it is simplistic enough for even a child to get what's being said/what's going on.
Sure there are some good parts (e.g, the Sermon on the Mount),
Funny, that's one of the parts I thought was okay, but not all that interesting. Ecclesiastes is a lot better, overall (vanity, vanity/the race is not to the swift/to every thing there is a season, etc). And there are parts that are good, depending on how you define good. The Song of Solomon was...uh, wow! The David saga is pretty freakin' awesome, from a storytelling point of view. He's also the best-developed character in the entire babble. Everyone else is rather one-dimensional, even Moses and especially Jebus (what a fucking bore...).
but there are a lot of bad ones ("As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly." - Proverbs 26:11)
How can you leave out Ezekiel and the dung eating...?
and a lot of boring parts ( all those damn begats).
Yeah, they're boring, for all the tedium. But when it comes to boring in general, try some of the prophets, like Hosea and Micah, or most of those letters in the NT. ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz
Here are the parts left off:
The funny parts: insects having four legs. Rabbits chewing cud. Unicorns. Cockatrices. Revelations. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
The fucking scary parts--the plagues, genocides, and smitings, Jebus's temper tantrums, and Revelations. Although the pissed off wife nailing her husband's head to the floor with a tent nail was fucking awesome, in a Friday the 13th sort of way (Judges, near the beginning, IIRC).
Posted by: David | November 1, 2009 9:28 PM
Oh, good one David "a theistic troll"...
I'm inclined to agree with Ms. Moo, however do you really believe that anyone who seems to have taken the time to research some of the guff with which he is daily surrounded, ensuring that he can adequately and scholarly rebutt those who would have him deny evolution in the classroom or who would conspire to proselytize naive children, would actually believe in trolls outside the fantasies of Norse mythology...?
In the words of, yeah, a second-grader: "whatever!"
Posted by: Copernicus | November 1, 2009 9:32 PM
Don't worry about it David (111 not 109), Wiener is referring to an internet troll and as such has been hoisted by his own petard, for an internet troll posts on blogs with the sole intent of provoking other users into an emotional response (see commnets #101 and 109!)
Posted by: $1.386sx ®
|
November 1, 2009 9:37 PM
Rabbits chewing cud.
This is actually a common mistranslation. The goat herders back then just weren't that freakin stupid. (They were goat herders, after all.) The "rabbits chewing cud" verses are often mistranslated and ridiculed, and scoffed, when in fact the verses were referring to a very small cow with large ears, and a fluffy tail. (Known to the goat herders as the "bunny cow".)
Posted by: The Peptostreptococcus in Ray Comfort's Gut | November 1, 2009 9:41 PM
ummm, David Wiener [read: troll]:
I actually found David's posts to be quite interesting and good examples of how to refute bible-toting Christians who don't even understand the historical context of the book they're carrying!
As such, he is on point, entitled to post here, and more welcome than you to comment with regard to PZ's blog.
Like the retort made to the Kansas Board of Education when they tried to eliminate evolution from the curriculum: "may you beget children and may your children get more children and may your children's children beget even more children so that eventually the genes that made you such a troll will be eliminated through natural selection!"
Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 1, 2009 9:42 PM
Aquaria:
That was Jael bashing in Sisera's brains. He was a military commander (Philistine, perhaps), and she was "the wife of Heber the Kenite".
(Judges 5)
Posted by: Maggie Moo | November 1, 2009 9:51 PM
other than having a Biblical "Christian" name and a traditional Jewish surname (Yiddish for wine-merchant), your inability to distinguish critique from advocacy... duh!
Posted by: Mr T | November 1, 2009 10:00 PM
He was Canaanite, not Philistine (according to Judges 4:2-3 and elsewhere) -- how dare he have all those Israelite-oppressing iron chariots! Also, that story is told immediately earlier in chapter 4, with the all-important tent peg through the head moment at verse 21.
Posted by: David | November 1, 2009 10:07 PM
Aquaria, at the risk of waking up David Wiener, the "rabbit chewing cud" (Leviticus and Deuteronomy) is actually a transliteration of the Greek for "porcupine" and corresponds to the Hebrew shãphãn.
As recorded by St. Jerome, the shãphãn is not the porcupine, but an animal of about the same size which lived in holes and amongst the rocks, and called in Israel "bear-rat".
It is entirely possible that this could be the present day Rock Hyrax (Procavia capensis), an animal which is often observed sitting around working its jaws as if re-chewing ("chewing the cud").
Posted by: Mr T | November 1, 2009 10:14 PM
Does it really matter which type of "unclean" animal was being referenced, whether or not it chewed cud or had cloven hooves? We're not exactly talking about people who actually understood the first thing about medicine or hygiene.
Posted by: Aquaria | November 1, 2009 10:19 PM
I knew there was a chick who put a nail through a guy's head. Thanks for the data. Thought it was his husband, for some reason...
#113
No, it wasn't a "bunny cow." Every translation, including the modern ones, like NIV, list the rabbit, or a hare. Not a single one of them mention a bunny cow. Not a one. I'd think some of those folks would know what they're talking about.
And since rabbits move their mouths a lot for long periods of time, yes, those goat herders were probably so fucking stupid that they thought they were chewing cud. Now if you want to translate chewing cud as the corprophilia that rabbits engage in, you might have an argument.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 1, 2009 10:23 PM
Well, they don't chew their cud, but they recycle some bunny berries...Posted by: Aquaria | November 1, 2009 10:24 PM
So who has a source for this new creature? I haven't been able to find any translation listing it.
Posted by: David | November 1, 2009 10:25 PM
Can't help you with the unicorns or the cockatrice but I can with regard to your "four-legged" insects:
What is clear is that this referred to various species of locust where the belief was that four legs were used for walking and two for hopping, hence:
Therefore some species were specifically permissable to eat as identified in the Torah and supported by Yemeni tradfition: the red locust (Hebrew: ארבה, Arbeh, Aramaic Aramaic: גובאי, Govei Arabic: الجراد, Al-G'rad); the yellow locust (Hebrew: סלעם, Sal'am, Aramaic: רשון, Rashun, Arabic: الدبا, Al-Daba); the spotted gray locust (Hebrew: חרגול, Chargol Aramaic: ניפול, Nippul, Arabic: الحرجوان, Al-Charguw'n); and the white locust (Hebrew: חגב, Chagav, Aramaic: גדיאן, Gadayin, Arabic: الجندب, Al-Gundub).
I can continue researching the others, but the red locust appears to be Nomadacris septemfasciata, now confined to south of the Sahara.
Posted by: Polyester Mather DD | November 1, 2009 10:30 PM
PZ:
" Will he decide to put out a special creationist edition of Relativity: The Special and General Theory with the math chopped out and his own clueless introduction that calls it all bunk?"
Discovery institute Senior Fellow Tom Bethell has beaten Ray to the punch-
http://www.amazon.com/Questioning-Einstein-Relativity-Tom-Bethell/dp/0971484597
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
November 1, 2009 10:32 PM
Feynmaniac (#100)
I dunno, I think that sums up Ray Comfort quite picturesquely.
Posted by: John Morales | November 1, 2009 10:34 PM
David:
Without contesting the accuracy of this purported translation, and ignoring that you equate avoiding with eating, I note that it's of the form (where E means can be eaten)
∀x¬Ex ∧ ∃xEx.
IOW, it's a contradiction.
Heh.
Posted by: Randy
|
November 1, 2009 10:36 PM
Unicorn as it appears in KJV and probably others is a bad translation for what is ראם in Hebrew; in English, an Oryx.
Posted by: Copernicus | November 1, 2009 10:39 PM
OK David, you have my attention- cool work on the "cud-chewing rabbits" and "four-legged" locusts (wonder if Wiener-man is paying attention now?)
What can you tell us about the griffon in Deuteronomy?
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 1, 2009 10:39 PM
I am nearly entirely certain that someone who describes a "bunny-cow" has his (or her) tongue so firmly is his (or her) cheek that extensive oral surgery would be required to extract it.
Getting back to the shafan: I am absolutely certain that the hyrax does not chew its cud any more than the rabbit does.
And just to emphasize: since I was just looking at those verses recently, the bible references both the shafan -- whether that is a hyrax or a hare or a marmot or a porcupine(?) or something else -- and the arnevet as chewing cud; and arnevet is definitely a bunny rabbit.
/SIWOTI
Posted by: Newfie
|
November 1, 2009 10:42 PM
Evolution schmevolution. What's Banana Boy's stance on Halloween candy? Cursed with spells by witches or not?
Posted by: Mr T | November 1, 2009 10:45 PM
Polyester Mather DD: Surely, Bethell's refutation of relativity can't match my own. I mean, mine has Nazis, the atomic bomb, bananas, lies, fallacies, and many other forms of argument the more refined and truly delusional person requires.
Hooray, a contradiction! That means we can do whatever we want!Posted by: Citizen Z | November 1, 2009 10:52 PM
I believe the term used for that (in certain circles) is "retcon".
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 1, 2009 10:52 PM
copying-and-pasting something I wrote on another thread regarding unicorns...
Posted by: David | November 1, 2009 10:55 PM
Owlmirror #129
ummm, I never said a hyrax chews cud- please scroll up and re-read that I said it can often be seen moving it's jaw as if chewing, a characteristic of rock hyraxes...
Copernicus #128
I think you are probably referring to the same description that is in Leviticus 11:13 (as in Deuteronomy 14:12) which reads as "grype" or pérés in Hebrew, the "breaker"...
Given it's appearance and it's habit of breaking large bones by dropping them onto rocks to get at the marrow (90% of their diet) I am sure this must be the Lammergeier or Bearded Vulture, Gypaetus barbatus
(see the story on Aeschylus)
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 1, 2009 11:02 PM
Aquaria,
Wow, I don't have the patience to read the entire thing now.
I should have been more specific. I meant morally good (at least compared to other parts and for its time).
Agreed.
I didn't know about that. Maybe I don't want to.
Mr T,
Yep, ex falso quodlibet! We can prove anything, and its opposite.
Citizen Z,
Reminds me of this:
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 1, 2009 11:04 PM
The only reference I can find to a griffon is in the DRB translation of Lev 11:13, where it clearly means a bird of prey or carrion eater. The Hebrew (פרס) peres is translated as "ossifrage" or "[bearded] vulture" or "gier-eagle" by other translators.
Posted by: David | November 1, 2009 11:07 PM
By the way, I also understand that in 1945, Shimon Persky and David Ben-Gurion found a nest of Lammergeiers in the Negev desert; Shimon Persky adopted it as his surname and became Shimon "Peres" (the current president of Israel)
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 1, 2009 11:11 PM
And I never said that you did say that. I simply emphasized that hyraxes do not chew cud either.
Posted by: David | November 1, 2009 11:12 PM
very good Citizen Z, "reality shift"! (but it helps make sense of mistranslations and anecdotal twaddle)
Posted by: Copernicus | November 1, 2009 11:14 PM
Thanks David... any explanation for Señor Morales?
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter
|
November 1, 2009 11:15 PM
Thank you, one & all. "Bunny Cow" provided me with a full 5-minute Laugh Out Loud (a higher standard of funny than a LOL).
Posted by: David | November 1, 2009 11:18 PM
None whatsoever Copernicus, he seem a little "behind" (and see my last consonant blend at comment #139!)
Posted by: Randy
|
November 1, 2009 11:20 PM
Owlmirror #133:
"Wild ox" is used in some better Bible translations for ראם (re'em), but this is still not a good translation. Also, it is NOT an aurochs, but an oryx.
All other comments regarding rabbits/hares/hyraces:
שפן (shafan) indeed means rabbit, and ארנבת (arnevet) indeed means hare. These are both the colloquial terms that exist in Modern Hebrew. However there is a slight difference in biological classification, as when going to an online translator or Wikipedia, שפן will point to hyrax. Wikipedia has an explanation on this, but even ignoring the Bible, in today's parlance a שפן is still a rabbit, and ארנבת is still a hare, and neither can be used in place of the other.
Posted by: Maggie Moo | November 1, 2009 11:24 PM
Morales, your attempt at Greek and Hebrew etc is... ostentatious at best... your grasp of English quite pitiful- your use of the word "either" in the context of your earlier post re. David's hyrax chewing cud is "inclusive", in other words, yeah you did imply that he said it chewed cud, so if you can't get that right then what else are you making up as you go along? (and that "cut-and-paste" above is highly suspicious)
Posted by: David | November 1, 2009 11:29 PM
LOL Feynmaniac #135 re. retcon!
Posted by: Mr T | November 1, 2009 11:29 PM
ex falso quodlibet: If I wanted to be extremely generous, I'd suggest maybe that was what Bach was really thinking in regard to religious garbage. Alas, I am not that generous.
Party time!
Posted by: David | November 1, 2009 11:37 PM
Thanks Randy- actually the rock hyrax thing was more of an intuitive guess rather than following the so-called rabbit connection- seemed an appropriate thing to do that would explain it's size, habitat, mannerisms, and probable distribution at that time...!
(Guess it just fell short of being a "behemoth"!)
Posted by: David | November 1, 2009 11:48 PM
However, Randy (and Owl), the following seems to refute your positions and support my intuition!
http://www.zootorah.com/hyrax/hyrax.pdf
Posted by: Maggie Moo | November 2, 2009 12:00 AM
David, are you winning because it's almost midnight or that [false] "Morality" here talked too much? LOL! (The zootorah paper convinces me, but then I know you were in service out there so probably saw a few)
Posted by: John Morales | November 2, 2009 12:04 AM
[meta]
Maggie @144, flattering as it is to be mistaken for Owlmirror (OM), I feel compelled to point out it's a misattribution.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 2, 2009 12:08 AM
[citation needed]
I am not saying that you are wrong... but please demonstrate from somewhere besides your mere fiat that re'em must be oryx and cannot possibly be aurochs.
Well, only if one is someone who is punctilious regarding the Leporidae. Not everyone is, you know.
Posted by: David | November 2, 2009 12:11 AM
Maggie, yeah the Rock Hyrax was quite common in Oman when I was there in the early 80s (funnily enough, working with the Arabian Oryx project)- it does have a habit of "chewing' it's teeth when it is disturbed or being aggressive, and so I can easily see how that could have been represented as "chewing the cud"
But no, "winning" arguments is not as constructive as gleaning information and in this case, some have confused sarcasm for ignorance and found themselves wanting instead- anyone can quote Wikipedia or resort to the multitude of erroneous translations and transliterations that litter almost all the so-called scholarly work on the Bible, Talmud, Qu'ran, and without easy reference to ancient Summerian texts and the like, we have to use our field naturalist's intuition when it comes to making sense of Biblical natural history (in the absence of Pliny!)
Posted by: David Wiener
|
November 2, 2009 12:12 AM
Cripes! I was asking if David (the other) was pro or con - it wasn't clear to me. As for me having troll like behavior, I am not the one who started making fun of names.
I also find it odd that I'm being castigated for having a Jewish name? This is surreal. I don't post here often but I think it is fairly clear that I'm not theistic, and I generally support PZ and admire his stand for reason.
David - I apologize for the troll reference. You have been above board and are being honest in your dialog. I was wrong to throw out that label so fast.
Posted by: Maggie Moo | November 2, 2009 12:16 AM
Damn Morales, I apologise- you're correct, Owl is that false prophet!
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 2, 2009 12:24 AM
Feel free to offer corrections, by all means. But don't just sit there and carp.
Says the one who cannot keep straight who she is referring to, and seems to have problems with normal sentence construction.
I emphasized that the hyrax does not chew cud because I thought David had not emphasized this aspect of its biology sufficiently. I did not think that he said that it did, so I did not say that he said it did.
Was that explanation enough, or do I need to go through that more slowly for you?
Do you find it suspicious because you can read Greek and Hebrew, or because you cannot?
Posted by: David | November 2, 2009 12:24 AM
Not a problem David!
Posted by: Norton | November 2, 2009 12:37 AM
At Ray Comfort's description of the edition (and where he asks for money) it clearly states:
"Nothing has been removed from Darwin’s original work."
Link: http://www.livingwaters.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=383
And now we learn FOUR ENTIRE CHAPTERS are left out.
Can someone explain to me how four chapters is "nothing"?
Also anyone else find it funny that on that page Comfort quotes George Bernard Shaw? If Comfort took a few minutes to actually read Shaw ("Back to Methuselah") he'd know Shaw was a Lamarckian. Shaw accepted evolution, and went beyond science to support discredited form of it.
I can't believe Comfort raised $20 for this much less hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 2, 2009 12:38 AM
I have a position to be refuted regarding shafan? I seem to recall expressing uncertainty as to its identity; hardly a "position".
I accept that shafan may very well mean hyrax.
Posted by: raven | November 2, 2009 12:51 AM
The bible is a pretty kludgy collection all right.
One of my favorites is The Book of Daniel. This book claims to be a book of prophecy written in the 6th century BC. It makes a lot of sort of correct prophecies about events in 600 BC, that get better towards 200 BC.
This is because it was really written somewhere around 200 BC. A common trick in the bible and related literature is to write about the past as if it was the future, prophecy after the fact. Works well as long as you have a correct history which sometimes they didn't.
And oh yeah. We can tell pretty closely when Daniel was written. The last prophecies are vague and they never happened. Something about the last days and the kingdom of god. As soon as the future telling moves beyond the present, it fails.
The Jews must have seen this a lot. They never stuck Daniel in their bible like the xians did.
Posted by: Maggie Moo | November 2, 2009 12:51 AM
Hah ha ha! Yet again, English evades you...
"position" does not necessarily mean "the laying down of a proposition or thesis" but in this case obviously "a point of view', nothing less, nothing more...
Middle English posycion, from Anglo-French posicioun, from Latin position-, positio, from ponere to lay down, put, place, from Old Latin posinere, from po- away (akin to Old Church Slavic po-, perfective prefix, Greek apo away) + Latin sinere to leave
Posted by: Randy
|
November 2, 2009 12:55 AM
I should have prefaced my comments by saying I do speak Hebrew fluently (I didn't bring it up originally because I don't want to earn blowhard points) and when I talk to my father (who is from Israel unlike me, and knows more about the nuances of the language than I do) about these inconsistencies between Biblical and Modern Hebrew, there have been many words which even he was confused about etymologically.
What I said about shafan and arnevet are colloquially true, even if the Wikipedia entry says different (the article on the hyrax is accurate, shafan is the translation for hyrax). The Zoo Torah PDF is also accurate. This doesn't change the colloquial usage of shafan for rabbit and arnevet for hare. I know that should make modern usage of shafan for rabbit "incorrect", but it is what it is. If you go to a pet store in Israel and point out a rabbit you want to buy, you would say shafan, not arnevet.
There are examples of this in English where biological names for animals are at odds with the colloquial names, but I'm drawing a blank. If someone wants to point them out it'd be helpful.
Posted by: meh1963 | November 2, 2009 1:01 AM
Someone should point out to Ray Comfort that he's an argument for evolution (although, strictly speaking, it's more cladistics/semantics): He's homo sapiens fatua, foolish man.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 2, 2009 1:04 AM
Er, that is, I accept that shafan, in Biblical Hebrew, in the verses that reference it, may very well mean hyrax. Randy is of course correct as to the modern meaning.
I note that in modern Hebrew, hyrax is "שְׁפַן סְלָעִים" sh'fan s'laim (basically "rabbit of the rocks"), which is hardly helpful to those seeking biological exactitude.
Oh, and to Randy: I had a thought in support of re'em definitely meaning aurochs rather than oryx.
In Job 39:10, the verse reads "התקשר־רים בתלם עבתו אם־ישדד עמקים אחריך׃", or "Can you bind the wild ox in a furrow with ropes, Or will he harrow the valleys after you?"
Now, it's not just that the translation I chose, there, uses "wild ox". It's that the entire verse implies using the animal to farm with. I think that even suggesting using the oryx to plow would not even have made sense, here, because it simply does not have the build of a plow animal as used in antiquity. But because the wild ox does have the same general build as a tame ox, someone might think of it -- but of course, any such activity would be precluded by its wildness.
Feel free to find a rebuttal to that one...
Posted by: meh1963 | November 2, 2009 1:06 AM
Someone should point out to Ray Comfort that he's an argument for natural selection (although, strictly speaking, it's more cladistics/semantics): His idiot arguments firmly place him in homo sapiens fatua, foolish man.
Posted by: David | November 2, 2009 1:09 AM
Randy,
Pronghorn "Antelope" (Antilocapra americana) but not in the family Bovidae;
Bison (Bison bison and B.bonasusu) as "Buffalo" ;
Moose and European Elk are the same (Alces alces) yet the American "elk" (Cervus canadensis) is a deer
Posted by: Mr T | November 2, 2009 1:10 AM
Randy, do you mean names like: sea horse, jumbo shrimp, flying fish, catfish, dogfish, bird dog, bald eagle, titmouse, etc.?
Posted by: Randy
|
November 2, 2009 1:11 AM
Owl, the citation? Any online translator, or Wikipedia. An aurochs is a bovine, an oryx is an antelope.
Posted by: Mr T | November 2, 2009 1:14 AM
I forgot to mention the ever-elusive crocoduck.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 2, 2009 1:15 AM
Laugh it up, Bozo.
I see; you're a hair-splitting sophist. Well, since you have nothing else to contribute, why not sophistry?
Posted by: Randy
|
November 2, 2009 1:15 AM
As some have provided evidence of what modern words in Biblical contexts may have "meant", there will always be a discussion. The citations I bring up are defending modern usage, not Biblical ones.
Posted by: Randy
|
November 2, 2009 1:19 AM
David @ #165,
Thanks!
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 2, 2009 1:40 AM
Heh. Not Google translate, which gives -- I kid you not -- "Ram" for "ראם". And it gives "rabbit" for both שפן and ארנבת .
I usually use morfix, of course. Do you know of something better?
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 2, 2009 1:44 AM
I wish you had emphasized that earlier; it would have saved quite a bit of confusion, I think.
Posted by: darvolution proponentsist | November 2, 2009 1:48 AM
It doesn't surprise me that much. Most of the "heads" controlling the churches and their money are older folk (elders) whose golden ideals basically boil down to ... the US needs to get back to the imagined "christian nation" and somehow lock the revered 1950's into place. Wife beatin' in the kitchen n' gay bashin' n' dealin' with dem uppity colorful half humans .. ahh ... good times ...
I think they realize that they are completely out of touch with todays generation and see CamFort as Scientology sees Tom Cruise. IMHO it's a PR tool for the younger generation that's perhaps dull and rusted, but a tool none the less and appears to be the best they have. I think they have little choice but to throw in with them.
As always, these are my opinions and it's not like I haven't been wrong 1,043,645.5 times previously. At least without dogma one can treat being incorrect as a learning opportunity rather than a need to avoid stirring the wrath of Morton's Demon.
Posted by: Randy
|
November 2, 2009 1:49 AM
I've used Google translate, and it's terrible. Marginally better than Alta Vista's Babelfish thing, but that's not saying much.
Morfix is what I use as well. I've emailed their linguist specialist a few times on different matters and they're glad to help out, which is good because they answered things my dad and myself were confused about, such as conflicting spellings between words in the Talmud and Torah, to name one.
Yea, the Google translation of "Ram" for "ראם" isn't even in the ballpark. A ram is a male sheep :) Colloquially it is correct in translating שפן for rabbit, but again, if you're translating Biblical passages with a text translator that's probably not your best bet.
Posted by: Randy
|
November 2, 2009 1:56 AM
Sorry Owl, I'll be more clear in the future. I'll also learn to quote (still can't figure it out even after searching Google). Probably a common newb question, how do you do it?
Posted by: John Morales | November 2, 2009 1:59 AM
Randy, to quote do
<a href="URL">text caption</a>
where URL is the link, and the text caption is what is seen.
Posted by: Nathan | November 2, 2009 2:02 AM
can we do this to the bible... and highlight all of the really nasty stuff.
I say that... but I believe that if the average person actually read the bible... they wouldn't believe in all the smut it contains.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 2, 2009 2:02 AM
To quote:
<blockquote>text to quote goes here</blockquote>
Which becomes:
Posted by: John Morales | November 2, 2009 2:03 AM
Oops, I was distracted, that's a hyperlink.
Make that <blockquote>quoted text</blockquote>
Be aware that, in ScienceBlogs, blank lines close the tag. Keep lines contiguous and use a break tag <br> to simulate such.
Posted by: Randy
|
November 2, 2009 2:22 AM
Thanks everyone for the help.
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 2, 2009 2:35 AM
John, all of that is true except for the blockquote. You have to end the blockquote or it will blockquote everything after wards.
Posted by: uncle frogy | November 2, 2009 3:00 AM
I find all this "discussion" about bunny cows and rhinos some what interesting but all together irrelevant to the "debate" of evolution and creationism.
Of what significance to what some odd quote or supposed fact in bible have to do any thing. You would expect that mythologies would touch on reality from time to time. So what?
That "some" religious believe a lot of made up stuff is OK they can believe any dam thing they want but that they want to tell me I can or can not and want to force their particular beliefs on everyone else that is another thing entirely. until such time as creationism becomes science in reality instead of just calling itself science it will be religion.
the Bard said "A rose is a rose...."
it is still true
or maybe what is said on Wall Street about Lip stick on a pig is clearer after all with all the glitter and flash it is still a pig!
Posted by: John Morales | November 2, 2009 3:24 AM
uncle frogy,
Well, if the Bible contains factual errors about animals, creationism that is based on Biblical "authority" is thereby undermined.
So I don't think it's altogether irrelevant.
Posted by: uncle frogy | November 2, 2009 3:37 AM
most of what is in the bible is stories made up that touch on reality from time to time so what. It is not history or science it is religion and mythology nothing more. It has no authority outside of religion. What authority it has is based on who is making statements about what it even says and from what I can see there is very little agreement if any on any of it and what any of it means, let alone if any of it even happened as stated.
Posted by: David | November 2, 2009 8:02 AM
uncle frogy
In this I am with John Morales, Randy, Copernicus, Owlmirror, and even Mr T and Maggie Moo, et al
Simply starting with Origin's first chapter on the variation of species under domestication or under nature is as far as I need to argue
So what if the content comes from the Bible, the Torah, the Qu'ran, the Talmud, or the bloody Daily Mail? That anyone who enters into dialogue about various species of animal, their historic distribution, habits, and because English is such a poor language, the description of their behavior (right or wrong) is in fact also entering into discussion on the mechanisms of evolution is enough for me to think it relevant
What is clear, again totally on point with regard to the specifics of this post (Eugenie sticking to science while Comfort babbles [pun intended]), many commenters here are demonstrating that not only do we know our stuff but we also know theirs perhaps better than they themselves...
actually he didn't; what he said was "What's in a name? that which we call a rose / By any other name would smell as sweet" (Romeo and Juliet), but let's go with your [Gertrude Stein] version- is a rose really a rose?
Do you mean the flowering shrub, or the color? The cut of a diamond or the shape of a window? A mark of distinction or a mathematical graph? A thing by which you sail or one through which one waters [a rose!]?
Leaving gypsum and barite aside, what if we confine ourselves to plants? The Desert Rose Adenium obesum is in the family Apocynaceae and not Rosaceae; how about the Rockrose from the genus Cistus, again in the family Cistaceae and not Rosaceae... by the way, the latter is found in Genesis 43:11 and the dog rose, Rosa canina, somewhere in the Song of Solomon...
so yeah, biblical references to natural history and their bearing upon evolution is indeed relevant.
Posted by: Steve in Dublin
|
November 2, 2009 8:08 AM
Very nice article by Eugenie Scott over there on god-and-country, but ugh, the comments are in LIFO order. You have to keep drilling down to find out where the creationist drivel that is being debunked originated. Hate that.
Posted by: Paul Pavao | November 2, 2009 8:21 AM
Well, this debate should be interesting to see play out. Whatever reservations the rest of us might have, the opportunity to see Comfort and Scott go at it head to head is great.
Posted by: Copernicus | November 2, 2009 8:32 AM
David, spot on... again... surely the whole point of PZ's posts is to generate discussion and debate like this?
Frogy (amphibian or pre-paid mobile, LOL!), if you would like to steer discussion away from biblical or ancient literary references, understanding that your "mythology" still has a grounding in the natural world and if science and creationism happen to meet in religious writing sometimes, perhaps you can stop being a frog (indentation in a brick), put on some frog (US Marines Flame Resistant Organizational Gear), and hop on a frog (rocket)... after all, a frog is a frog!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 2, 2009 8:36 AM
I was going to use an exclamation point here but they were previously all used up in this thread.
Posted by: The Peptostreptococcus in Ray Comfort's Gut | November 2, 2009 8:54 AM
@ uncle froggy 183/5
Bet I wass in Jesus' gut as well, although my ancestors may have been a little different- anyway, who do you think caused those "Proverbial" dogs to vomit?
Duh!
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 2, 2009 9:29 AM
That appears, bizarrely enough, to depend on the browser you used to write the comment. Some people invariably have their blockquotes terminated after the first empty line; that has never happened to me (Safari for Mac, IE8 for Windows).
Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | November 2, 2009 10:11 AM
From #77:
The proffers on which he boldly stands
And on which he often harps
are not His words nor God’s demands
but Musaceae endocarps.
To Cuttlefish and Copernicus:
With rhythem and rhyme you argue.
Your silver tongues delight us,
But, it's hard to correspond with you.
I would never have you change your ways,
so I will try to respond in kind.
I must disagree with what Copernicus says,
about Ray and the Holocaust; pardon he *would* mind.
He'd rather take advantage of evolution;
On the Holocaust, make the blame Darwin's.
"The Atheists are to blame for the "final solution!"
Is much easier than to account for the Christians...
Rather, I think Ray is a pimp,
Selling his "soul" to God.
He has a smaller mind than of a shrimp,
and that's what makes him such a stupid sod.
Ray found his "way," in any case,
Cutting up someone else's book to make a buck.
Keep ridiculing his ideas to put him in his place,
As he is just a lying little fuck.
Posted by: Steve | November 2, 2009 10:23 AM
David,
I've seen locust walk. They use all six legs to walk.
Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | November 2, 2009 10:29 AM
Bah... blockquote fail @193.
"The proffers on which he boldly stands
And on which he often harps
are not His words nor God’s demands
but Musaceae endocarps."
should also be in blockquotes.
Posted by: Copernicus | November 2, 2009 11:01 AM
To Kema with your words so bold
I offer praise in full
To venture into rhyme, I’m told,
Proves you are no fool.
To answer your first argument
That Ray would surely mind
Assumes his motives are not bent-
I feel you are too kind
For convenience is his middle name
And Sun his Christian one
But Comfort is his only game
So twisting facts the gun
With bullets sheathed in lavers’ gleam,
The powder writ in stone,
No Jew nor Gentile ‘scapes his beam
Of moaning after moan.
The truth be told he surely knows
That all his lies will yield
A litter of things half composed:
A “thicket” in a field.
Not understanding what he eats
Beneath an oak, this hog
Is worth as much as Paraclete:
Pork in a synagogue!
Posted by: David | November 2, 2009 11:07 AM
ummm, Steve- to the casual observer those many thousand years ago it could be forgiven if they thought there a distinction between the four used to walk separate from an additional two for hopping... so if a cricket has an accident and loses one of six, will that make it less an insect? Same difference, I think...
Posted by: Steve | November 2, 2009 11:17 AM
Umm, David, even a casual observer can tell that locust use six legs for walking and that all six legs are involved in jumping, too, even if most of the power for jumping comes from the back two. It takes very little effort to accurately observe the way that an insect walks.
The more important question is why God didn't correct the writers with respect to locust? After all, the Bible is the Inspired Word of God, right? Why would there be any errors? If the writers are "casual" in their observation of bugs, what else are were they "casual" about?
Posted by: abb3w
|
November 2, 2009 11:28 AM
Perhaps PZ ought find a similarly unscrupulous publisher for giving the KJV Bible a comparable treatment?
Posted by: David | November 2, 2009 12:43 PM
LOL Steve, I agree, hence some of the back-and-forth we have had over biblical/ancient literary references to natural history... please don't assume that I am in any way supporting these texts as necessarily accurate, but therein lies the challenge- what can I discover about life way back when that might help me complete my understanding of our connection to nature (I am indeed a self-confessed biophiliac)?
Having served in the Middle-East for many years, it is interesting to note that there are some truisms amongst the 120-odd animal species and the 140-odd plants mentioned in the bible, and as much ignorance as there is today when one considers the plight of the oceans or the faulty teaching of something such as photosynthesis...
I work with two relatively successful novelists (let's equate them to some biblical scribe) whom I have literally just asked the following questions: 1. "is a zebra a white horse with black stripes or a black horse with white stripes?"; 2. "what color is the fur of a Polar Bear?"; 3. "when the ice in your drink melts, will the level of liquid rise, fall, or stay the same?"- both got all three wrong but they are still relatively observant, erudite folk, yet not trained to observe as we would in our chosen field/interest- they would have recorded the facts wrongly but their word taken as "gospel"!
Posted by: Steve | November 2, 2009 1:03 PM
How much training does it take to watch a bug walk? There is little excuse for "ignorance" here, regardless of the date of the writing or the lack of understanding of complex biological phenomena such as photosynthesis.
The novelists that you described do not claim that they are recording the Truth of God, nor are they claiming Divine Inspiration, a source of information that should be infallible. But today, believers would claim that the scribes DID have the Truth of God, and they had access to the God who knows all, including the truth about bugs. And yet, we have errors. If the scribes are really tapped into the Truth, I see no reason why the errors should exist. Perhaps the scribes were much closer to novelists than many would like to acknowledge.
Posted by: David | November 2, 2009 1:49 PM
Whatever Steve, if you want to argue for argument's sake go ahead- I can't speak for them back then nor do I assume my colleagues attempt to speak the Truth but the parallel is legitimate, just as your sophistry... did you get the answers?
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
November 2, 2009 1:53 PM
Steve (#201)
You think? Religion is art given supernatural authority to enforce its acceptance.
Posted by: Steve | November 2, 2009 2:07 PM
I wasn't arguing for argument sake, but perhaps that wasn't clear. Did I get the answers? Have I claimed to hear the Voice of God?
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 2, 2009 2:25 PM
Let's see if I can tackle these from my rat's nest of remembered trivia:
Bypassing the potential trick question (a zebra is not a horse; "equid" would be less liable to cause confusion), a zebra is white on its belly, and therefore is white with black stripes.
On the other hand, that white belly I recall may differ between species of zebra, or between individuals of the same species, so maybe it's a trick question on another level.
As I recall, while it appears white, it is actually without pigment, and each hair forms a light pipe to the (black) skin of the bear.
Stays the same.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 2, 2009 2:31 PM
Although I see in checking that "embryological evidence shows that the animal's background color is dark and the white stripes and bellies are additions".
Hm. I am not entirely sure that the embryological state counts, though. Humans develop a tail as embryos; this does not mean that we are not a species of tailless ape.
Posted by: David | November 2, 2009 3:37 PM
For #1 I would refer you to the Quagga (Equus quagga quagga) which is an extinct subspecies of the Burchell's zebra and which had the typical vertical stripes on the forepart of the body but unstriped plain brown hindquarters.
This species is a good example of the intermediary version between a dark-coated horse and the zebra since the zebra pattern is in fact the result of pigment activation (black) and inhibition (white). That means black is the actual color of the fur, and the white stripes are simply the areas that lack pigmentation.
(by the way, the domesticated "horse" (Equus ferus caballus) and the last remaining wild horse, Przewalski's Horse (Equus ferus przewalskii, and the three species of zebra are from the genus Equus, a zebra is indeed a horse!)
Posted by: JackC
|
November 2, 2009 4:42 PM
Banana Boy's reply (such as it is) to the reply by Eugenie is up. Go rip it to shreds.
Fair warning. The Stupid is deep there. It is actually painful to read.
JC
Posted by: Maggie Moo | November 2, 2009 4:47 PM
As you recall? Or as you were able to Google between posts? The fact is that the use of the term "light pipe" with regard to polar bear fur is not only wrong but is not what is understood in the scientific community so where did your "recall" recalling it from if not from your attempting to prove you knew it when you didn't?
Hmmm, zebra- wrong, polar bear- wrong, ice- duh! 33%!
I did look it up (citation below) and found the following:
Polar bear fur is fiber optic (NOT!)
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 2, 2009 4:53 PM
<*cue arguments over species definitions, and lumpers vs. splitters*>
Is a donkey (Equus africanus asinus) a horse?
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 2, 2009 5:29 PM
The point of the pop quiz was to test knowledge off of the top of one's head. I didn't cheat.
Did you?
I was obviously relying on a memory of science reporting based on this: Grojean RE, Sousa JA, Henry MC: 1980. “Utilization of solar radiation by polar bear animals: an optical model for pelts.” Applied Optics 19(3): 339.
I concede that this was conclusively refuted by Koon DW: 1998. “Is polar bear hair fiber optic?” Applied Optics 37: 3198-3200.
Zebra - debatable. While the quagga was definitely dark/black with white stripes, and dark skin is presumably the primitive character, the question was about zebra, not quagga.
Polar bear - right. I wrote "unpigmented"; your reference (hollow) does not contradict this. My memory of the fiber-optic properties of the fur was wrong, but was not part of the original question, which specifically asked for the color.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 2, 2009 5:54 PM
Incidentally, not everyone seems to have gotten the memo on polar bear hair:
Textile solar light collectors based on models for polar bear hair
Posted by: David | November 2, 2009 6:19 PM
LOL Owl! Under the "Four Foundations" theory we could also throw in the Onager, Kulan, and Kiang as horses too!
Posted by: Maggie Moo | November 2, 2009 6:38 PM
No Owlmirror, the point of the "pop quiz" was that David was justifying why you and others should indeed be debating the relevance of biblical flora and fauna in an evolution blog not for you to once again try to assert yourself over others who probably have more scholarly books on the shelves than you've had hot breakfasts... give it a break, get off your high horse (or is that an equid?) and move on... this blog belongs to PZ, not you- if you want to rant, peacock, and otherwise flaunt, do your own one- I'm sure we might float over there out of curiosity one evening... not!
You must have been one annoying grad stu... oh, wait, I take that back- it implies... ... ...
Posted by: Maggie Moo | November 2, 2009 6:38 PM
No Owlmirror, the point of the "pop quiz" was that David was justifying why you and others should indeed be debating the relevance of biblical flora and fauna in an evolution blog not for you to once again try to assert yourself over others who probably have more scholarly books on the shelves than you've had hot breakfasts... give it a break, get off your high horse (or is that an equid?) and move on... this blog belongs to PZ, not you- if you want to rant, peacock, and otherwise flaunt, do your own one- I'm sure we might float over there out of curiosity one evening... not!
You must have been one annoying grad stu... oh, wait, I take that back- it implies... ... ...
Posted by: The Peptostreptococcus in Ray Comfort's Gut | November 2, 2009 6:49 PM
for emphasis Moo?
Owlmirror, you're like a needy child, always craving attention- problem is we all know how to
cheatuse Google!Posted by: Owlmirror | November 2, 2009 7:04 PM
Is that a "yes", in answer to my question, or a "no"?
I ask only for information.
Posted by: The Peptostreptococcus in Ray Comfort's Gut | November 2, 2009 7:19 PM
Is "rabbit" שפן or ארנבת ?
He said "horses too" which seems pretty clear to me, you Equus asinus!
Posted by: HoneyBaked | November 2, 2009 7:21 PM
I have no doubt that somewhere Ray Comfort is masturbating to this thread. I could be wrong.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 2, 2009 7:23 PM
And I don't disagree with him on that, so what is your point? Or do you not have one?
"Assert myself over others"? Where exactly have I done that?
Your argument from authority is noted. And whose authority are you trumpeting? Your own? When your sole scientific citation was a blog posting?
Please.
Yes, and you're as much of a guest here as myself. You don't get to ask me to leave.
Say!
Why don't you ask PZ to ban me?
I honestly have no idea what you are referring to. Or do you think that any discussion of scholarship is "flaunting"? Pardon me for actually caring.
The only one I see here trying to be deliberately annoying is you and your "buddy" The Peptostreptococcus in Ray Comfort's Gut. Do you have psychological problems?
----
Feel free to ignore me, then. I assure you that I will ignore you in turn. I am actually trying to discuss issues of science; you are free blather on about whatever foolishness you like.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 2, 2009 7:31 PM
I do believe that David is capable of speaking for himself and clarifying exactly what he was referring to by "too".
Says the microbe inside an ass.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 2, 2009 8:17 PM
Actually... it looks like we most certainly cannot do any such thing.
The only reference I can find about the "Four Foundations" theory is on Wikipedia; I see nothing in the scholarly literature that calls it that. Perhaps there is somewhere something that gives more details, but the only reference that Wikipedia gives is this: Bennett, Deb (1998). Conquerors: The Roots of New World Horsemanship (1st ed.). Solvang, CA: Amigo Publications.
However, the "Four Foundations" theory as outlined on Wikipedia does not specify the members of the Asinus subgenus that you list above.
Got anything else?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
November 2, 2009 8:30 PM
Sometimes I like polar bears and sometimes I'm afraid of them. I must be bipolar.
I'll get my coat.
Posted by: Phrogge | November 2, 2009 8:39 PM
Reverse the polarity and you'll be fine.
Posted by: David | November 2, 2009 9:09 PM
Hell's Bell's Owl, are you realy that anal?
Satire man, satire: sarcasm, double-entendre, parody... satire!
I leave out to give a lecture and when I come back here you still are, having childishly argued with a bacteria, a dessert, and the haunch of a pig, yet you seem to be protesting way too much!
I suppose it's lucky you're not a fish you got hooked and reeled in some time ago...
Posted by: David | November 2, 2009 9:17 PM
'Tis Himself
Perhaps I'll meet you here?
Bipolar Expedition
Posted by: John Morales | November 2, 2009 9:30 PM
David,
LOL.
Welcome to Pharyngula!
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 3, 2009 1:18 AM
You mean, do I actually think that someone who certainly appeared to have some knowledge of zoology might have something to say about taxonomic nomenclature and phylogenetic relationships?
Why, yes.
I see. You don't actually care enough to communicate seriously. Oh, well.
I'm sorry that my life schedule does not coincide with yours.
I know! Pathetically childish, aren't they?
It's almost like they are nothing more than sycophantic sophomores.
Who? Do you mean HoneyBaked?
HoneyBaked said nothing to me, nor I to HoneyBaked.
No more than yourself.
How sad. You were just trolling, you mean? And here I thought you actually cared about scholarship.
Oh, well.
Posted by: Maggie Moo | November 3, 2009 6:36 AM
rorrimlwO
!ah ah ah aH
!tiabkrahs rO !mah a tahW
!LOL ... nommoc taht yllaer t'nsi esnes nommoc sseuG
Posted by: David | November 3, 2009 8:17 AM
Owl,
Let's get one last thing straight: html is a very useful tool for emphasis and "steering" readers through a comment, but cutting and pasting a myriad comments from others to somehow finagle a "winning" position in a relatively empty argument is puerile, just as "blockquoting" material (and not particularly good stuff at that) gleaned from google or some online encyclopaedia, etc.
As others have already pointed out, I can do that for myself- you see the whole point of discussion, argument, and debate is to contribute something of you, not to list work from others.
At one point I thought you were making some valid points but judging by the way you responded to several here, regardless of their tone or point of view (or your perceived assessment of their scholarship), reflected more on you than on them.
Finally, I would refer you to Poe, Skitt, particularly DeMyers, and especially Danth.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 3, 2009 2:29 PM
David,
I agree that the dessert and the microbe are worthless puerile trolls; a snide sneering sophist and a sidekick. You're not defending them, are you?
I have no idea what you are referring to about blockquoting, otherwise. Do you object to having it pointed out to you that you've made mistakes and where you've made them? Are you that vain?
Nor do I understand why you have a problem with citing sources.
Nor do I understand why you yourself troll. Are you bored?
Really, after your strong start earlier, you are now a deep disappointment. What happened? Did you run out of steam or something? Do you have so much on your plate elsewhere that you just can't keep up here? If so, by all means, say so and we can stop conversing.
But please, in future, try and avoid lame jokes about ass being horse. I mean, speaking of the way your words reflect upon you...
Posted by: Copernicus | November 3, 2009 3:59 PM
I really tried to avoid this:
Owlmirror, David is right- you "argue" points until you feel you have "won" an argument when the aim is not to win but discuss and debate...
did you research the whole "Poe, Skitt, particularly DeMyers, and especially Danth" thing? I also believe a few of those "internet laws" do apply to you...
and it looks to me that you have misattributed the "horse's ass" thing when it was Pepotostreptococcus that made the "joke"... (you were probably too busy attempting to assert yourself as the new authority on polar bear fur!)
I bet David and Randy and Morales and Maggie and Steve and the Rev and Pepto all made a bet to see if you would still try to get in the last word- David probably won because his "last thing" was this morning yet you feel you have to respond to get in the last word anyway (see the internet laws above)
He didn't say it but I will- this thread is dead now, well done- YOU WIN!... now move along...
Posted by: Maggie Moo | November 3, 2009 4:37 PM
I'll take that bet Nicklaus!
Posted by: Steve | November 3, 2009 4:39 PM
Me too
Posted by: The Peptostreptococcus in Ray Comfort's Gut | November 3, 2009 5:06 PM
Same here!
Posted by: AHMaslow | November 3, 2009 5:59 PM
Owlmirror~ take a look at Laws #2, 4, 6, & 8; I agree, 6 & 8 apply.
Internet Rules and Laws
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 3, 2009 6:39 PM
I see no discussion nor debate in your comment here, nor in David's more recent comments (since about what, #207 being the last one where he had something serious to say before starting to troll?), nor in those of the sycophantic trolls.
So it looks like you have nothing but hypocritical moralizing, here. Nice.
They're more like guidelines.
See #213, and work it out. Or don't. It's obvious where your biases lie.
No, that was the dessert. But so much for reading comprehension on your part, eh?
David made insinuations and snide accusations. I desired clarification. Is it my fault that he does not wish to discuss and debate?
Meh. I'd rather you -- or David -- or someone -- actually had discussed and debated. Honestly, that is.
I will assume, pending nothing further from him on the topic of the Equidae, that the Equidae, and the thread, are indeed dead.
If it's just the trolls, well, the trolls can beat it all they wish.
Congratulations, AHMaslow. You won the thread!
Posted by: AHMaslow | November 3, 2009 6:59 PM
Riiight! Bet issued at 4:37PM and in just over two hours of sitting and waiting it looks like #233, 234, and 235 won their bet. I read something up there about a fish- very unfortunately, but hopefully it was an Atlantic Bluefin Tuna.
Posted by: Copernicus | November 3, 2009 7:18 PM
LOL Maslow!