Pharyngula

Posted by: speedweasel | January 17, 2010 6:52 PM

I hate vans

Posted by: InfraredEyes | January 17, 2010 6:54 PM

That video would be a lot more convincing if the silly bugger had resisted the temptation to include a face shot.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | January 17, 2010 6:56 PM

Do you people think thread is free or grows on trees or something?

Is that a trick question?

Posted by: Glen Davidson | January 17, 2010 6:57 PM

Obviously an evolutionist scam, trying to cover up the lack of transitional forms between apes and humans.

And if they were ever proven to exist, well, then we'd have to ask why Bigfoots still exist if humans evolved from (something like) them. If the premise is that evolution is impossible, then the conclusion is that evolution is impossible.

On a different tack, the "films of Bigfoot" remind me of creationists and their many incompatible "ideas" of how it must have occurred. That is to say, this "Bigfoot" doesn't look like other "Bigfoots" (Bigfeet?). The face is some hideous Halloween mask, while others look (sort of) like gorilla faces.

So there will likely be fights over the "true Bigfoot," akin to the fights over which site on Ararat is the "real site of Noah's ark."

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | January 17, 2010 7:00 PM

He's following the most noted mythical creature the US has, and he puts his camera down at his side as he runs after it? Guy can't run and hold his arm up at the same time? Sheesh.

And yeah, if you have a cheap costume, hi-def isn't the way to go.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmCjarMSG5ZZR58WO-P0Vxt6VsXUB3PIB0 | January 17, 2010 7:03 PM

Anyone seen aronra's "five facts" vid where he describes his bigfoot story? It's hilarious!

Posted by: mothman | January 17, 2010 7:03 PM

HA, love it. Almost seems like a tribute to classical footage... or viral marketing. Setting aside reality - even if bf's did exist, footage like this would still be bogus. The hoaxer has zero knowledge of animal behavior. It would be nearly impossible for someone to be following such an elusive animal at a casual stroll for 5 minutes, especially in such close proximity. You would think there would be some sort of behavioral response, unless it was habituated to humans. If that were the case, we'd see these alongside the elk in Estes park.

Posted by: Darren Garrison | January 17, 2010 7:18 PM

Just a couple of days ago I finished a good book on the history and scammary of bigfoot. The guy had some questionable ideas about the psychology behind the legends, but it is a good read.

Buy it here:

http://www.amazon.com/Bigfoot-Legend-Joshua-Blu-Buhs/dp/0226079791/

Steal it here:

http://avaxhome.ws/ebooks/biography/Bigfoot_The_Life_and_Times_of_a_Legend.html

Posted by: godlessgoat | January 17, 2010 7:26 PM

These people must have way too much time on their hands to make this sort of thing. Either that or reaally bored.
If it was at least half decent I could see the point, but they are always pretty much drop dead boring.

Posted by: Knockgoats | January 17, 2010 7:36 PM

There's another clue in the intro: this was shot just north of "Green Horn, Oregon". I assume there is such a place, but together with "John E. Walker", at least the guy is signalling pretty plainly that this is a hoax! Crap footage, though.

Posted by: mythusmage | January 17, 2010 7:42 PM

Correction: #20

Oops, that should be Glenn @#7. Sometimes my memory retrieval system mishandles the file system.

Posted by: windy | January 17, 2010 7:51 PM

Do you people think thread [...] grows on trees or something?

Sure, or how else do you explain this photo of a woman harvesting thread? It's at least as convincing as the bigfoot video!

But I would like to know if this thread is fair trade and ecologically sustainable? Or are we heading towards "Peak Thread"?

Posted by: Blind Squirrel FCD | January 17, 2010 7:57 PM

windy, she is harvesting spaghetti.

BS

Posted by: glenister_m | January 17, 2010 8:00 PM

I remember stopping by a place while driving from Seattle down to see Mt. St. Helen's. The cafe or restaurant had a 'Bigfoot' museum with some plaster casts of feet, etc. All I could think of while I looked at them was 'what a load of b.s.' considering how bad and fake looking they were. I was a kid when the bigfoot craze/patterson film came out and so I really believed/hoped it existed at that time, but I'm a lot more skeptical now. Admittedly it would be great if it does exist, but some actual evidence would be nice eg. fur/hair we could do a DNA test off of.

I agree that if I had a camera rolling if I saw one, that I could not lower my arm/camera while I ran after it.

Which reminds me of a really bad B movie (was in the World's Worst Film Festival years ago) called 'Shriek of the Mutilated'. The plot concerns a professor and some grad students searching for the abominable snowman in Canada (!!!???), but it turns out the professor belongs to a cannibal cult and the students were being brought for dinner...

Posted by: mythusmage | January 17, 2010 8:06 PM

glenister M., #27

What do you know of footprints and forensics? I know very little and I would have trouble separating the fakes from the authentic, but not knowing the difference does not make all the samples fake. Nor would it make all the samples authentic.

Posted by: Owlmirror | January 17, 2010 8:08 PM

When I copy something to the clipboard, I almost feel it in my right hand till I paste it, or even longer

Nerd synaesthesia FTW!

---

The Thread has grown past this point, but I just wanted to point out that some text editors have HTML syntax higlighting, and some even do HTML syntax spellchecking, such that misspelled tags show up in red.

<blokcquote>

<blockqutoe>

<blockquote>

This will not fix all blockquote failures, but it might help somewhat, at least.

I use Sc1, a tiny 500K editor, from here:

  http://www.scintilla.org/SciTEDownload.html

Which is a win32 app, but it also runs under wine, which runs under MacOSX and Linux.

Posted by: mythusmage | January 17, 2010 8:10 PM

DLC, #28

It's really very simple, van is Dutch for von, while von is German for van.

Vons, on the other hand, is a southern California grocery chain infamous for their (comparatively) high prices and their chintzy promotions.

Posted by: mythusmage | January 17, 2010 8:14 PM

BS, #32

Things don't happen because they should, things happen because they do.

Then you have the fact that some people overestimate human wonderfulness and the depth and breadth of human knowledge. There are things we know that aint so, and things we say we know we really don't.

And don't confuse visiting a location with knowing it.

Posted by: consciousness razor | January 17, 2010 8:17 PM

Here's a touching tribute from our friends, Tenacious D: Sasquatch

Posted by: mythusmage | January 17, 2010 8:24 PM

On a personal note, I'm now waiting for the backed up data on my external harddrive to copy to my new internal harddrive. An 12 hour marathon in case you're wondering.

You remember when 800 megahertz was blazing fast?

The donation of a 2 gigahertz mactel iMac would be eagerly accepted. :) I may be able to pay for shipping.

Posted by: mythusmage | January 17, 2010 8:28 PM

More personal news...

The San Diego Chargers lost. They lost because the New York Jets took advantage of the Chargers' tendency to slack off and not take the game seriously, until the other team reminds them that this game is serious. The Jets did what the Chargers' regular season opponents didn't do, refuse to give the Chargers an opportunity to correct their mistakes.

See how erroneous assumptions can come back to bite you on your ass?

Posted by: Miki Z | January 17, 2010 8:35 PM

Absence of evidence doesn't mean it isn't.

I mean, look how long it took for proof. But proof is here. You may say it's different, but just because some of the small details were wrong... there are people in every field who aren't up on the current state of the field, or who are in it for their own gain. But now, everyone will have to stop laughing. Iridology has been vindicated:
An eye test for Alzheimers (please to kindly ignore any differences between this and discredited claims of iridology, as No True Iridologist would make those claims).

Posted by: AnneH | January 17, 2010 8:45 PM

Windy @23,
Thanks for reminding me of the BBC Swiss Spaghetti Harvest April Fools hoax - one of the best filmed hoaxes ever. John E. Walker and his ilk could learn a thing or two about creating a convincing filmed hoax from this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27ugSKW4-QQ

Posted by: Lunshbox | January 17, 2010 8:51 PM

Hmm. I was thinking of the bigfoot from the beef jerky commercials that seem to play endlessly.

Posted by: timrowledge, Ersatz Haderach | January 17, 2010 9:01 PM

Oh for goodness' sake. Some sort of blockquote fail

Do you people think thread [...] grows on trees or something?

Posted by: Owlmirror | January 17, 2010 9:19 PM

Still catching up on old(er) topics:

Lynna, condolences on the brain thing. Heal well!

Posted by: thou 386sx | January 17, 2010 9:26 PM

Blind Squirrel FCD #48 And talk about dime store theology! Free will in heaven, but we won't want to use it for evil.

Yeah, and besides, that didn't work out too well for Satan and the other rebel angels. They were pretty freakin close to God too.

Posted by: thou 386sx | January 17, 2010 9:35 PM

Besides omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and omniscience, it would also be inconsistent with a belief in God's omnipresence.

True, but there's probably a smug answer for it though. The easier the refutation, the smugger the answer. :P

Posted by: windy | January 17, 2010 9:43 PM

As Blind Squirrel FCD so accurately points out, that woman is harvesting spaghetti.

way to spoil a joke, guys...

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | January 17, 2010 9:47 PM

Thread history update.
Blogospherical Science.
Bold prediction.

Posted by: consciousness razor | January 17, 2010 9:53 PM

I don't think I have the stomach to find out how Rule 34 applies to apologetics....

Posted by: Standard Curve | January 17, 2010 9:58 PM

If you follow the link to the homepage you can see that Johnny Walker also got a hair sample... I'm guessing polyester.

Posted by: rndm_arshl | January 17, 2010 9:59 PM

MM et al.,
Please provide the predictions of your hypotheses concerning BF and then provide the evidence in support of those predictions. So far, every bit of evidence brought forth by BF hunters to support their claims has failed to support the hypothesis that BF exists. Otherwise, be happy to be taken as a joke because that is the best that you can aspire to be.

BFF -- Big Foot Forever!!!!

Posted by: Lynna, OM | January 17, 2010 10:02 PM

Here's a video produced by Professor Meldrum: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHrn4nru6iY

Scientific American story about Meldrum's theories:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=bigfoot-anatomy&page=2

Reviews of Meldrum's book:
http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/sas-lms-review1/
excerpt:

Meldrum’s expertise, according to the books’ forward, is “human locomotor adaptations;” he is certainly qualified to speak about anatomy, but how that applies to Bigfoot – an animal never proven to exist – is unclear. Since we have no Bigfoot body for Meldrum to apply his real-world expertise to, he is reduced to being an armchair analyst for the Zapruder film of Bigfootery, the famous film shot in 1967 by Roger Patterson. The problem for Bigfoot proponents is that the film is an evidentiary dead end. Like any number of other ambiguous photos, film, videos, and images, it is simply a pattern of colors on a two-dimensional medium and cannot yield a shred of hard evidence or conclusive information about Bigfoot.
     Meldrum often fails to seriously consider alternative explanations, a serious scientific misstep. Throughout the book, he focuses on theories that support his position while ignoring (or giving short shrift to) competing skeptical theories.

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | January 17, 2010 10:08 PM

I have no idea where you'll end up from there, of course.

Like hell he doesn't. Start with the three B's...

Posted by: mythusmage | January 17, 2010 10:09 PM

#65

My prediction? That we have a large, native bipedal ape living in North America. The best evidence I know of consists of the Patterson/Gimlin film shot in 1967 showing a sasquatch walking along a dry creek bed. I have not seen any solid evidence showing that that film is a hoax.

Showing that A is a hoax does not show that B is a hoax.

Posted by: windy | January 17, 2010 10:16 PM

MacGyver vs. Bigfoot

Posted by: mythusmage | January 17, 2010 10:21 PM

Lyanna, #67

So the reviewer you got the excerpt from doesn't believe in photographic evidence. By his reasoning the numerous photos we've taken on deep ocean expeditions tell us nothing about the subjects photographed, and so zoology has a number of phony species listed.

Indeed, all the photographic evidence we've gained over the years regarding the presence of recognized species and their behavior have to be discarded, because photographs, video, and film are evidence of nothing.

You get right down to it, if the reviewer is right, we have no reliable evidence that PZ Myers even exists. All we have is a picture purporting to show PZ Myers, and as the author says, "[I]t is simply a pattern of colors on a two-dimensional medium and cannot yield a shred of hard evidence or conclusive information about Bigfoot."

Posted by: mythusmage | January 17, 2010 10:22 PM

Patricia, #70

I bet he went through razors at a blazing speed.

Posted by: mythusmage | January 17, 2010 10:33 PM

Gentles all, it is not my goal to convince you, it is my goal to make you doubt your conclusions.

Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | January 17, 2010 10:35 PM

Are you really being serious here? Your one bit of evidence is a film. Everything else is extrapolated from that. The burden of proof is on you to show that what was seen in the video is representative of what is actually real.

What you're doing is the exactly the same as a fundie saying that I have to disprove their god.

That is how science works; I present a claim, you ask for evidence. I provide that evidence, you prove that evidence false.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | January 17, 2010 10:36 PM

we have no reliable evidence that PZ Myers even exists

Humm, sightings of the beast in the wilds of a creation museum don't count? His lovely offspring and trophy wife with solid gold taste in socks don't count?

I know Mythusmage, call Bill Donahue at the Catholic League, he can tell you all about PZ.

Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | January 17, 2010 10:37 PM

Gentles all, it is not my goal to convince you, it is my goal to make you doubt your conclusions.

Sorry. No. Science operates on the NULL HYPOTHESIS. In this case, that would be "This is not a real animal." You would then provide a collection of evidence to either confirm or refute that hypothesis. You have done no such thing. This is not scientific, so stop pretending it is. It's anomaly hunting and nothing more.

Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | January 17, 2010 10:40 PM

Observation:

It is very easy to see the creationist in others, it is very hard to see the creationist in you.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | January 17, 2010 10:43 PM

Patricia @50: I thought maybe it was Floyd Rubber.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | January 17, 2010 10:45 PM

the only reason I can see for your claim is because you have problems with the idea of sasquatch and the presence of such an animal in North America.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | January 17, 2010 10:49 PM

Lynna - No, it's my brother Ed. He's well known for sending ladies shrieking from the frozen food department of the supermarket when he bends over the burrito section.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | January 17, 2010 10:53 PM

Disprove my gods MM. I worship the god of bacon, Moccus, and the celestial Jack Ass, Mullo.

Posted by: mythusmage | January 17, 2010 10:56 PM

Nerd, #91

Does the fact a film can be faked mean all films are faked? More specifically, does it mean the Patterson/Gimlin film is faked? Or is it more that you are troubled by the mere possibility there is a large non-human primate native to North America?

Is the film a hoax and where is your evidence showing that it is? I'm not asking you to disprove your god, I'm asking you to prove your claim. Unlike Mike the Infidel I see no reason to doubt your ability to give it the good old college try.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | January 17, 2010 10:58 PM

when he bends over in the burrito section.

Sheesh!

Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | January 17, 2010 11:01 PM

the only reason I can see for your claim is because you have problems with the idea of sasquatch and the presence of such an animal in North America.

the only reason I can see for your claim is because you have problems with the idea of God and the presence of such a being in reality.

A video is not evidence. A video is the beginning of an investigation. So far, the investigation has turned up absolutely no evidence supporting the hypothesis that the video is of an actual, legitimate unknown animal. The null hypothesis - that it is not a real animal - has not been refuted, or even had doubt cast upon it!

Posted by: Patricia, OM | January 17, 2010 11:04 PM

MM at #100 - You can't be serious. It's already been proved a hoax and several TV shows, and newspapers have covered it.

I've been to the now gone Bigfoot Center in Oregon run by Peter Burn and the "evidence" was laughable bullshit, just like your hoax of a god.

Posted by: mythusmage | January 17, 2010 11:06 PM

Nerd, #91

Additional: Sometimes photographic evidence is all you have to go by. When all you have is photographic evidence, then you look for additional evidence. You don't de facto decide the photography is faked and refuse to look for anything that might confirm or refute it. That is what I keep hearing here, "It must be fake, so there's no reason to go looking for evidence supporting it or disproving it."

I don't have the resources, but I can't be the only one with a functioning pair of arms. You want to go looking, don't let me stop you.

Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | January 17, 2010 11:11 PM

You don't de facto decide the photography is faked and refuse to look for anything that might confirm or refute it.

That is what I keep hearing here, "It must be fake, so there's no reason to go looking for evidence supporting it or disproving it."

A video is not evidence. A video is the beginning of an investigation. So far, the investigation has turned up absolutely no evidence supporting the hypothesis that the video is of an actual, legitimate unknown animal.

Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | January 17, 2010 11:13 PM

I also love your blatant false dichotomy: You claim that I have a problem with the idea of Bigfoot based on the fact that I think the Patterson/Gimli film is a hoax.

Nice try, but "This film is real" and "Bigfoot is fake" is not a dichotomy. There very well may be a sasquatch, but we have no reason whatsoever to believe that this is a film of it.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | January 17, 2010 11:14 PM

Alan K:
I cannot prove that the Patterson film is a hoax. (Here's the best version btw.)

I myself have questions about the biped seen in the Patterson film. (So does Darren Naish).

OK?
Nevertheless, as evidence for the existence of a large bipedal primate in the forests of northwestern North America, it's pretty crappy evidence.

So it's still extremely unlikely.
More better evidence and I'll believe.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | January 17, 2010 11:21 PM

We don't give a fiddlers fuck what your opinion of us is.

Posted by: RickR | January 17, 2010 11:26 PM

"Publicity and attention, and I'm sure some $$$ came his (Patterson's) way.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | January 17, 2010 11:29 PM

MM - Prove to us that we are wrong. I will be the first one to drop to my knees and kiss gawds ass if you can produce him.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | January 17, 2010 11:30 PM

Sometimes photographic evidence is all you have to go by.

Posted by: mythusmage | January 17, 2010 11:31 PM

#111

Sven,

I admit the film has problems. There are so many questions regarding how it came to be shot. But the claims of outright fraud lack proof themselves, and that is what I'd like to see. I'd like to see verified proof Patterson and Gimlin and whoever else conspired to fake footage of a sasquatch, carried it out, and have kept knowledge of this conspiracy secret ever since 1967. What's that saying about keeping secrets?

Is it weak evidence to prove anything? Of course. The best such evidence can do is provide leads to possibilities. Such as the possibility such an animal exists. I base my conclusions regarding sasquatch on that film because it is the best evidence we have, but there is better out there.

Such as scat for instance. Google "bigfoot scat" and you'll find pictures purporting to show sasquatch shit. Now google "bear scat" and compare those pictures with the reported bigfoot scat pictures. I just don't see how one could confuse bear shit with sasquatch shit, unless one was obsessed in denying sasquatch.

Further research is needed, and what disheartens me most is the insistence that the lack of evidence means we can't go looking. That we must discourage others from looking themselves. It hurts me to see the denier in others, it hurts me even more to see the denier in those I thought otherwise sensible people.

My goal is to make you, my friends, to doubt your verities. Isn't that what science is all about? For science is not just about learning new facts, it is also about learning facts you already knew might be wrong.

Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | January 17, 2010 11:35 PM

My goal is to make you, my friends, to doubt your verities.

As Mr. Vonnegut so eloquently wrote, you can go take a flying fuck at a rolling donut.

Posted by: mythusmage | January 17, 2010 11:37 PM

#120

Autumn,

There is always a possibility that evidence has been faked. There is no absolute proof for anything. Sometimes the fake is easy to show, sometimes showing it is nigh impossible. And sometimes we learn that a conclusion derived from evidence is wrong and that there is a better conclusion to be derived.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | January 17, 2010 11:40 PM

Such as the possibility such an animal exists.

Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | January 17, 2010 11:43 PM

The key is easily within reach, anytime you wish you can open that cage door and walk outside. I hope you can do so soon and join me in the greater world.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | January 17, 2010 11:49 PM

My goal is to make you, my friends, to doubt your verities. Isn't that what science is all about?

Posted by: mythusmage | January 17, 2010 11:53 PM

#127

Nerd,

As hard as this may be to accept, I agree with you. The sole bit of reliable evidence I've been able to find falls far short of conclusively proving sasquatch exist. My point is that the evidence we do have is the closest we can come to proving the existence of sasquatch, and that additional evidence is needed.

Where is your proof that I am using a proof for the existence of God? I have no proof for God's existence other than personal experience, and that in a milieu I have no proof exists either. What I offer is a proof that might be faked, but for which no proof has be presented showing that it is faked.

What I've heard from some people on this subject is a need to deny their imperfection. Being wrong is hard for people to admit, as I demonstrated with the North Atlantic/North American kerfuffle a couple of thread episodes ago. Please, stop telling me I have to be wrong; show me that I am wrong and do it with evidence.

After all, when you go looking for evidence demonstrating one thing, sometimes you'll find evidence demonstrating just the opposite.

To reiterate, you're right; the total hard evidence to date is insufficient to conclusively prove the existence of sasquatch. What say we find what there is to find?

BTW, thank you for adopting my usage of sasquatch (singular) and sasquatch (plural). Don't know about you, but I find "sasquatches" such a clumsy construction.

One more thing, you may call me "Mythus". :)

Posted by: A. Noyd | January 17, 2010 11:59 PM

mythusmage (#121)

what disheartens me most is the insistence that the lack of evidence means we can't go looking

Forget bigfoot. Give evidence that anyone is actually saying this. In fact, shut the fuck up till you manage that much. Thanks.

~*~*~*~*~*~

MrT (#122)

Isn't it also possible that they eat their own shit?

Well, gorillas do that and it still comes back out one end or the other eventually. Maybe I'll mail mythusmage some for comparison to potential recycled bigfoot shit.

Posted by: RickR | January 18, 2010 12:02 AM

"There is no absolute proof for anything."

Oh, OK. Sophistry.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | January 18, 2010 12:04 AM

Mythus, on the proof of god issue, you were pressing that the possible existence of sasquatch meant sasquatch existed. There is a proof of god (ontological?) that uses the very same logic.

I expect to learn something new every time I open a Scientific American or American Scientist. Some of those ideas are different than they were when I was in school, but no problem. They have evidence. And what they say integrates into other knowledge that I have. What irritates me as a scientist are ignorant people deliberately trying to make us look like ideologues, which is what you are trying to do (upset the present ideas). If you want to look at things differently, do it right. Don't put those ideas out here, but rather write up a scientific paper for publication and submit it. People who are afraid or find excuses not to do that are not worth listening to.

Posted by: mythusmage | January 18, 2010 12:09 AM

#139

Nerd,

Ah, but testable evidence for sasquatch has been presented. Accepted or not, it has been presented. Last I heard nobody has presented testable evidence pointing to the existence of God. There is more to reality that our philosophies admit of, the trouble is finding the evidence for it.

Posted by: Blind Squirrel FCD | January 18, 2010 12:09 AM

Another watershed came in October 1967 with “one of the most momentous events in the annals of Bigfoot hunting” (Bord and Bord 1982, 80). Roger Patterson, a longtime Bigfoot enthusiast who had frequently “discovered” the creature’s tracks, encountered a man-beast as he and a sidekick rode at Bluff Creek. It spooked the men’s horses but as his mount fell, Patterson claimed, he jumped clear, grabbed a movie camera from his saddlebag, and filmed the creature as it strode away with a seemingly exaggerated stride, “as if,” wrote Daniel Cohen (1982, 17), “a bad actor were trying to simulate a monster’s walk.”

Patterson’s creature had hairy, pendulous breasts, a detail many thought so convincing that it argued against the film being a hoax. Actually, Patterson had previously made a drawing of just such a supposed female creature which appeared in his book, published the year before (Patterson 1966, 111).

Although early in the next millennium a Patterson acquaintance, Bob Heironimus, confessed he had been the man in the ape suit (Long 2004), some skeptics as well as die-hard monster enthusiasts refused to believe him.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | January 18, 2010 12:11 AM

MM- Look sonny boy, I was one of the most god fearing, believing, scripture award winning fundamentalist Old Believers ever.

But the more I studied it, and the more I tried to believe it, was the more I could see it was bullshit.

Don't even try it with me. Genesis is such horse shit that if you can't see the huge gaps I think you are a child or an idiot.

Posted by: Blind Squirrel FCD | January 18, 2010 12:13 AM

My post above inspired by flyonthewall who jogged my memory, so I did that thing with the Google and it popped right up.

BS

Posted by: mythusmage | January 18, 2010 12:15 AM

#143

Blind Squirrel,

Are you sure of your source, and do you have evidence the author actually knows what he's talking about? What I hear from the author are assumptions based on a priori reasoning. Can he demonstrate his assumptions can be verified?

I point you to a pro sasquatch forum can you consider the possibility they might actually have something valid to say? Fuck God and the leviathan He rode in on, without reservation can you consider the possibility sasquatch believers have something valid to say?

Posted by: consciousness razor | January 18, 2010 12:19 AM

mythus:

There is more to reality that our philosophies admit of, the trouble is finding the evidence for it.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Posted by: Andyo | January 18, 2010 12:21 AM

hey anyone watches late night talk show comedy? I usually don't go for the entertainment news, but it's gotten the funniest in years since everyone is angry now, and Leno is getting his dues.

Of course, I'm on Team Conan. Also check out Andy Richter's answer. A bit wishy-washy but good in comparison to all the other tripe.

Posted by: mythusmage | January 18, 2010 12:25 AM

#146

Mr T,

You doubt I doubt? I doubt the existence of reality, for ultimately our proofs come down to what we observe and how we interpret it. That there is a reality out there we can experience and experience in common I am convinced of, but I am not absolutely convinced of it.

The weight of the evidence comes down on the side of the proposition that reality is pretty much as we observe it, and that reality is independent of us. What we believe and what we need to be true has nothing to do with reality, but more with our need to be special; with our need to be something separate from the world, not of it but of some greater realm.

You make a mistake in observation, you correct your mistake in observation. That is my understanding of science. I may be wrong about that, but I see no reason to have faith in any alternative that does not allow for the recognition and correction of error. For is that not the path to religion?

Posted by: mythusmage | January 18, 2010 12:28 AM

#151

Mr T,

I reserve the write to restate Shakespeare. After all, isn't West Side Story a restatement of Romeo and Juliet? :)

Posted by: Aratina Cage | January 18, 2010 12:31 AM

mythusmage #20, I have seen a Bigfoot footprint. It was all part of the culmination of a spooky story told to a bunch of kids while out on a trip in a snowy wilderness. The magic of the story of Bigfoot is much the same as the magic of the story of Santa Claus (Bigfoot hunters and "finders", for that matter, are not much different than people who make movies about Santa Claus or sell reindeer trinkets for the Xmas tree)—they are both a fun inside joke for adults and a sort of fable that serves as a warning to children (in the case of Sasquatch the moral is to not venture off in the woods alone). That is really all it is.

Posted by: Blind Squirrel FCD | January 18, 2010 12:37 AM

In the utmost of fairness and irritation, I will point out that technically, Blind Squirrel is supposed to point out the evidence that contradicts the whateverthehell it was video.

BS

Posted by: Patricia, OM | January 18, 2010 12:41 AM

I keep telling you people it's my hairy assed brother Ed.

Posted by: RickR | January 18, 2010 12:44 AM

"I point you to a pro sasquatch forum can you consider the possibility they might actually have something valid to say? Fuck God and the leviathan He rode in on, without reservation can you consider the possibility sasquatch believers have something valid to say?"

I, for one, would not. Because it isn't arguments that would convince me. Not only is talk cheap, it's an enormous waste of time.

Hard evidence. Bring it. I'll consider it.

Posted by: Blind Squirrel FCD | January 18, 2010 12:48 AM

From what you've posted on this subject I have come to doubt your willingness to be honest.

BS

Posted by: Patricia, OM | January 18, 2010 12:53 AM

Shame on you RickR - The Holy Babble says:In the beginning GOD created the heaven and the earth. Genesis 1:1

Now how can you doubt such a thing? It's in the book.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | January 18, 2010 12:57 AM

MM - Yes we can be sure it's not PZ because you are an idiot, and he has no reason to morph idiot trolls.

Fool.

Posted by: Blind Squirrel FCD | January 18, 2010 12:58 AM

Damn, but this is the reason I gave up riding Greyhound buses. I get someone like mythusmage for a seatmate every time. Give me a couple of Jehovah's Witnesses any day. At least I know the ground rules.

BS

Posted by: Patricia, OM | January 18, 2010 12:59 AM

Fucktard.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | January 18, 2010 1:09 AM

The christards always come back.

They have no proof of their gawd or big foot, but they always come back. Fools.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | January 18, 2010 1:16 AM

What this thread needs is lesbian nipples wrapped in bacon nested in Hickory chips.

It'll do for a start. :)

Posted by: Patricia, OM | January 18, 2010 1:25 AM

OK, well how about some brass bossoms, burnished by bacon?

The Chimp is going to swoon shortly with all of this bacony goodness.

Posted by: Travis | January 18, 2010 1:35 AM

I do not have any lesbian nipples (though I could probably ask friends for some help in this matter but that has to wait until tomorrow), no bacon, or hickory chips, but I have some beer and I have been indulging. It does certainly help me stomach the troll.

Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | January 18, 2010 1:54 AM

Wait, wait, wait. Was that PZ fucking with us this whole time, or just him editing the last post from mythusmage?

Posted by: Militant Agnostic | January 18, 2010 2:15 AM

This Monster Talk podcast makes a compelling case that the Patterson/Gimlin film is a hoax.

http://monstertalk.skeptic.com/media/skeptic/002_Monstertalk.mp3

Even when I was a Sasquatch believer, I thought the PG film was probably a hoax.

My hypothesis is they are alien tourists on "back to nature" holidays in the galactic boonies. They are supposed to avoid any contact with us, but a few of them can't resist scaring the bejeezus out of the rubes. This would explain the lack of scat and bodies.

MM would have us believe there have been collisions between small cars and Sasquatches. If this occurred at any significant speed, the results would be catastrophic for both parties.

If you haven't seen the Arthur C Clarke's Mysterious world Sasquatch episode, you should watch it for the footprint hoaxing demonstration. The large old guy running while wearing wooden Sasquatch feet is simply amazing.

Posted by: F | January 18, 2010 3:27 AM

Then there's the fact we've been looking in the wrong places for sasquatch fossils.

Yes.

Perhaps we should look in Universe 5.

Posted by: Stephen Wells | January 18, 2010 5:37 AM

Let's see now. Many videos- blurry, low-quality videos with poor provenance- show hairy bigfoot-type creatures walking around in North America.

No bodies or physical evidence of such a creature have ever been found.

In most cases the creature on the videos can be identified as a guy in an ape suit.

The entity in mythusmage's favourite video (the gospel according to sasquatch) is either (i) a real bigfoot or (ii) a guy in an ape suit.

We know that guys in ape suits exist.

What's our default hypothesis here? Don't all shout at once.

Posted by: John Morales | January 18, 2010 6:25 AM

PZ, spammer "indogreenteak" is polluting old threads.

--

MythusMage:

[1] It is very easy to see the creationist in others, it is very hard to see the creationist in you.

[2] (Cue irate response from John Morales in 5, 4, 3...)

1. Yes, it is hard to see that which is not there. :)

2. No ire, just disappointment. You could be (and, sometimes, have been) an interesting commenter... instead you've chosen to post in a manner indistinguishable to that of a troll, and you use your claimed Asperger's as an excuse.

Tsk. You accrue bad PharynguKarma thereby.

That said, I will indulge you as I would any such poster:
Are you aware of how many species of apes/hominids are known to exist in North America?

Are you aware of the geographical distribution of claimed sightings in the USA, and if so, how does affect your conjecture?

Are you aware of the many similar stories of humaniform megafaunal cryptids across many continents and cultures?

Posted by: Judy L. | January 18, 2010 6:39 AM

Am I the only one who's always baffled by the presence of a SINGLE sasquatch in all these videos? As far as I know, all primate species are highly social, and with the exception of a silver-back gorilla enjoying some alone time and some poor monkey being scorned from the group, whenever I've seen filmed footage of non-human primates in their natural habitats they're always in groups.

Posted by: SEF | January 18, 2010 7:08 AM

Then there's the too-rapid evolution of specific features of the sasquatch (not just differences across long-standing legends). Eg the changes in the sort of foot-prints allegedly left by them.

Posted by: Knockgoats | January 18, 2010 7:26 AM

Judy L., SEF,

While I'm almost as sure there's no Bigfoot as I am that there's no Loch Ness Monster (and for similar reasons - no good evidence, implausibility of a viable population existing), I don't think your latest points hold: orang-utans are solitary, and many large mammals have spread from Asia to North America via the intermittently-existing Beringia land-bridge. If Bigfoot existed, it would most likely be related to Gigantopithecus, which lived in SE Asia until at least 300,000 years ago, and may have been bipedal.

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | January 18, 2010 7:28 AM

Well, belief in Bigfoot is at least more rational than creationism....

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | January 18, 2010 7:47 AM

Sasquatch is real? Seriously?

Is this supposed to be clever? Or humorous?

One more thing before I go --- for I am getting a bit worn out: Can you be sure, truly sure, I'm not PZ Myers doing this to hype Pharyngula and increase traffic? I know I'm not PZ Myers, but how do I prove I'm not? :D

ugh

It is very easy to see the creationist in others, it is very hard to see the creationist in you.

Something you are demonstrating quite well with your Bigfoot wooism.

No excuse me, I'm off on a snipe hunt followed by a Jackalope trapping session.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkxPcOu-NB6l49mcRg06fXAAAgW2ewHeVI | January 18, 2010 7:56 AM

If anyone here is tired of the same old creationist trolls, you might want to try out this wackaloon. Scroll down to find the evolution stuff.

http://zdenny.com/

Posted by: SEF | January 18, 2010 8:36 AM

I don't see any bacon flavouring in this recipe/design. Someone should remedy that. Or perhaps do an octopus/squid cake.

Just the other day, I was wondering whether there was much in the way of cheese-flavoured cake (I'm not counting cheese-cake because that's an entirely different animal). It might be harder to flavour a spider cake realistically.

Posted by: SEF | January 18, 2010 9:09 AM

I disagree.

Anyhow, which particular blue pill would that be to give the alleged personality change?

Posted by: Knockgoats | January 18, 2010 9:27 AM

The absence of evidence isn't evidence of anything except that we haven't any evidence. - IanM

Garbage. There is a complete absence of evidence of live Apatosaurus in central London. this is conclusive evidence that they do not live there.

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | January 18, 2010 9:41 AM

Seein' as Patricia's outing her brother Ed, I guess this is only right, now. Even overdue...

See, the truth is, I'm pretty sure I'm the Yeti...

And no, I'm not (quite) that big, and definitely not that hairy.

But it's a funny story... It involved what was stacking up to be a lovely evening with a local Brahmin's daughter being cut short by the unscheduled appearance of her brother and several of his alarmingly well-armed friends, an escape from a hut in the dead of winter while wrapped in the bearskin rug that just happened to be awfully close at hand at the time, a coating of snow on said rug making it look all streaky white, then this mutually alarming encounter with some local farmers...

Anyway. That and my size 13 clodhoppers sealed the deal, I'm afraid. My sincerest apologies for any inconvenience this may have caused anyone.

Oh. I'm pretty sure I'm the skunk ape, too... Similar story, oddly enough...

(/And as to the smell, what can I say, but Betty Sue always said she preferred it when I hadn't showered for a week or two.)

Posted by: Rorschach | January 18, 2010 9:45 AM

TMI @ 213,

TMI !

:-)

Posted by: Rorschach | January 18, 2010 9:51 AM

But in a civilised community, people evolve rules of politeness and etiquette for dealing with these disagreements. Civilised people ought to be able to separate disagreement from personal dislike, and to challenge someone else's ideas without attacking that person on a personal level.

Walton, as a regular here you would have noticed by now that politeness and etiquette do not mean for a christian what they mean to non-christians, and that xtians just love to confuse disagreement with personal dislike, because it helps them distract everyone from the fact that they are losing on the argument front.
This is just silly.I'm surprised you would bring it up.

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | January 18, 2010 9:58 AM

TMI !

Sorry man. But y'know... Been carrying that around a while...

Now the Loch Ness Monster, anyway, that's not me...

But I have heard convincing evidence that that was probably just Walton's mom, skinny dipping*...

(/*This joke is still pending review by the Tone Police. If it does not pass muster, minors will please try to forget they never heard it. The rest of you may also, of course, choose to do the same, at your own discretion.)

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | January 18, 2010 10:00 AM

Rorschach, you're missing my point. Of course disagreement and personal dislike are different things; that's exactly the point I'm making. But a lot of people here have a tendency to combine disagreement with unnecessary personal attacks. It is possible to disagree with someone, even vehemently, without calling them a "fuckwit" or otherwise calling their moral character or intelligence into question. And there is a good reason for choosing to be nice to people, even where they hold completely wrongheaded ideas: a pleasant, polite argument will often convince them to change their minds. I'm a case in point: I've changed my mind on any number of issues, sometimes two or three times, since I started commenting here, as a result of discussions on Pharyngula.

I'm not accusing you particularly, and I apologise if I created that impression.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | January 18, 2010 10:04 AM

Walton...

That was the longest tone-concern troll post I think I've ever read. It's not new, and it's not that interesting. There are MANY personalities here, some calm, some entertaining, some acerbic, some downright mean-spirited. They all contribute to the dialog, and frankly, they ALL have merit.

I hardly consider myself to be in the position of being able to decide what tone is appropriate, and I'm fairly sure you aren't either, Walton. For some, being angry and sharp-tongued, even vulgar, helps get their point across.

I'm sorry, but who are you to determine for anyone the method by which a message is delivered? If you personally think that being cordial, polite and patient is the best way to get your point across, then by all means do so. If you are one of those people who is sick of the requirement of deference to stupid, archaic, insane, harmful and deceitful lies that are the hallmarks of religion and anti-science, then you might strike a different chord with your comments.

And this goes not just for the sender, but also for the recipient... some people respond better to rational discourse, some need to have it beat over their head to get the point. Either way, once again, who are you to determine which method works best?

Either way, I for one am grateful for the vast collection of completely different personalities; the various methods of delivery... from Cuttlefish's brilliant, often strikingly poignant minstrelsy, to Sastra's elegant, insightful, articulate prose, to Nerd of Redhead's simple, direct, take-no-prisoners, indignant vitriol... I love all of it.

I also love that we are all able to take each other to task when attacks are unwarranted or premature... I've heard this place called an "echo-chamber" by not-so-regulars and it never fails to make me laugh. This place is anything but, and no-one who's spent more than a week here reading the comments would ever be foolish able to make such a comment.

You, Walton, should know better than to make such a complaint. I don't know if you just woke up on the wrong side of the bed today or what but please, get over it already.

Oh... and yes, your concern, IS noted.

Posted by: Rorschach | January 18, 2010 10:07 AM

Hm ok, to elaborate on my last comment,

I will concede that for a lot of people, christians or not, the tone will influence the truth value of a statement, as regrettable as that may be, and I will also concede that we are probably currently underestimating the effect this has on debates with believers.
We know it's wrong, and it shouldn't influence judgment about a statement, but unfortunately for many people, it does.
On Pharyngula, we can brush it off and logic and rationality, let alone numbers, are on our side.
In a lecture theatre or classroom debating some loon, not so much.

I think we are not doing this very well outside of internet fora at the moment, Walton, so point conceded.

But I would argue that it is unnecessary to attack people simply because they have wrong ideas

I think it is important that we do, because wrong ideas hurt people, and fuck with mankind.

To the question of how to react to tone trolls, outside Pharyngula and in the public domain, I have no definitive answer, it remains a problem as long as so many people really think the truth value of a statement changes with the number of swear words it contains.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | January 18, 2010 10:13 AM

You think Bigfoot is seriously an open question?

No, I did not say that. I said I don't know anything about it, and don't care. The existence or non-existence of Bigfoot makes, so far as I can tell, absolutely no difference to anything important.

There are lots of issues which are vitally important to society, and affect real people's lives - global warming, science education, terrorism, religion, medicine, civil liberties and so on - which are discussed here on a daily basis, and which I am interested in learning about and discussing. I don't see how the existence or otherwise of Bigfoot can be said to fall into that category.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | January 18, 2010 10:16 AM

It is very easy to see the creationist in others, it is very hard to see the creationist in you.

Damn, I see this argument a lot anymore... trying to prop up your own silly ideas by calling people that disagree with you as bad as creationists... what the hell?

When did it become ok to assume you have credibility in advocating other stupid, evidentially unsupported ideas just because you don't believe in one of them?

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | January 18, 2010 10:19 AM

blf #186 FTW

Posted by: Lynna, OM | January 18, 2010 10:22 AM

Pharyngula has a serious cultural problem, due to this ingrained idea that tone and politeness do not matter. A lot of people here regularly point out, correctly, that tone and politeness do not affect the objective truth value of a statement: "Two plus two fucking equals four, you fucking stupid fuckwit fuck fuck fuck" is no less true, in an objective sense, than "Two plus two equals four".

I think I would have to come up with some new swear words to describe the situation if the Overlord instituted a Policy of Politeness (PoP).

I don't want any whey-faced, fawning tone trolls loving me for my refined, weasel-reeking language.

Pharyngula is rare -- that combination of serious chatter about the things that matter, with a dollop of snark spice! That combo indicates passion, vitality and intellectual rigor. Take the "culture" away, or tone it down, and you take the life out of it. No more rigor, just rigor mortis.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | January 18, 2010 10:24 AM

I've heard this place called an "echo-chamber" by not-so-regulars and it never fails to make me laugh. This place is anything but, and no-one who's spent more than a week here reading the comments would ever be foolish able to make such a comment.

I did not call Pharyngula an echo-chamber. I agree with you that it is nothing of the sort. If anything, the problem is the opposite; the regulars are too ready to turn on each other over political or scientific disagreements.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | January 18, 2010 10:28 AM

But enough about sasquatch.

Let's talk about sasquatch's taste in music:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf8TM4CIk5g

Posted by: IanM | January 18, 2010 10:30 AM

I stand justly chastised. I would hardly be swayed by anyone claiming, in the absence of evidence, that Apatosaurus are living in central London.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | January 18, 2010 10:34 AM

Look, everyone. I'm sorry if I've seemed pompous or self-important on this thread.

I'm not naturally funny, or naturally good at "snark", or naturally socially adept. I do try from time to time, but it rarely succeeds. My MO is to write long-winded, rather repetitive posts setting out my reasoning in detail, and I realise that this bores some people. And I'm also a bit more sensitive and insecure than many people here, and don't always find it easy to laugh at my own expense. I accept these failings.

I'm also not entirely sure whether I'm a liberal, a conservative or a libertarian, or an incoherent mixture of all three. And every discussion I've started about politics lately has been a complete mess, because I'm no longer really sure where I stand and keep changing my mind, and/or getting trapped into playing devil's advocate and talking bullshit.

I'm going to drop this line of conversation now, since it's going nowhere. I'm sorry if I've pissed anyone off. My mind is not working normally today (a friend of mine brought me back some unusual Rwandan coffee from a trip abroad, and it seems to have had a strange effect). :-)

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | January 18, 2010 10:36 AM

A while I thought Walton was showing signs of maturity and was learning to overcome his libertarian inclinations. Since Christmas though he seems to have taken a few steps backwards in his progress to becoming a fully paid up member of the human species.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | January 18, 2010 10:41 AM

sasquatch's favorite tunes 2, w/ excellent vid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUOXgL4rvYk

Posted by: Stephen Wells | January 18, 2010 10:43 AM

Walton, you are allowed to, you know, _not_ make tedious long-winded posts setting out your current incoherent opinions. Relax a while. Read a bit. Drink either more or less coffee, as appropriate.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | January 18, 2010 10:44 AM

Walton: The real world requires all that crap about civility, patience, concern for the feelings of others, etc. To have a long standing productive community/work/family relationship, these little rules of courtesy are important.

However, following these rules is tedious for some people. The "style over substance" world is a place where many bright and useful people are clearly at a disadvantage. Blogs like this are popular partially because they give people an opportunity to communicate in a way that's honest.

Some people are advised on job interviews to "just be themselves". My post-doc advisor gave me some great advice before a job interview and it was this "Man, just be yourself, but maybe a little nicer"...which I did, and I guess it worked. However, doing that all the time is such a goddamned strain. I prefer the company of the vitrioloic and foulmouthed, so I can relax. I like all the nice people, too, but I might be less interested in reading this blog if everyone behaved themselves all the time.

If I may quote George Carlin: "Rat shit, bat shit, dirty old twat. 69 assholes tied in a knot. Lizard! Shit! Fuck!"

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | January 18, 2010 10:44 AM

My mind is not working normally today (a friend of mine brought me back some unusual Rwandan coffee from a trip abroad, and it seems to have had a strange effect). :-)

I have to say, Walton, I was truly surprised to see your tone-concern post... I do hope it was just one of those "I'm having a shit-poor day" streams of thought...

Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third | January 18, 2010 10:45 AM

Seriously challenged possibility from beginnings to endings methinks!

A hominid striding around...looking for all the world like a six footer give or take a pair socks in the backwoods of beyond!

A gait looking more like an attempt at retaining some upright dignity rather then traipsing to grandma's house as ya do!
Obviously humanoid development of the pelvic structure and swinging arms to boot.

A side branch of Australopithecus...Neanderthalis...
anyway before Homo sapiens got the modern act together...yeah right...(Not)
More like a renegade from a seedy Charlton Heston B-flick!
And talking about prising cold dead fingers and all that machismo this tangs of prising cold dead inanity and all that fandango from a Blair Witch wannabee clip!

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | January 18, 2010 10:48 AM

Stephen, I don't always do the sensible thing. You should know this by now. :-)

Arrgh. I feel really stressed for no reason. I need to go to the gym. Over Christmas and New Year I was going for 5km runs several times a week, and I'm currently rather addicted to exercise and become unhappy and irritable if I don't do any. (I'm told there's a biological reason for this; something to do with production of chemicals in the brain?)

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | January 18, 2010 10:51 AM

Celtic E: Thanks. Hate to misquote a comical genius.

Posted by: Bobber | January 18, 2010 10:57 AM

Walton:

As a constant reader, and infrequent commenter, to this blog, and a person who would rather avoid unpleasant confrontations than seek them out, I think I understand where you are coming from.

However, when you hear (uhm, read) angry and insulting words, it's important to have an idea of what it is that motivates the use of such words. For example, I know many people who refused to listen to comedians like George Carlin simply because he used such "filthy" language - which is one of the reasons Carlin, a student of the use of language, spoke the way he did in his act. He wanted to cut through any niceties, he wanted to shock people into paying attention, and he was a contrarian par excellence. Did this turn some people off? Of course - but I would say (without a shred of empirical evidence, mind you) that those same people would have been turned off by his overall message anyway.

Do regular Pharyngula commenters sometimes wax profane and personal? Sure. But ask yourself why? If I may use another example to illustrate my point, this one from personal experience:

When I taught in a public school, I needed to explain the same material, over and over again, to people (students) who were generally ignorant (in terms of their not knowing the information I was imparting) and who often asked the same questions, also over and over again, stemming from that ignorance. Do you have any idea the kind of frustration that builds up during even a single day of this? (In my opinion, one must be extraordinarily patient to be a teacher.)

Now, most of the regulars here - very intelligent people, many of them teachers in their own right - see the same arguments, again presented from ignorance, over and over again. The level of frustration only increases when people try to speak authoritatively on subjects they can be demonstrably shown to be not only ignorant of, but willfully ignorant of.

As usual, I can't be pithy, so here's the point I'm trying to make: taking offense at the tone of some of the commenters here ignores not only the substance of what they are trying to say, but also the fact that many of them are actually, in my opinion, arguing in good faith - they really are trying to point people to information (and often include links or references to sources). Do they sometimes do that rudely? Sure. But generally speaking, on this board, those who object to the tone of the commenters (you excluded) aren't going to be convinced by nicely-worded arguments either.

And to this:

But I would argue that it is unnecessary to attack people simply because they have wrong ideas

This must be qualified. Again referring to my former students, the level of frustration is tempered by the fact of their being ignorant. But when confronted with willful ignorance, I don't blame people for letting the nastiness fly. Would you not agree that there is a definite difference between the two?

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | January 18, 2010 11:09 AM

I am glad that others with saintlier patiences and more sparsely populated killfiles were on hand to note Walton's concern.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | January 18, 2010 11:16 AM

Knockgoats: You what?

The substance to which I refer is, in fact, coffee. From Rwanda. I was not making a veiled reference to illegal narcotics, sex, or anything else that might merit the use of a euphemism. I'm not that imaginative, nor is my life that exciting.

Just to make this entirely clear.

Posted by: boygenius | January 18, 2010 11:20 AM

Yikes! I believe that's the first time I've ever seen the Overlord type in allcaps. I felt a slight twinge of guilt and I didn't even do anything wrong. (Aside from that little morse-code episode. Nothing happened and it will never happen again.)

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | January 18, 2010 11:25 AM

Walton, seeing that you cannot pick up on all of the humor used by the regulars, I am almost afraid to find out what you do find to be funny.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | January 18, 2010 11:26 AM

A side branch of Australopithecus... Neanderthalis...

Reminds me of a really bad work of fiction I read some years ago... a book called Neanderthal by John Darnton.

Interesting premise, bad science as I recall. But a fairly entertaining read, all in all.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | January 18, 2010 11:33 AM

I'm going to stop posting on this thread now, as this is degenerating into silliness.

Silliness is not a form of degeneration. Dem's fighting words. I will have to dispatch Bigfoot to find you and bury you in bacon. But only after Bigfoot forces you to consume two pots of Rwandan coffee.

Oh, wait, this could be more messy than silly.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | January 18, 2010 11:37 AM

I love Doonesbury.

Bacon T-shirts:
h**p://www.snorgtees.com/baconmakeseverythingbetter-p-758.html
h**p://www.snorgtees.com/youhadmeatbacon-p-916.html
h**p://www.snorgtees.com/bisforbacon-p-1007.html

and paleontologically, the trike on a trike one is sorta funny once.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | January 18, 2010 11:43 AM

One more for Teh CO.

Posted by: SEF | January 18, 2010 11:46 AM

go back to talking about bacon and Bigfoot

So... do sasquatch taste like bacon?

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | January 18, 2010 11:47 AM

Walton,
Every culture has its norms. Pharyngula is an evidence-based culture. Unbridled speculation presented without evidence will generally not be well received here.

What is more, Pharyngula attracts a very broad spectrum of people, so if you are knocking your pud on a particular subject, you'll have a hard time keeping that a secret. Post bullshit about biology, evolution, etc. and any number of posters got your backside, which they will be happy to kick for you. Post woo about the 2nd law of Thermo or quantum mechanics or cosmology, I will be happy to politely tear you a brand new and fully functional asshole. Geology? Chemistry? Anthropology? Archaeology? Biblical Scholarship? Got you covered with biting sarcasm in response to all bullshit and woo.

When I post woo, I want you guys to call me on it. Keep me fucking honest, goddammit. And if you can do it with a little bit of humor at my expense, so much the better. I'm a big boy. I'll get over it.

I don't know if you have noticed, but Pharyngula is a rather unique oasis on the intertubes. PZ has a very light hand here--unedited commenting, removing only complete idiots like GWIAS. Have you looked in on other unmonitored sites of late? The idiots have taken over completely. Anything to do with climate science is immediately dismissed by half a dozen idjits. Evolution? The creationists are on it like white on rice. Here, they are free to try, but usually retreat from the hornet's nest fairly quickly.

If it comes down to a choice between civility and a bullshit-free oasis, I'll kiss off civility.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | January 18, 2010 11:54 AM

I don't know quite what's wrong with me today.

Some days you just wake up grumpy... go sweat it off... you'll feel better.

I know that my twice a week volleyball matches almost always erase my pissier moods. I think it's the release of competitive aggression in addition to the pure workout, though...

Posted by: David Marjanović | January 18, 2010 12:02 PM

So… two comments after I write "I can see the next thread coming on the horizon", exactly that happens. I seem to be getting good at this.

I'd also like to point to this blog post about the Patterson/Gimlin film again, though neither it nor the comments mention the admission by Heironimus.

(…Heironimus? Seriously? Is that the fault of some moron on Ellis Island?)

what does "articulated to associated" mean? is that about how well the bones stayed together as they were when the critter was alive?

Exactly. "Associated" means that the bones of one individual form one single heap, "articulated" means the bones stay together like in life.

The geology one is lovely, however :-)

The one that Jadehawk suggested to Alan B and Josh in comment 154.

Frankly sir, it doesn't really matter what I present in the way of evidence, because you show no sign you'd would even give it due consideration. I could present you with a fucking corpse, and you would call it false.

<sigh>

Can't you see it's a parsimony argument?

Opinions disagree as to how easy it would be for a population of big apes to hide in that kind of forest; there are no bones; the Patterson/Gimlin film has come into doubt; footprints can be faked; and so on. Can you really not see why so many people conclude the most parsimonious hypothesis is that there simply is no sasquatch?

At the same time, falsification trumps parsimony. A corpse would convince everyone, or at the very least everyone on this thread. Do you really not understand this?

Such as scat for instance. Google "bigfoot scat" and you'll find pictures purporting to show sasquatch shit. Now google "bear scat" and compare those pictures with the reported bigfoot scat pictures. I just don't see how one could confuse bear shit with sasquatch shit, unless one was obsessed in denying sasquatch.

Hang on a second.

We have sasquatch crap?

Where the fuck is the Sasquatch Fucking Genome Project?!?!?

Here's the best version btw.

Really? I remember seeing one on TV that was… like… in color and stuff. I'm also told much higher resolution is available.

Here is a color version, with a part taken out and played backwards and forwards several times at the end of the video.
youtube.com/watch?v=IJjUt2sXo5o&feature=related

Also… youtube.com/watch?v=r5tvXoGQ4UI&feature=related

Bob Heironimus passes lie detector test:

<facepalm>

The lie detector measures whether you're excited. Not whether you're lying. If you can lie in cold blood, it'll let you pass. If you say the truth, but are scared, it'll convict you.

That's why it's forbidden to use this thing in court in much or all of Europe.

i still refuse to believe bigfoot actually exists.

why? because the self-proclaimed bigfoot experts don't either.

you know how i know? because i've seen hours upon hours of them out in the woods hunting for the thing. and if they actually seriously believed that there was a 8-foot tall, 500-lb, potentially dangerous wild animal in the area, they would bring fucking rifles.

"Potentially dangerous"… it's said to be rather on the shy side of things, and I don't think anyone has ever claimed to have been attacked by a bigfoot.

There are bears in those places, and if they aren't dangerous enough to warrant carrying rifles around, the sasquatches sure ain't!

a sort of fable that serves as a warning to children (in the case of Sasquatch the moral is to not venture off in the woods alone)

Bears.

Why would anyone need to invent yet another incentive for children not to run off into those woods?

Here is a video of Bob H walking with bigfoot from the Patterson video along side. youtube.com/watch?v=HCzRBzBmUjE

He stretches his knees. The Alleged Sasquatch doesn't ever do that. Also, his arms are shorter (TAS has arms more like mine).

Why is the face on Bob's costume so stiff, when Patty's face is so expressive.

You can see the face? In that video? What have you smoked???

One more thing before I go --- for I am getting a bit worn out: Can you be sure, truly sure, I'm not PZ Myers doing this to hype Pharyngula and increase traffic?

What do you mean by "truly sure"? You're hardly increasing traffic, as anyone could have guessed; and what comes through of your thought patterns is completely consistent with your previous behavior and quite different from PZ's. By far the most parsimonious hypothesis, thus, is that you're not PZ. :-|

many large mammals have spread from Asia to North America via the intermittently-existing Beringia land-bridge.

But then reports of it and physical evidence of it would have to match that route (as well as each other!).

Why would the reports have to match that route?

Of the physical evidence, only the so far entirely absent fossil bones would have to match it.

Sasquatsch

:-D

Pharyngula has a serious cultural problem, due to this ingrained idea that tone and politeness do not matter.

It's frustration.

We've all seen it before so often – the arguments listed in the Index to Creationist Claims and strikingly often in the "Lists of Arguments We Think Creationists Should Not Use" by Answers in Genesis and creation.com. The Dunning-Kruger effect. The logical fallacies. Everything.

We simply lose our patience after some time. Some sooner (truth machine), some later (Gregory Greenwood), but we all do. We just haven't undergone the kolinahr.

Also, different people react to tone in different ways. Some flee at the slightest hint of unpleasantness. Others only take arguments seriously if they're presented and defended in a way that makes clear the presenter is serious. There are even deconversion stories by people who say they were deconverted by being laughed at. People are too diverse for any one strategy to have the same effect on all.

If somebody pops up here saying that a film of a guy in an ape suit constitutes good evidence for the existence of a race of giant hominids wandering the USA, they deserve to be mocked.

The only evidence for a suit being involved is Heironimus' admission, and the film itself argues against that (see the first link in this comment, and this: youtube.com/watch?v=r5tvXoGQ4UI&feature=related). If it's faked, it could be a rather oddly proportioned guy with thin strips of fur glued to his body, but a suit would be very difficult to square with the film.

Someone should try to remake the Patterson/Gimlin film with someone who has bacon glued to their nipples strips of fur glued everywhere. Has never been tried. Remaking it with a guy in a suit has been tried several times, and looks pathetic each time.

To save David M the trouble, yes I do know the argument about the æ dipthong / ligature.

I don't know what you mean. Anyway, biological nomenclature is fixed (Palaeotis, but Paleothyris, because that's how they were spelled in the original publications), and the rest is left to everyone's preferences.

(…And a diphthong is one vowel transitioning to another so that both fit in the same syllable. That's a matter of phonetics, not of spelling. Almost every English "long" vowel is a diphthong; æ isn't.)

I think I would have to come up with some new swear words to describe the situation if the Overlord instituted a Policy of Politeness (PoP).

If anything, the problem is the opposite; the regulars are too ready to turn on each other over political or scientific disagreements.

But… but… we are scientists. We have SIWOTI syndrome. We won't let our friends keep being demonstrably wrong – that would be a serious disservice to them!

See comment 238.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | January 18, 2010 12:08 PM

I know you wanted the subject dropped, but I feel the urge to comment on it anyway:

for one, those religionists and creationists who come here with honest questions get honest and polite responses; see , for example. It's only those that come here making arrogant, offensive claims and insult us that get the same thrown at them. And their lack of use of certain words doesn't make them polite, just passive-aggressive.

secondly, from experience of many discussion threads with creationists I can say that those posters who remain polite (by the creobots definition) aren't listened to, either; they merely risk being proselytized at.

thirdly, even out in meatspace, politeness is not always the way to go. This may be less of an issue in Britain where atheists aren't a minority that's rather heavily discriminated against, but it certainly matters in the US. We've had quite a few discussions about how demands for politeness from the oppressors are just a way to put the Uppity [place minority here] down. The accomodationist approach doesn't show any more success than the confrontational one, as far as I can see.

forthly, religionists confuse politeness with immunity from criticism; they'll be just as offended, insulted etc as they are by our choice of words. just remember the various reactions to the Atheist Bus campaigns! The religionists were offended! the atheists were attacking their faith! they were being intolerant! so yeah, being more polite with them isn't gonna help; what they really want is for us to shup up and sit down.

Posted by: PaleGreenPants | January 18, 2010 12:14 PM

@282

Them's alot of words.

Posted by: Alan B | January 18, 2010 12:16 PM

#234 Antiochus Epiphanes said:

... a number of you (Alan B, Josh, David M, Dania et al.) provided informative responses, and I felt like I was getting a miniseminar in geology. It was delightful.

I don't think I've ever been called delightful before!!

Thinking of putting up a Kemist's Korner* as soon as I can write it. There may be some more Geology and YEC faux geology in this incarnation of "The Thread".

*Can you explain how salt works in melting ice and in freezing ice cream? I think I can explain it - unless everybody knows ... If you can - give us a chance first - you can always tear it apart later.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | January 18, 2010 12:23 PM

Rorschach @225

To the question of how to react to tone trolls, outside Pharyngula and in the public domain, I have no definitive answer, it remains a problem as long as so many people really think the truth value of a statement changes with the number of swear words it contains.

Every bear is different. They are individuals. There are no definitive answers. You judge the individual to the best of your ability and respond accordingly.

Little, polite warning bells do not work for any bears, do not work at all, nada -- it's a myth. Another myth is that most bears run from human. I've had personal encounters, close encounters, with 13 bears. Less than half ran away.

Interactions with black bears are usually different from interactions with grizzly bears. Know your bears. Adjust your avoidance and survival techniques according to the bear(s) in question, and according to the situation/environment. You can't back so far down that you fall off a cliff.

Well, that extended analogy got out of hand. [slinks off]

Posted by: David Marjanović | January 18, 2010 12:28 PM

I do try from time to time, but it rarely succeeds.

That one did succeed, though. Don't try to be snarky when you don't feel like it – but when you feel like it, let nothing hold you back.

I'm told there's a biological reason for this; something to do with production of chemicals in the brain?

Do you seriously get runner's high? That would be endorphines to make you stop feeling the pain and the exhaustion.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | January 18, 2010 12:30 PM

watch out Walton...those endorphins to which you are addicted are binding to opiate receptors...you're getting a whisper of a heroin buzz there...careful now...

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | January 18, 2010 12:35 PM

Walton,

I was not making a veiled reference to illegal narcotics, sex, or anything else that might merit the use of a euphemism.

That sentence alone proves you desperately need to try at least one of those things, ;).

Posted by: A. Noyd | January 18, 2010 12:39 PM

Lynna (#212)

The heated scents out of the dryers are the worst. Someone will eventually discover how bad they are, and that they trigger allergies. Outlaw them, I say.

Oh, hell yes. And the plug in air fresheners, too. They don't work to cover up smells unless you count making me stuffed up by setting off my allergies.

~*~*~*~*~*~

Celtic_Evolution (#238)

If I feel the tone directed at me is unwarranted, I'll address it myself, thanks.

Pretty much the crux of it, if you ask me. If people have a problem with tone, they can point it out. When they do, often as not, they're focusing on the presence of insults and swear words while being just as condescending and disrespectful themselves. Some merely are upset by people getting the verbal better of them and want to level the playing field. And then there are the Karen Armstrongs who thinks pretending all sides have something worth saying, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, makes talking about nonsense less pointless.

Given that offense is so personal, it might be an interesting study to see how on highly moderated message boards the censorship evolved to suit the collective sense of propriety. Or how much censorship vs. permissiveness influences the tone threshold of contributors to various blogs/boards. Do people here get less sensitive? Does hyper-moderation make people more sensitive? Etc.

~*~*~*~*~*~

Walton (#264)

Apparently I'm rather naive. Note to self: think more carefully before posting.

Where's the fun in that?

Posted by: Lynna, OM | January 18, 2010 12:47 PM

David M @240

I got this one for Newtonmas. The anatomically impossible hand posture should indeed be forbidden.

Posted by: David Marjanović | January 18, 2010 12:52 PM

I came across a claim that fur had been found from two individuals (black and brown) which allegedly didn't match known life-forms and yet somehow didn't have enough DNA for any sequencing to be done. Not particularly impressive.

Could depend on the mode of preservation… dried, sun-bleached, moldy, whatever… But hairs alone can be identified down to species by just looking at them under a microscope. If that had been done, had found a new species, and had been published, I'd know about it :-)

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | January 18, 2010 12:55 PM

Wait...

Ok... I lost the pace of the conversation, there... I thought David M was answering the question affirmatively and then leaving off the explanation intentionally to be funny... re-reading the conversation between them, I'm not sure it was intended as such...

Oh well, I thought it was funny anyhow.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | January 18, 2010 12:59 PM

Janine, thanks for the Cream. You had me getting out the actual vinyl and cranking up an actual turntable. Nobody beats Cream.

Posted by: SEF | January 18, 2010 1:06 PM

But hairs alone can be identified down to species by just looking at them under a microscope.

I know - I was the one who said so on the previous incarnation of the thread! That's why the absence of proper publication for everyone to see (regardless of any DNA failure) is so unimpressive.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | January 18, 2010 1:07 PM

But #&60;reaching through intert00bz, grabbing Jadehawk by shoulders, and shaking her> you must tell me where it is! :-) I have no idea where there could be one. I just double-checked: the only halfway logical place lacks one.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | January 18, 2010 1:13 PM

There are too many David Marjanovićs on the web! How do we know which one is him? This will take a little work...

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | January 18, 2010 1:17 PM

There are too many David Marjanovićs on the web! How do we know which one is him? This will take a little work...

ok, I'll stop bragging about my stalkerific google-fu now :-p

Posted by: Lynna, OM | January 18, 2010 1:24 PM

As, everybody knows by now, not only are the mormons anal-retentive when it comes to controlling their members, they also think they can control the actions of people leaving their church.

There's a great post on exmormon.org today that includes some telling details about how frustrating the procedure can be when members try to leave the LDS Church. Basically, the church's head honchos will do anything to get enough information to send the local Bishop and Stake President gunning for your hide, umm, to talk things over with you. Excerpts:

Although the Notice only provided you/LDS Inc. with my middle initial “X”, your acknowledgment letter addressed me by my full name, “Jacyn XXXXX XXXXXXX.” Obviously you were able to locate LDS Inc.’s record of my former membership with the information I did provide and your claims to the contrary are disingenuous....Incidentally Mr. Dodge, I am no longer a member of LDS Inc. and thus not your sister.
     Govern yourself accordingly,

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | January 18, 2010 1:41 PM

I've now been to the gym and run two miles on the treadmill, and feel somewhat better.

Sorry to anyone I annoyed earlier. Today has not been my day. I intended to start work on an essay, which I have not done due to procrastinating all afternoon.

Posted by: Alan B | January 18, 2010 2:01 PM

#282 David Marjanović

The Concise Oxford Dictionary, Ninth Edition, definition of "diphthong*":

1. a speech sound in one syllable in which the articulation begins as for one vowel and moves towards another (as in coin, loud and side).

2a. a diagraph representing the sound of a diphthong or single vowel (as in feat)

2b. a compound vowel character; a ligature (as æ)

* Your spelling is correct, mine was in error.

I was using the word diphthong in the sense of 2b.

Posted by: SEF | January 18, 2010 2:07 PM

Is this like hunting for a sasquatch?! Do we get to compare fur, gait and DNA samples next to determine which are the real ones?

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | January 18, 2010 2:31 PM

New update, unveiling a cleaner, more streamlined, more sophisticated look that I think you'll like. *wink*

Posted by: Falafel | January 18, 2010 2:37 PM

Hello PZ and Pharynguloids!
long time reader, first time commenter.
not sure if this is the right thread but lets see.

I saw PZ's lecture on design vs chance and i have a question about the Receptor tyrosine kinase (boy it took forever to find how to spell that from listening to PZ).

if this protein tells cells around it which type of cell they should be, how do the cells connecting the various organs know not to change? how does the kidney for example not grow infinitely?

i get that whatever mechanism that does this is the one at fault in many (or all?) cases of cancer but i wanted to get some more detail on this.

i'll add that i have no real knowledge in biology but my wife does so feel free to go all sciency in your replies :)

thanks!

Amir

Posted by: blf | January 18, 2010 2:42 PM

Antiochus Epiphanes@234:

Something to add, re blf #186:

… [T]his sasquatch business is just lame. There really isn't anything to learn. Or so I thought. Thank you blf for making this thread a worthy read.

blf to ego, blf to ego, please return to base…

If you're trying to wrangle a place to crash in South France, you're doing a good job.

Thanks.

Posted by: Alan B | January 18, 2010 2:43 PM

#309 David Marjanović said:

Not that I understand why Alan B speaks of himself in the plural, though.

Explanations so far:

#311 Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM

Could have Alan B lost his precious?

#313 Jadehawk, OM

maybe he's including Ed?

It's the royal we, closely followed by the royal flush!

#309 David Marjanović said:

Not that I understand why Alan B speaks of himself in the plural, though.

Explanations so far:

#311 Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM

Could have Alan B lost his precious?

#313 Jadehawk, OM

maybe he's including Ed?

TRUE REASONS:

"Give us a job/quid/money for a Rolls Royce etc., mate" is a common cockney, Eastend of London, expression. Usually aimed at someone of a higher social standing in the hopes that the [higher] other will treat the person with kindness because they are just like them but fallen on hard times.

OR

It's the royal we(e), closely followed by the royal flush!

Posted by: Alan B | January 18, 2010 2:51 PM

Ignore previous post.
Oh dear, Oh dear! Not my day [Ed. But it's his fingers!] Shut up, Ed.

#309 David Marjanović said:

Not that I understand why Alan B speaks of himself in the plural, though.
Explanations so far:

#311 Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM

Could have Alan B lost his precious?
H'm. Lost his precious mind / marbles?

#313 Jadehawk, OM

maybe he's including Ed?

TRUE REASONS:

"Give us a job/quid/money for a Rolls Royce etc., mate" is a common cockney, Eastend of London, expression. Usually aimed at someone of a higher social standing in the hopes that the [higher] other will treat the person with kindness because they are just like them but fallen on hard times.

OR

It's the royal we(e), closely followed by the royal flush!

Posted by: Aratina Cage | January 18, 2010 2:55 PM

Very sniny, Sven! I get endless chuckles from the spat you have with the ECO over the anastomosing of The Thread.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | January 18, 2010 2:57 PM

It's the royal we(e), closely followed by the royal flush!

See the glory of the royal scam.

Posted by: SEF | January 18, 2010 3:19 PM

Then I'm going to guess the film's The Matrix; but I haven't seen it so I have no idea which pill allegedly did what or even that there was more than one pill and that it was a choice. The other pill references would be literature ones.

Posted by: Alan B | January 18, 2010 3:32 PM

#355 blf

We deny it ... don't we Ed.?
Ed. Ed. You can't leave me now ... Agh!!
I'm being taken over by the Pharyngulite Zombies©

No. It's not them. It's worse than that, Jim, it's ..., it's ..., it's the other Alan.

Will Alan B escape?
Will Ed. come to his rescue?? [Ed. Not a chance!]
Will "Share and Enjoy" ever be the same???

Does anyone care?
And the Universe said, "No!"

See our next exciting episode of "Alan B, Special Chemist" in "The Thread That Will Not Die!"

Or not if you can't be bothered!

Posted by: MetzO'Magic | January 18, 2010 3:48 PM

I've had personal encounters, close encounters, with 13 bears. Less than half ran away.

When you're speed dating, you've got to handle the big, hairy ones with kid gloves. If half of them are running away before you even get to talk to them, yer doin' it wrong. I reckon it could be the stare.

Posted by: David Marjanović | January 18, 2010 4:07 PM

Wow. 340 comments already, and already rank 9.2 in the "Top Posts" widget.

...So, I got an e-mail from a certain "Jadehawk ^_^" which informs me that photos from the 2009 dig in Krasiejów are online. I am indeed shown in at least two of them.

(I check my e-mail only once per day while at work, mainly to delete the spam. Now I'm at home and not limited to webmail. GMX doesn't delete anything that's not on my blacklist.)

Now, Jadehawk, is there a photo of you somewhere? Or should I not bother launching images.google.com...?

Carlie also found me – one of the participants in the dig was also present at the 5^th Symposium on Permo-Carboniferous Faunas and took a photo of me from behind. But beware! In that photo there's a very strange reflection on my sniny hair that looks like naked skin... like a rift between two continents... <headshake>

Bears are not humanoid enough (can't throw things or kidnap you)

Sounds like a good point.

Posted by: vanitas | January 18, 2010 4:16 PM

David
Krasiejów 2009 - picture of you with Jakub and Daniel.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | January 18, 2010 4:21 PM

So, I got an e-mail from a certain "Jadehawk ^_^" which informs me that photos from the 2009 dig in Krasiejów are online. I am indeed shown in at least two of them.

Now, Jadehawk, is there a photo of you somewhere? Or should I not bother launching images.google.com...?

also, "Silesaurus opolensis" is an awesome name. I shall have to visit that excavation site someday, since it seems only a few hours from where my dad lives

Posted by: Patricia, OM | January 18, 2010 4:27 PM

what do you do if it's small and flaccid?

Generally, I assume it's a priest, then point and laugh.

Posted by: eddie | January 18, 2010 4:58 PM

Understand I'm not an expert on breasts, pendulous or otherwise, but the idea that another great ape species would have the same kind of sexual selection as h sap sap while not having the same selection for hairlessness seems weird to me.

Posted by: eddie | January 18, 2010 5:16 PM

I've watched a bunch of the bigfoot movies on youtube and I now believe...
...it is Patricia's hairy-assed brother, Ed.

Posted by: eddie | January 18, 2010 5:24 PM

You wouldn't understand! You're just a cog in the socio-normative, oppressive machine.

Posted by: SteveV, Death's Pissant Haberdasher | January 18, 2010 5:37 PM

#207 SEF

Better late than never

http://www.finecheese.co.uk/cheese-wedding-cakes.html

Enjoy

Posted by: SEF | January 18, 2010 5:58 PM

@ SteveV #358:

Those aren't so much cakes as they are mere piles of cheeses with flowers on! :-D

Posted by: A. Noyd | January 18, 2010 6:02 PM

mythusmage (#359)

[blah blah blah blah]

Enough with the mental diarrhea. Fulfill my simple request from #135. Give evidence that anyone is actually saying* that "the lack of evidence means we can't go looking."

........................
*If you're not sure what I mean, refer to #150.

Posted by: mythusmage | January 18, 2010 6:06 PM

Now for some observations regarding Jesus of Nazareth.

1. Jesus existed.

2. He was born in the village of Nazareth in Galilee, birth date unknown.

3. His parents were Joseph and Mary (Yosif and Miriam if you must).

4. Joseph and Mary had premarital sex, the result of which was Jesus. (Yes, I am aware that the Jewish community of the time had rules against premarital sex, but people don't always follow the rules.)

5. It was a shotgun wedding. Mary's family confronted Joseph's family and they came to an agreement whereby Joseph agreed to wed the despoiled Mary.

6. After some years of unhappy marriage --- and a few more kids after Jesus --- the two divorced and Mary returned to her family for support. (This would go a long way towards explaining Jesus' antipathy to the institution of divorce.)

7. Jesus did think he was the Messiah. (He knew nothing of this Christ critter, which is a different thing than a Messiah.) Jesus was wrong.

8. During his vigil at Gethsemane he realized just how wrong he was, but decided to stay and face the music because he thought God demanded it of him.

9. He was crucified, but he did not die. There were people who actually survived crucifixion and went on to live for years. Crucifixion did not kill you quickly, it killed you slowly with the end coming by strangulation.

10. He awoke in his tomb, thinking he had been raised from the dead by God. Not knowing the true extent of his injuries he went gallivanting around talking to people and bleeding. Naturally he collapsed and died for real as he was walking with his followers discussing what they were to do next.

Note that there was no competent physician present at his crucifixion. Luke the Physician was hiding with the rest of Jesus' followers, it was his family and personal friends who attended. Besides, I'd hardly call a lying bastard like Luke a competent physician. (Compare Matthew's account of the Passion with Luke's sometime. Luke fibbed is the nicest thing I can say about what he did.)

11. Jesus did say he was going to return someday. Jesus really believed that. Jesus was wrong. Not lying, wrong. He assumed things that were not so, and was shown to be in error.

12. Finally, Jesus could be a jerk. To his friends and admirers he could be gracious and charming, but to his enemies he could be a royal asshole. So remember the next time you hear the phrase "Prince of Peace", remember that to people he didn't like Jesus of Nazareth could be a sarcastic bastard.

You know, if you think about it, with Jesus' visits to publicans and sinners and the spots they frequent, what was stopping him from schtupping a hooker or whore? Not being real people, sex with them wouldn't count.

And there you have my observations on Jesus of Nazareth.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | January 18, 2010 6:08 PM

MM, we don't give a shit what you think or believe. Right now you are showing yourself in a very, very bad light for any future discussions here. Your credibility is heading into negative numbers, like godbots and creobots. So, either cite the peer reviewed scientific literature, or shut the fuck up. Welcome to science.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | January 18, 2010 6:10 PM

And there you have my observations on Jesus of Nazareth.

Posted by: mythusmage | January 18, 2010 6:12 PM

When did ire and outrage become legitimate reasons to reject a proposition?

Posted by: mythusmage | January 18, 2010 6:15 PM

#366

Nerd,

In time the kidney stone will pass.

Posted by: Blind Squirrel FCD | January 18, 2010 6:20 PM

There were people who actually survived crucifixion and went on to live for years.

A much more parsimonious explanation, if we accept that a historical Jesus existed is that Jesus had a twin brother that the disciples dug out of some 0 century ale house, dried out and paraded around for a few days.

BS

Posted by: lose_the_woo | January 18, 2010 6:30 PM

Now for some observations regarding Jesus of Nazareth.

You think that those are observations? I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Posted by: RickR | January 18, 2010 6:32 PM

"This is wrong, and the man is a jerk."

Fixed for accuracy.

Posted by: SteveV, Death's Pissant Haberdasher | January 18, 2010 6:38 PM

Any chance of a link to the Cheese Shop Sketch?

Posted by: mythusmage | January 18, 2010 6:39 PM

#377

SteveV,

SEF impugned cheese? :rage: Why that cad, that bounder, that hamster! Impugn cheese? He may as well as declare the pizza unfit for human consumption!

Mere cheese indeed.

Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic). | January 18, 2010 6:44 PM

mythusmage, your perceived persecution doesn't make you into a Jesus.

People don't like you and your postings for very simple reasons.

You are not offering anything new and useful about Sasquatch. You are just rambling on about what you think, and you don't seem to think very well.

You are talking down to folks--don't do that--by telling them what and how to think--don't think that helps your case--like some sort of superior jerk. I am just trying to help you out, here, because you make me feel all maternal, you little fuzzy lumpkin, you, sweetikins.

You won't listen, read or shut the hell up.

You believe in Sasquatch, which pretty much makes you a crazy person. This is not a crazy person site, nor a believer site.

Most folks here see little probablity that Saquatch exists, and great probablity that everybody who has "evidence" is a hoaxer and that everyone who believes that evidence is making a mistake, and is probably not qualified to participate in an intellectual discussion.

Trolls, on the other hand, exist. At least the internet variety. You, mythusmage, are very probably a troll. You are certainly in the wrong place.

Posted by: David Marjanović | January 18, 2010 6:46 PM

I suspect that trying to coordinate that with my only visit to Europe this year (i.e. during the worldcup) would be impossible, since I can't just stay in Europe for several months.

It would just be two weeks. The FIFA World Cup® ends on... <wikipedia> July 11th; one such time slot should start around July 15th.

the label has your names.

"vanitas" isn't a name.

<think, think>

Dawid Mazurek? That kind of throwing Latin words around looks a bit like him. Sort of. And the two one-liners don't contradict that. Cześć, Bosmanie! <wave> :-)

Now for some observations regarding Jesus of Nazareth.

"Observations", or "Jesus of Nazareth"? :-)

The speculative scenario you unfold is entirely possible*, but there's no evidence for it whatsoever, and it's not even terribly parsimonious. I will therefore blithely ignore it.

* Except for one problem: how does one get out of that kind of tomb without several people rolling the stone away?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | January 18, 2010 6:50 PM

Even his Jebus plot is a repeat. Research. Keeps one from reinventing the wheel...

Posted by: David Marjanović | January 18, 2010 6:53 PM

What I see is people saying, "This is wrong, the man is a jerk."

<sigh>

Then look again.

Off-topic:

"I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road."
– Stephen Hawking

Posted by: SC OM | January 18, 2010 6:55 PM

"vanitas" isn't a name.

Huh? No, I meant that vanitas could have just read the names listed below the pic, like I did. (I have no idea - vanitas could know you, but one wouldn't have to to describe the picture that way. Were you going by the fact that vanitas referred to you by your first names? I'm confused.)

Posted by: mythusmage | January 18, 2010 6:56 PM

Here's something to be outraged by...

Pumping Autistic Children Full of an Industrial Chelator

Read the whole thing, and write to the FDA or your country's equivalent about this crime.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | January 18, 2010 7:33 PM

Walton have you been tested for PMS?

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | January 18, 2010 8:07 PM

....Oh, I get it.

:| about making a new Endless thread so soon, then. Apparently you can't use open Lesser Signs in emoticons here?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | January 18, 2010 8:22 PM

Apparently you can't use open Lesser Signs in emoticons here?

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | January 18, 2010 8:33 PM

Don't forget: Blessed are the cheesemakers
Cheese shop sketch
Pick your favorite version:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=cheese+shop+sketch&search_type=&aq=f

Posted by: Aratina Cage | January 18, 2010 8:37 PM

Sasquatch migrated to North America riding on invisible flying pink unicorns.

Santa's reindeer :: invisible flying pink unicorns

Santa's helpers :: Sasquatch

Santa :: Wild Uncle Bill with a .30-06

Posted by: llewelly | January 18, 2010 8:40 PM

Pharyngula has a serious cultural problem, due to this ingrained idea that tone and politeness do not matter.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | January 18, 2010 8:59 PM

In meatspace I'm generally a polite, soft-spoken, mannerly man even when I'm disagreeing with someone. On the intertubes I'm somewhat cruder, although I try to be polite when the person I'm addressing is making an honest effort to discuss rather than rant or proselytize.

In discussions on Pharyngula there are generally two things that set me off:

(1) The creotard who says "evilution is on its last legs and is only sustained by dogmatic fervor from atheists" probably believes it. The creotard rarely if ever will look at evidence to show this belief is wrong. Willful ignorance makes me rude, crude and socially unacceptable.

(b) I get quite annoyed by people who tell me what I think and why I think it. "Yer a atheist 'cause you hate gawd" will get scorn as a response.

Posted by: SC OM | January 18, 2010 9:09 PM

In meatspace I'm generally a polite, soft-spoken, mannerly man even when I'm disagreeing with someone. On the intertubes I'm somewhat cruder,

You don't say.

:)

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | January 18, 2010 10:09 PM

Over 18,435 comments in a thread Teh CO just opened last February? Yikes.

Posted by: Owlmirror | January 18, 2010 10:12 PM

PS: "I believe the truth always lies halfway between the most extreme claims."

Posted by: Owlmirror | January 18, 2010 10:45 PM

I cannot possibly be the only one here who regularly reads xkcd.

Posted by: mythusmage | January 18, 2010 10:50 PM

#408

Tis Himself,

What annoys me is being told how I must think. Outrage and ire are no way to get me to change my mind either.

BTW, I support your right to be a God denying, baby eating, Darwin adoring atheist.The lemur porn goes to far however.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | January 18, 2010 11:11 PM

cicely, JNOV came on here the other day and called himself/herself an asshat. That's one way to get over it. I'm aiming for Petite Poopyhead.

In other news: Haitians everywhere are united by faith according to CNN. This coverage bugs me. It's like seizing the opportunity to proselytize.

"People continue to be God's instruments," the pastor said, with the help of a Creole translator. "God will work through all of us to bring new life to Haiti."

Posted by: mythusmage | January 18, 2010 11:16 PM

Speaking of the Beast That Shall not be Named, here's a Beast That Shall not be Named video from NatGeoTV. The episode itself is supposed to air on the 24th.

(Haven't seen it myself, Safari keeps reloading the page, and I'm now waiting for Disk Utility to finished doing the checksum on my new harddrive, so Firefox is not available to me.)

Posted by: mythusmage | January 18, 2010 11:26 PM

News flash! Chupacabra discovered. Identified as Eddie's cousin, Milton. Milton now undergoing treatment for his advanced exzema.

Update: Milton's vampirism is proving resistant to treatment.

Posted by: consciousness razor | January 18, 2010 11:41 PM

Owlmirror:

I cannot possibly be the only one here who regularly reads xkcd.

I don't think that's the most parsimonious compromise, though. Obviously, the government only used half the amount of explosives necessary to take down both towers, and it was an unfortunate coincidence that at exactly the same time the terrorists crashed the planes into them.

Mythus magoo: your first "observation" that Jesus existed is not substantiated by anything. A character named "Jesus" was mentioned in the Bible, and that's all there is. You may as well be talking about Zeus or Poseidon. From there, it goes downhill.

Posted by: joshua.dittrich | January 18, 2010 11:50 PM

The BBC recently did an excellent program about chaos (in the mathematical meaning, not the colloquial). As stated at the beginning, the show is about the question "how did we get here?", and it nicely concludes that chaos theory and evolution quite cleanly explain how systems with simple rules will manifest incredible complexity in entirely unpredictable ways. It's something I expect many readers will enjoy, so I wanted to share it with you all.

I'm sorry if this isn't the most appropriate place for this, but there hasn't been a creationist thread in a while. Although, PZ could make a thread about this program...

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | January 18, 2010 11:54 PM

It would just be two weeks. The FIFA World Cup® ends on... July 11th; one such time slot should start around July 15th.

Posted by: Blind Squirrel FCD | January 19, 2010 12:00 AM

joshua.dittrich:

I'm sorry if this isn't the most appropriate place for this,

BS

Posted by: Rorschach | January 19, 2010 2:55 AM

If I had to venture a guess, I would say that MM has entered into a manic phase of his bipolar disorder.

And to jadehawk and David M, I have cut my Europe visit short and instead added a week of lavish decadence in Thailand to start the holiday off with, so I won't be around until June 27, and then the schedule will be pretty tight until July 11.

For you vomit fetishists :

Palin on Beck

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | January 19, 2010 3:21 AM

Having said that, the train from Cologne to Paris takes, what, 2 hours ? So not an issue really...:-)

Anyway, let me know if you can make enough free time to watch one of the games and have some beers with me. Hannover to Cologne isn't that horribly far, either :-)

Posted by: Bastion Of Sass | January 19, 2010 3:26 AM

Haven't had time to read all the comments in this thread. Hope this hasn't already been posted repeatedly.

Satan's reply to Pat Robertson.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | January 19, 2010 9:12 AM

The Astronomy Picture of the Day is interesting. It's a Martian landscape that looks surrealistic.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | January 19, 2010 10:59 AM

Yesterday I was helping a friend with his model railroad. He and I were detailing one section and he had a model of a man who was just perfect for the scene except it was looking in the wrong direction. So I put the model in a vise and was hacking off the head with a razor saw when our wives came in. The look on my wife's face when she saw what I was doing was, um, interesting.

Posted by: Focus | January 19, 2010 11:02 AM

#444

Wouldn't it have been easier to just turn the model around, so the man looks in the right direction?

Posted by: SEF | January 19, 2010 11:16 AM

Another link (with more numbers but also bonus spelling error).

Consider the case of a hypothetical person with rheumatoid arthritis who is one of those for whom other treatments won't work but this one will. They are soon going to be so badly disabled without it that they will no longer be able to support themselves (or any family) - quite apart from all the pain they'll be in. So it's going to be on their personal must-have list.

The £9K cost per year is about a third of the average gross income here (with a third already going on various taxes) - the sort of income a well educated but undervalued person might get. It's well over the minimum wage. So that cost would finish off most people's budgets. The stinking rich proportion of the populace wouldn't notice a problem of course. But I'm not sure whether anyone's private health care insurance here would cover it.

So how would that example compare with the US? Would US health insurance cover that sort of drug at all - or have a convenient loop-hole for never actually paying out for it? Would it be too much for most of the population to afford in their own right (assuming they can gain access to it privately somehow). NB this is leaving aside the issue that many people in the US wouldn't even be able to get as far as having the problem diagnosed in the first place because of the cost of that process being levied on the individual.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | January 19, 2010 11:26 AM

Wouldn't it have been easier to just turn the model around, so the man looks in the right direction?

No, because then the body would have been facing the wrong direction. I cut the head off, rotated it 90°, and glued it back on.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | January 19, 2010 11:35 AM

It seems like the analogy is stretched a bit too far to me, but it's an interesting article nonetheless: Bacteria Provide New Insights into Human Decision Making

Scientists studying how bacteria under stress collectively weigh and initiate different survival strategies say they have gained new insights into how humans make strategic decisions that affect their health, wealth and the fate of others in society.

Posted by: Miki Z | January 19, 2010 11:40 AM

Lynna,

Palin doesn't do irony, as that would be bowing to the patriarchal regime. No irony for her.

Also, no cookie, no cleany, and no foldy.

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | January 19, 2010 12:03 PM

Palin on Beck...

... Oh! Oh! I know this one! Pick me! Pick me!

(Ahem...)

What is 'slash most likely to be classified as a hazardous, export-controlled substance', Alex?

(/As to her concerns, I'm oh so terribly sympathetic, honest. It must be dreadfully disorienting, after eight years of having a dangerous, sociopathic, brain-damaged far right, manipulative, systematically deceptive, fear-mongering loon in the oval office, to be now stuck with this merely sporadically craven, middle right populist/opportunist.)

Posted by: David Marjanović | January 19, 2010 1:03 PM

Were you going by the fact that vanitas referred to you by your first names? I'm confused.

I haven't seen the photo in context, so I thought vanitas knows the people on the photo, and I was trying to ask vanitas who he/she/it/squid is.

David Marjanović, OM, are you the one kneeling down on the right hand side of a group photo linked to above?

Probably, if you call that kneeling, but… where's the link? I seem to have overlooked it in this fast-growing thread.

Anyway, remember I provided a fur sample.

Hmm, the for's is strong with this sentence.

:-)

Over 400 comments in a thread I just opened yesterday? Yikes.

Looks like Bigfoot and me are good conversation starters <trying to put arm around Chewbacca's shoulders, but failing to reach them>, even though documentation of me is slightly easier to procure.

(…And… so is lemur porn, apparently. Uh… not easier to procure! ARGH! It's apparently a good conversation starter!!! :-D )

hmmm.... that might actually be doable. I shall have to think about it :-)

You'll like it. Even if it rains the entire two weeks through (hah!) and turns to the site into a mud pit comparable to the one I cited near the end of the previous subthread, so we can't dig at all, you'll like it. I promise. I've been there 3 times already, I know what I'm talking about. :-)

Having said that, the train from Cologne to Paris takes, what, 2 hours ?

Probably a bit over three, but certainly not much more – it's all TGV now, and almost nonstop.

I should start asking today evening whether I should hold the thesis defense in Paris or in Vienna. It's currently scheduled for Vienna, but there they might not have any money to invite jury members from abroad. But then, I don't even have a jury yet.

you two are going to make me travel across half of Europe this summer, aren't you? :-p

Bug or feature? To discuss this eternal question, we have invited blah blah…

The Astronomy Picture of the Day is interesting. It's a Martian landscape that looks surrealistic.

Too cool.

Here's an abstract of a study which suggests that bats can passively absorb oxygen into their lungs.

Erm… that abstract says that during their torpor they don't ventilate their lungs much, but when they don't, they don't hold their breath (close the glottis) either, so fresh air diffuses in and stale out (even though it's not being moved). That has nothing to do with flying.

AFAIK, bat lungs are simply the extreme of the mammalian lung type, plus larger-than-usual amounts of hemoglobin, plus heat being dumped through the wings (birds do it through their respiratory system). In principle, a small amount of gas exchange must occur in the wings, but it probably doesn't make any difference in such a strenuous activity as flight.

Posted by: David Marjanović | January 19, 2010 1:13 PM

Probably a bit over three, but certainly not much more

Would you believe it. I tried to check, but http://www.voyages-sncf.com now crashes both Safari 1.3.2 ("quits unexpectedly") and Netscape 7.2 (page is loaded, then turns to white, and goes on loading forever). Stupid Apple, where you have to pay for the equivalent of Service Packs®.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | January 19, 2010 1:21 PM

Stupid Apple, where you have to pay for the equivalent of Service Packs®.

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | January 19, 2010 1:29 PM

So I put the model in a vise and was hacking off the head with a razor saw when our wives came in.

That poor helpless model! You ghoul! lol

More current affairs:

Cambodia (The Phnom Penh Post)- Christians claims that only they give charity. Buddhist are insulted by remarks.
Nepal (Towleroad)- LGBT persons are now protected by the constitution.
Portugal (Fridae)- gives LGBT the right to merry. I guess God should be sending his wrath to the Himalayas and the Iberian Peninsula now.
Russia (NHK)- People dips in ice cold water to celebrate Epiphany.
Germany (Tagesschau)- "Betriebsratsverseucht" ist das Unwort des Jahres 2009. Was ist "Betriebsratsverseucht"?
Es ist in kein Wörterbuch, das ich habe.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | January 19, 2010 1:34 PM

Well that gator story now means that I have been WOTI for years, arguing here and elsewhere that there must have been archosaurs with tidal lungs and airsacs. Nope. (Although I did recently back off from this suggestion, over at Tet Zoo somewhere, I think. Thanks to David M. for first jogging my thoughts in the right direction, btw.)

And nothing could make me happier--this study is so cool.

The press release linked, though, is maddening. Zero details on the physiology and instead a bunch of completely conjectural hand-waving about surviving the Permian mass extinction. Farmer does this all the time; she does very cool organismal work but then is always trying to spin a much much larger story of greater significance. As they say in baseball, stay within yourself!!!

Posted by: CJO | January 19, 2010 1:44 PM

And there you have my observations on Jesus of Nazareth.

And they provide even less insight than your tiresome ruminations on Bigfoot, if that's even possible.

Demythologizing the gospels is stupid. The accounts did not arise that way, by legendary accretion to stories about an actual historical figure. They are transparent fictions. The mythology is the whole point.

Posted by: SEF | January 19, 2010 1:53 PM

Enter the orang pendek.

But if that one's mythical, is there any cultural or other environmental reason why some groups of humans make up big hairy men to be afeared of while others make up small hairy men? Is it as simple as the availability of animals to be misidentified? Eg the US has lots of bears - hence the sasquatch is big too. Whereas Asia has a bunch of smaller primates - hence the orang pendek is small.

The UK doesn't have anything much at either end of the mythical hairy man spectrum. Fairies, pixies and leprechauns tend not to be portrayed as particularly hairy. Though some mermaid legends are of the hairy seal-like kind.

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | January 19, 2010 1:59 PM

Ich scheitere zum Akkusitiv und Dativ. lol

Posted by: Owlmirror | January 19, 2010 2:28 PM

Random questions about alligator lungs:

Do the results apply to any other crocodilians?

Are alligators considered particularly primitive among crocodilians?

Is there any evidence for flow-through lungs in other archosaur descendants (besides Aves, obviously)?

Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac) | January 19, 2010 2:33 PM

Blasphemous Lesbian Lemur porn! With bacon!

(Well, someone had to see the obvious next step....)

Posted by: Owlmirror | January 19, 2010 2:37 PM

Is there any evidence for flow-through lungs in other archosaur descendants (besides Aves, obviously)?

And theropods (at least tentatively).

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | January 19, 2010 2:41 PM

Along these lines, this is very cool if you can track down a copy:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/30161087

Posted by: blf | January 19, 2010 2:49 PM

Yikes! Don't get me started on the SCNF site http://www.voyages-sncf.com —it's one of those split-personality overworked but undercooked jobs: It either works reasonably well or fails spectacularly (changing minute-by-minute it seems), has lots of gee-whizz-bang rubbish whilst is noticeably short of useful features,† and gaahhh!!!1!

 †  Admittedly, my favourite example of a missing useful feature is (last I checked) now no longer missing: An ability to look at earlier train times when making a booking. It used to be the case you could look at later train times, but could not go backwards (or even back to where you started looking). Made it real fecking annoying to try and work out the best train(s) to book.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | January 19, 2010 2:59 PM

Oh NOES!!!! Demographic Winter!!! "Certain kinds of human beings [dramatic pause] are on their way to extinction", and it's all the feminists', environmentalists' and gays' fault!

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | January 19, 2010 4:55 PM

So much better than snow!

the only thing that's better than snow is snow on mountains. currently, I have neither :-(

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | January 19, 2010 5:05 PM

Normally I'm not a big fan of snow (at least the kind we tend to get in England, which tends to be weak and slushy, and often melts and then freezes over, causing you to slip every two seconds while walking). Plus, every time we get a sprinkling of snow in southern England (let alone weeks of snowfall, ice and freezing temperatures, as we had this winter) the entire transport system grinds to a halt.

And I also think the aesthetic value of snow is overrated, for us urban-dwellers. Yes, it looks pretty for a short time when everything is covered in a pristine white blanket. But in a city, it always ends up covered in mud, slush and tyre tracks within a day.

I will, however, admit that Jadehawk is right in one particular: snow on mountains is awesome. I'd like to live somewhere one day that has mountains.

Posted by: eddie | January 19, 2010 5:12 PM

On Coast now: Wow! That clam is 250yrs old!

Posted by: Lynna, OM | January 19, 2010 5:28 PM

Tying Light Into Knots

The remarkable feat of tying light in knots has been achieved by a team of physicists working at the universities of Bristol, Glasgow and Southampton, UK, reports a paper in Nature Physics this week. Understanding how to control light in this way has important implications for laser technology used in wide a range of industries.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | January 19, 2010 5:45 PM

Rorschach? Do you want to join, too, or have I misunderstood?

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | January 19, 2010 5:48 PM

We discussed this in November, 2009, on the "How not to end the scourge of HIV" thread.

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | January 19, 2010 5:54 PM

Where do people freak out over this?

I was at my university's dinning area when we all saw a quick flash and heard a large boom, followed by a bunch of student screaming and the other student giggling.

Posted by: SteveM | January 19, 2010 6:00 PM

in California, where anything that isn't perfect beach-weather is considered a catastrophe of biblical proportions, and every rain-cloud is subject to 24/7 "storm-watch" coverage on the news

As a recent transplant from New England to California (SF Bay area), this amuses me to no end. These people have no idea what bad weather is.

Posted by: David Marjanović | January 19, 2010 6:05 PM

Oh yeah, when I rewrote that comment from scratch (vox.com signed me out), I forgot to add the following to the end again:

Allons, enfants de la pa-triii-i-euh,
le jour de boire est arrivé!
[...]
Aux verres, citoyens,
buvons nos flacons,
buvons, buvons, qu'un vin bien pur
a-breeeeeu-veuh nos poumons !!!

causing you to slip every two seconds while walking

You need some training. Expect to slip. Start to slide deliberately. I never slip when I expect the ground to be unpredictable, and sliding along can be great fun!

so I think I'll send an e-mail.

Done.

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | January 19, 2010 6:10 PM

Heathen! infidel!

... Speak it. We must find this (spits vehemently) accursed pikachu and make them see the error of their ways!!!

(... counts exclamation marks, concludes that, clearly, there just aren't enough up there yet...)

!!!!!!

(/...in other news, in five days I will be in Whistler. My legs are getting all restless already. If anyone needs me, I'll be in the basement, standing on my board, with my hands over my tips and my eyes closed.)

Posted by: Lynna, OM | January 19, 2010 6:16 PM

Steve Benson gets in trouble for making fun of Pat Robertson. See cartoon at http://comics.com/steve_benson/2010-01-17/

[Steve Benson writes,] Got this stern reprimand from an individual who obviously missed or is ignoring Robertson's goofy assertion that God punished Haiti with an earthquake because they chose to join Satan's team as long as Satan would help them throw off French colonial rule:
     "Steve: God will have the last word for those who mock his anointed. Operation Blessing was the first functional relief organization on the ground in Haiti following the earth quake...not the U.N. or The Salvation Army nor The Red Cross. Furthermore you are ignorant of Haiti's historical spiritual strongholds as a Nation."
_____
My reply: "So, when Pat Robertson on the 700 Club last week declared that God had hit Haiti with a killer earthquake because 200 years ago the Haitians made a pact with the Devil to follow him if he would rid them of French colonial rule, Robertson was really saying that God killed thousands of Haitians under earthquake rubble because of 'Haiti's historical spiritual strongholds as a Nation’?
_____
Roberton's water carrier responded: "Steve: Your theology is backward. God saves & is moving through His people to rescue Haitians. Satan comes to kill, steal & destroy those who worship the devil. If you think that is funny you need a reality check Bro."
_____
My answer: "Yeah, right. Tell that to Robertson, who claimed that God punished Haiti with an earthquake because of their devil worship. He didn’t say anything about Satan creating the quake:
     "'Pat Robertson Says Haiti Paying for 'Pact to the Devil,' CNN, 13 January 2010, at: http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/01/13/haiti.pat.robertson/index.html ; to view the video of Robertson's claim of a fulfilled prophecy, see: 'Robertson's "true story": Haiti "swore a pact to the devil" to get "free from the French" and "ever since, they have been cursed,"' broadcast from Christian Broadcasting Network's 'The 700 Club,' 13 January 2010, at: http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201001130024)"

Posted by: Knockgoats | January 19, 2010 6:18 PM

Lynna@492,

Amazing! Thanks. Knot theory is one of the most fascinating branches of mathematics for an amateur - and contains many deep, unsolved problems. I have a popular book on the subject on my shelves. However it's not true, as the linked article says, that until now knot theory has been considered completely abstract. DNA strands can get knotted, and there are special enzymes, called topoisomerases, which knot and unknot it. In chemistry, synthesising knotted molecules is part of the study of isomers - different molecules made of the same combination of atoms. Knot theory also has deep connections with statistical mechanics.

On a lighter note, this reminds me of a British series of children's books about an eccentric scientist (oh well, at least not a mad or evil one) called Professor Branestawm. The Prof. wrote a letter to the Water Board (in the good old pre-Thatcher days, the UK had a municipally-owned water supply system), complaining that the water was coming out of his taps twisted. The Water Board wrote back saying they didn't mind that, but if it started coming out in knots, to please let them know!

Posted by: Lynna, OM | January 19, 2010 6:30 PM

Knockgoats @508:

However it's not true, as the linked article says, that until now knot theory has been considered completely abstract. DNA strands can get knotted, and there are special enzymes, called topoisomerases, which knot and unknot it. In chemistry, synthesising knotted molecules is part of the study of isomers - different molecules made of the same combination of atoms. Knot theory also has deep connections with statistical mechanics.

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | January 19, 2010 6:36 PM

Oh, fun! I've been there once, with a friend from Vancouver.

I seriously can't wait. I've been training on my local regular hill almost nightly, and doing cardio stuff and strength stuff at home in faint hopes of being halfway ready for that kind of drop and that much powder, and everyone I mention it to is warning me after this mountain, I will be forever spoiled for the East coast.

This is exactly the sort of up-to-no-goodery I'm talking about, AJ...

Yeah, I realize... But I figure to make me pay now, the sick-of-winter lynch mob is gonna have to come into the mountains to get me. I figure I'm safe for a bit, anyway...

(/Granted, they'll probably be waiting at the airport when I get back with a noose, too... But by then, fuck, who cares. I'll die happy.)

Posted by: Lynna, OM | January 19, 2010 6:40 PM

Is the LDS Church trying to buy a controlling interest in the Salt Lake Tribune? Jeeezus christ, I hope not. Sometimes the Salt Lake Tribune reporters are the only force keeping the LDS Church honest when it comes to Utah politics.
http://www.cityweekly.net/utah/blog-2955-lds-church-vs-city-weekly.html

Doesn't sound good though. The Tribune is bleeding money and the church has money. Shades of Rev. Moon buying the Washington Times.

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | January 19, 2010 6:48 PM

I'll take Mai Tais and palm trees any day.

See, I'm not agin' that, either, exactly... With enough iced drinks, no particular need to move through the air, and plenty of sufficiently cool water to swim in and/or sail on, even I can stand summer. Briefly, anyway.

But too much of the reality of summer for me is nothing like that. It mostly seems to be about stinking, overheated, humid cities, trying and failing to breathe ground level ozone and worse, and this awful sense of intellectual torpor. Seriously, I feel like I lose 20 points off the top of my IQ in the months around the summer solstice... Sometime ago, I came to the conclusion my body's cooling systems completely suck, and my CNS starts going on the fritz even when mildly overheated... I've always figured it's probably some nasty side effect of having spent the first three years of my life somewhere around 60 degrees North.

(/So summer's label sez, for me: Warning, take only with ice-cold beer and/or margaritas.)

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | January 19, 2010 7:20 PM

On a lighter note, this reminds me of a British series of children's books about an eccentric scientist (oh well, at least not a mad or evil one) called Professor Branestawm. The Prof. wrote a letter to the Water Board (in the good old pre-Thatcher days, the UK had a municipally-owned water supply system), complaining that the water was coming out of his taps twisted. The Water Board wrote back saying they didn't mind that, but if it started coming out in knots, to please let them know!

I remember those books! In primary school, I think I even dressed up as Professor Branestawm once (using a shower cap to create a high bald forehead, as I recall) for a "come dressed as your favourite book character" day.

I'm not going to rise to the bait about the Glorious People's Commissariat of Water Supply, of course...

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | January 19, 2010 7:45 PM

Of course, now water is privatised, you get to choose whether it twists or not - and if it does, which way - as it comes out of the tap ;-0

Unlike the good old days of socialised water, when government inspectors made sure everyone's water twisted to the left, like good socialist water. If you were suspected of twisting your water to the right, you'd be up before the Communist Fascist Death Panel before Sarah Palin could say "You betcha!"

(I'm not quite sure whether I'm making fun of socialists or conservatives here, or both. Bah. A plague on both their houses.)

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | January 19, 2010 7:55 PM

burining

to burin: chatting listlessly and aimlessly about random, trivial subjects.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | January 19, 2010 8:02 PM

Here's a good read!

Posted by: Knockgoats | January 19, 2010 8:29 PM

Why knit?
.
.
.
.
.
.
Why knot?

Nighty-night!

Posted by: Day | January 19, 2010 8:48 PM

So did David from Canada ever return, or did he end up being eaten as well?

Posted by: John Morales | January 19, 2010 9:10 PM

Day, David fC is one of a few who've appeared honestly inquisitive, asked questions, were directed to a wealth of resources, and never returned.

Make of that what you will...

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | January 19, 2010 9:28 PM

Waterspout over Tampa Bay.

Posted by: RickR | January 19, 2010 10:27 PM

On that note, I just got a call from the RNC, laying out the case that the Republicans™ are BACK!! and would I please be willing to donate $100.00 in the fight to defeat Obama's policies??

I let the caller run on and on with his script, thinking the time he wasted with me would be time he wouldn't have to proselytize to an actual Repubtard. When he had finished his spiel, I calmly informed him "Well, I'm a "big L liberal democrat socialist Muslim fairy, so.......no."

Then I hung up.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | January 20, 2010 12:00 AM

Just to join the discussion about lightning: here are a couple of storm and lightning photos my brother Leland took.
http://www.wildernessbooks.com/lee/lee/owhyee_river_lightning.html
http://www.wildernessbooks.com/lee/lee/natures_glory.html

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | January 20, 2010 12:10 AM

Those are very beautiful pictures Lynna. I like the one with the rainbow over the field. I reminds me of the time I say a tripple rainbow.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | January 20, 2010 12:28 AM

Those are very beautiful pictures Lynna. I like the one with the rainbow over the field. I reminds me of the time I say a tripple rainbow.

Reflector of the Light of God

Posted by: Miki Z | January 20, 2010 12:34 AM

Growing up in Alaska, double rainbows, circular rainbows, and rainbows in the middle of the night were not all that uncommon (although still very cool). I don't think I've ever seen a triple, though.

Posted by: Owlmirror | January 20, 2010 12:43 AM

@Sven and David M.: Thanks for the archosaur metabolism/palaeo xrefs.

Possibly relevant regarding knots:

  http://fold.it

Posted by: Miki Z | January 20, 2010 1:11 AM

He was convicted of statutory rape, forcible rape, or being gay and handicapped?

Posted by: Blind Squirrel FCD | January 20, 2010 1:15 AM

Third and forth order rainbow. Very rare.

BS

Posted by: mythusmage | January 20, 2010 1:40 AM

#282

David (Also Sven, but I've lost his comment on the Yowie (I do things like that)),

There are reports of finding sasquatch hair and feces. I haven't been able to check them out, and while there are reports on DNA testing etc., write ups in the scientific literature aren't there as far as I can find.

The stories have it that the hair and fecal samples contain genetic material that is not human, not even bear. What it is, according to the tales, is primate, but not any species currently known.

On a related note there was a report our of Calgary, Alberta Canada wherein a pair of young men out in a rural area heard a noise late at night. It being over cast, and them out in the boonies, the night was very dark, and our investigators forgot to take a light. So there they were, flailing about unable to see anything clearly.

They saw something large, got excited, and decided it had to be a sasquatch. But they weren't able to catch it, though they did manage to get a few, short hairs.

The hairs they managed to get a local professor to test. According to the test our intrepid souls had discovered, the bison. Last I heard they still insist they had seen a sasquatch.

As for the yowie, which Sven asked about, let us start with the Wallace line. A line between two faunas; the South East Asian to the west, and the Australian to the east. In the one you have primates. In the other you have tree kangaroos.

There are a few animals shared between the two faunas. Birds for example, and bats (I think). Also humans, dogs, and some rodents. These last animals that could reach Australia from South-East Asia via boats, or by hitching a ride from those with the tech.

But what about yowies? How did they get to Australia, when they had no boats, and apparently never hitched a ride with the humans. And keep in mind that Australia broke off from Africa a long time before apes evolved.

The yowie, from what I can tell, is that the yowie is an example of Aussie humor, only that.

Posted by: boygenius | January 20, 2010 1:51 AM

mythicalmage:

There are reports of finding sasquatch hair and feces. I haven't been able to check them out, and while there are reports on DNA testing etc., write ups in the scientific literature aren't there as far as I can find.

The stories have it that the hair and fecal samples contain genetic material that is not human, not even bear. What it is, according to the tales, is primate, but not any species currently known.

'Nuff said. Please?

Posted by: mythusmage | January 20, 2010 1:56 AM

#436

Rohrsharch,

Never ascribe to bi-polar disorder what can adequately be explained by Aspergers.

Posted by: mythusmage | January 20, 2010 2:23 AM

#555

Boygenius,

What strange compulsion forces you to read me?

And since I'm writing...

On David Marjanovic's Macintosh

Are you barred from upgrading the OS on your Mac? If not then I recommend getting a copy of either Leopard or Snow Leopard.

On the Orang Pendak

The first thing to note here is that the orang pendak is taken more seriously than other cyptid apes. Something to do with the relative lack of fakes and hoaxes where evidence is concerned, and the relative lack of a hostile reaction from scientist (might be because assholes and jerks haven't produced all that much in the way of fakes related to it).

Then again, the orang utan turns out to be more bipedal than any other great ape with the exception of humans. Forget where, but I think in National Geographic there is an article on the animal that points that out.

So the orang pendak may be a subspecies of orang utan, or even just a population of one of the two established subspecies. Considering how long the species has been around, and the varied territory it lives in, it would seem there's been some evolving going on.

Posted by: mythusmage | January 20, 2010 2:34 AM

#555

John Morales,

Where's the evidence? Did they take the ferry from Jakarta?

And why are you blathering on about this when people have asked you to stop? I swear, you show all the signs of being bi-circular. I mean, when are you going to provide proof that Vishnu sleeps at the very center of reality, and all of reality is but the product of his dreaming? That is, after all, really what you're talking about, isn't it?

I mean, why should we take seriously anybody who believes in some cosmic vatch with an esoteric taste in halleucinogenics?

(Yowies = Vishnu, a simple equation!)

(Vatch: cf The Witches of Karres)

Posted by: A. Noyd | January 20, 2010 3:21 AM

@ mythusmage

Sooooo, have you found me a quote or two of people saying anything like "the lack of evidence means we can't go looking" or are you ready to admit you've imagined this anti-sasquatch prejudice we're supposed to be feeling? This should be so easy; you don't have to step outside the blog. How do you hope to change our minds on the beastie itself if you can't even produce a single quote to show us we're being tripped up by our "inner creationist"?

On the other hand, here are your own words: "[T]oo many people have an emotional investment in sasquatch being a lie. ... You have become afraid to admit to error, you and many more besides."

Which I originally compared to those of an actual creationist and can now compare to the words of a paranoid lunatic confused about science over on Respectful Insolence: "It boils down to this - if you entertain the thought that vaccines are bad and I've been grossly lied to about the benefits and risks then it EXPLODES the world you believe in. And most people don't want to go there."

See the theme here? Doesn't it worry you?

Now get to work. Show us what we've said that makes you think we're sasquatch deniers too invested in our sasquatch-free worldview to confront the "evidence" with the proper level of reverence. Slaughter us with our own words. If you can't, then admit you made a mistake, shut the fuck up, and try to learn enough about science and skepticism that you stop sounding like a creationist or a vaccine denying conspiracy theorist.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | January 20, 2010 5:19 AM

It can often seem futile to argue with believers. But there is evidence minds can be changed by atheist arguments. Next time you find yourself wondering if anyone's mind will be changed by your arguing with a theist, come back, and read the paper I have written about. Do not give up hope. Minds can be changed.

Did you need a paper to tell you that? I'm the living proof; my de-conversion occurred while I've been commenting here, and I haven't been quiet about it.

Admittedly, it's not as simple as "Pharyngula changed my mind". I already had considerable doubts before I ever started commenting here, and was on a gradual road towards non-belief. But it certainly accelerated the process.

I would also add that I don't think it's particularly worthwhile, in and of itself, to "evangelise" for atheism. It is worthwhile to try and convert people to a pro-science worldview, and to campaign on important issues like gay rights, proper science teaching in schools, and secularism. But it isn't necessary for everyone to be an atheist in order to support these things. It's IMO far more worthwhile to try and persuade conservative/fundamentalist believers to convert to a more liberal and flexible form of religion, than to try and convert relatively moderate believers (as I used to be) to atheism. In the end, atheism isn't a religion; it's a simple state of not believing in any gods. And, self-evidently, the non-existent gods don't care whether people believe in them or not. What I care about is the actual effect of people's beliefs; and conservative/fundamentalist religion is a million times more harmful to the world than moderate religion.

Posted by: Rorschach | January 20, 2010 5:52 AM

"Study" had 106 participants, who were Uni students, so had some intelligence presumably, hardly representative of the general population.

Interesting, in a way, but not more then that.

I would also add that I don't think it's particularly worthwhile, in and of itself, to "evangelise" for atheism

Walton, stay away from the rwandan coffee, I don't think it agrees with you !
Who evangelises for atheism ? All people point out, here, or in the public sphere, is the shortcomings of religion, noone is running around yelling "join the non-stamp-collecting society" !

Posted by: SEF | January 20, 2010 6:22 AM

Off-topic (!):

Why men use prostitutes. US readers need to bear in mind that political definitions differ in the UK and that far fewer UK people attend religious services overall (so you can't directly compare those sorts of things with your own experience but would instead need to see how they relate to the actual local population norms).

From the PDF, an interesting parallel:

Of the men studied, 44% reported that their first use of women in prostitution occurred when they were below the age of 21. ... between 50-75% of women entered prostitution before they were 18

It's a shame they don't have figures for the same ages of each. It looks as though youth is a big factor on both sides. It's far easier to trap females into prostitution when young (no options, poor self-image) and also somewhat easier to convince males it's an OK thing if they get inducted into that culture when young. But the males reported also easily adopting the habits of other males and other places where it's regarded as OK (and tended to down-play the significance of the fact that the women were coerced - and from how young an age that had been for most).

Posted by: negentropyeater | January 20, 2010 6:28 AM

Additionally - comments claiming the minds of believers cannot be changed are sometimes made here, and I thought the paper in question provided a new way to argue against those claims.

Seems to me the claim that is more often made here is that the minds of a certain type of believers cannot be changed. Those whose delusions completely incapacitate them of the simplest form of critical reasoning and evidence based thought. That paper doesn't provide a way to argue against this claim.

Posted by: SEF | January 20, 2010 6:48 AM

Seems to me the claim that is more often made here is that the minds of a certain type of believers cannot be changed.

Indeed, there's more an expectation of a huge pool of mediocrity, of moderate religionists, of cowardly potential atheists and other assorted fence-sitters who could conceivably be reached with sufficient remedial education and unremitting application of reason.

The problem being that, even though this mediocrity can individually be pinned down into acknowledging that they don't really believe much of their religion (and don't really know much about reality nor even about what they pretend to know about religion!), it's debatable whether they're worth having on side. They're liable to want to maintain their comfortable cover within society and to revert to their normal non-thinking habits - or even to be convinced of the reverse point of view the next moment they encounter another charismatic religiot.

It's hard to civilise their minds in the first place but also hard to get them to retain and maintain that level of civilisation (ie as active mental processes). The ones who were capable of it (ie sufficiently intellectually honest and brave) would already have obtained it for themselves.

Obviously it's important to try and stop the fundies claiming the mediocrity as their own; but the average dishonest, lazy, cowardly, unthinking human is not a great asset in its own right for the truth-seeking (ie atheism and science) side.

Posted by: Knockgoats | January 20, 2010 7:31 AM

llewelly,

Thanks for that reference - interesting. However, I'd strongly criticise a couple of aspects:
1) The first four of the six questions of the self-report questionnaire assume that the subject is religious:
“My personal religious beliefs are very important
to me”,
“My religion or faith is an important part of my identity”,
“If someone
wanted to understand who I am as a person, my religion or faith would be
very important in that”,
“I believe strongly in the teachings of my religion or faith”
2) The r-values for correlation between self-report and implicit measures are quite low, and many statisticians would say r is not a robust measure anyway.

Posted by: SEF | January 20, 2010 8:11 AM

Pretty geology - but only allowed to remain that way because of its lack of mineral value!

Posted by: Aratina Cage | January 20, 2010 9:04 AM

Growing up in Alaska... -Miki Z

Posted by: Miki Z | January 20, 2010 9:31 AM

This happens more than you would believe, Sven. I've got proofs of P vs. NP and the Hodge Conjecture. I just keep them secret to keep people guessing. I'll release them when it stops being funny.

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | January 20, 2010 9:39 AM

...the average dishonest, lazy, cowardly, unthinking human is not a great asset in its own right for the truth-seeking (ie atheism and science) side...

I know there's a larger context to this statement, and you do later go to saying that, regardless, you do want to keep these people away from religion anyway. And this I'd agree with, regardless.

I'd also add, however, that assuming (if anyone is) even said segment of the population is unchangeable would be unreasonably pessimistic.

My view is: people are naturally curious, at the very least. There's an awful lot of ways of subverting that curiosity, an awful lot of ways of distracting yourself with minutiae and trivia--burning off brain cycles on rote learning, computer solitaire and baseball scores--and apathy of various kinds adding up to undue tolerance of incredible batshit unreason can often seem just as frustrating as that unreason...

But people, in my experience, are also easily fascinated with reality, in all its complexity and beauty, too. Religion, in my mind, must actively work to suppress and subvert that to survive.

I've often suspected this is part of why religious services are held weekly--or even more frequently--to steer the mind actively in the directions wanted, away from those not wanted, to keep that creed echoing through the neurons so they don't get busy with something that might undermine it.

As to why, I dunno. I wouldn't call myself so much an optimist at all, but I've talked with a lot of segments of society, for various reasons, over the years--partly from some years as a reporter, partly from having been through a few career changes, partly from a few hobbies that seem to attract quite a cross-section, and I'm the garrulous type, in person--give me five minutes in an environment I'm not shouting to talk in, and I'll talk. And in my admittedly limited experience, there's an awful lot of people who seem to know squat about anything who want to know more about everything. I've talked to people about stellar evolution on chairlifts, and had them keep asking for more, not nodding off.

In my less charitable moments, I sometimes think society actually does it, in a sense, deliberately: tries to keep some people dumb, for various reasons. They want to know, they want to learn, they like to flex those (relatively) big, H. sapiens brains, given half a chance... But there's so much telling them: don't. Get lazy. Knowing, understanding, thinking too deeply, too rigourously, this isn't done... Advertising campaigns that lean on emotive, empty appeals and deliberately irrational associations between sex and whatever telling them that whatever you want to associate, for whichever reason, that's all good...

So, more briefly, I'd say: just because someone looks a little lazy, a little apathetic, don't count them out yet. People like to think. Sometimes, tho', they really only feel comfortable discovering how much they like doing so when they think certain influences--peers, priests, and family--aren't looking.

Then, of course, you have to get to the next phases: past curious through straightened out enough by where that curiosity leads to use their brain with some effectiveness, through to brave enough to express that aspect of themselves more publicly... But even getting to that second stage, I'd say it's a good thing, in the long run... And they don't even have to be brave enough to shout anything from the rooftops, either... So long as they're not also actively teaching their children the bullshit they themselves used to believe, that, too, is one hell of a victory.

I'm one of those who believes there will probably always be some degree of religiosity around much as a gardener expects there will always be weeds--and even if we were somehow to stamp out every old superstition tomorrow, there'd still be some annoying new ones next week--but I also do not hold to the notion there's really anyone who absolutely cannot shake off the older dogmas, and start really thinking for themselves, if they are given a good enough reason to do so, and the space to do so. It is no contradiction--thinking in terms of, say, epidemiology.

So, more to the point: there is so much that is possible just through speaking up, just through educating, just through getting that spark of curiosity started, however you do so.

Posted by: David Marjanović | January 20, 2010 9:53 AM

like this, for example.

Awesome!!!

Waterspout over Tampa Bay.

If that thing comes too close… :-S

http://www.wildernessbooks.com/lee/lee/owhyee_river_lightning.html

Almost three-dimensional.

http://www.wildernessbooks.com/lee/lee/natures_glory.html

Worthy of Terry Pratchett!

I saw a triple rainbow once and double ones occasionally.

There are a few animals shared between the two faunas. Birds for example, and bats (I think).

Wallace actually worked on birds when he discovered the Wallace Line between Bali and Lombok. Of course, some bird species don't care – there are even globally distributed ones –, but most do.

Are you barred from upgrading the OS on your Mac?

I'd have to buy it myself, which is ridiculous and way too expensive.

Posted by: Aratina Cage | January 20, 2010 10:20 AM

Miki Z #581, I think growing up there qualifies you as an Alaskan. :) I never really got to stay long in Fairbanks over the summer and so I feel I have missed out on much of the grandeur of that city (like the midnight rainbows), but it is a hard place to go to and not take away some special memories. I was able to see the Northern Lights there several times in the dead of winter and one of those times I was mesmerized by what looked like a giant hand playing Liszt on the piano.

And in #579 you mentioned a quote from a Ufologist:

I know things. People laugh at me, but I know things, and I deserve a little respect for that.

Posted by: David Marjanović | January 20, 2010 10:50 AM

I want to bite on something. Hard (so, not Jadehawk's neck). First I hit the keyboard somehow, so a cascade of random acts were triggered, which included submitting the comment. Naturally, I tried to interrupt that, but, as always, it didn't work.

Then, while trying to see the page with the Hodge Conjecture, I pressed an extra key and made the bookmarks bar show up. I tried to get rid of it by… showing all bookmarks (under the silly assumption that this was turned on and had to be turned off). Did Safari show me all bookmarks (whatever that actually means)? No. It crashed. Now I have to write the entire rest of my comment from scratch. I'm supposed to work here!!!

Fortunately it isn't much anymore.

The Dawkins passage used appears to be The "know-nothings", the "know-alls", and the "no-contests", which appeared in The Nullifidian, December 1994 .

Unfortunately, at the link you give, it's very sloppily retyped.

Imagine (if necessary) yourself a molecular biologist.

:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D

BLAST the resulting sequence.

…where BLAST means this.

"The Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (BLAST) finds regions of local similarity between sequences. The program compares nucleotide or protein sequences to sequence databases [ = GenBank] and calculates the statistical significance of matches. BLAST can be used to infer functional and evolutionary relationships between sequences as well as help identify members of gene families."

The footprint data was interesting, in that the alleged BF print was deeper than a hoofprint of a 1,200-1300 pound horse.

…Ouch.

I was able to see the Northern Lights there several times in the dead of winter and one of those times I was mesmerized by what looked like a giant hand playing Liszt on the piano.

~:-| How do you tell it was Liszt?

Posted by: Miki Z | January 20, 2010 11:07 AM

~:-| How do you tell it was Liszt?

The best way to view the northern lights is to lie outdoors in the snow. The lights may last for a few hours, and if you lie there until they're over, you'll probably realize you're suddenly feeling Liszt-less.

The lights are amazing, sometimes more than others. I remember in particular a night when they were a ribbon of purple and white light snapping audibly back and forth across the sky, bright enough to tint the snow purple.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | January 20, 2010 11:21 AM

SEF @571

If the large mass of mediocrity are generally held away from flocking with the religious nutters (both the dangerously insane and the criminally manipulative) and giving them protective cover, then those religious nutters can more properly be seen for the extremists and conmen that they are. So the big flock of sheeple will then be even more discouraged from hanging out with the rabid dogs and voracious wolves - despite the unlikelihood of the sheeple suddenly becoming sensible in their own right.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | January 20, 2010 11:28 AM

This is cool: experimental evidence for the evolution of "3-bears" DNA polymerase: both too much and too little error (mutation) is disadvantageous.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | January 20, 2010 11:53 AM

Prop. 8 puts Paramount board member on hold is the title of an article in the San Francisco Chronicle. Oh, look, mormons are being persecuted for called to account for their support of Prop 8 ... again.

A $26,000 contribution to the initiative that banned same-sex marriage in California appears to have cost a 96-year-old former Mormon temple president his seat on the board that oversees Oakland's historic Paramount Theatre.
     Amid rising criticism from the gay community, Mayor Ron Dellums said Tuesday that he was putting on hold the reappointment of Lorenzo Hoopes, most likely signaling an end to Hoopes' 30-plus years on the Paramount board.
     "The community is asking us to reconsider, and that is what we are going to do," mayoral spokesman Paul Rose said.
     Hoopes, a past president of the Mormon temple in Oakland as well as a former Safeway executive, has been on the Paramount board since before the downtown theater was restored in the early 1970s....
     Mormon church members contributed an estimated $20 million to the Proposition 8 campaign. Hoopes, who supports civil unions for gays but not marriage, said his support for the 2008 initiative - and the contribution he made - was a personal matter.

Posted by: Blind Squirrel FCD | January 20, 2010 12:16 PM

Third and forth order rainbow. Very rare.

Cool, but not rare at all. Problem is that to see them, you have to be looking right at the sun.

BS

Posted by: SEF | January 20, 2010 12:57 PM

I have on 2 separate occasions, seen naked eye sunspots.

And now you go by the soubriquet "Blind Squirrel".

Posted by: Blind Squirrel FCD | January 20, 2010 1:15 PM

SEF: I didn't even make the connection when I posted! Actually,the reason naked eye sunspots are rarely observed is because a cirrostratus haze of the correct density must be present to make it safe.
The first time I noticed the phenomena was in high school. I went down the street pulling people out of cafes and making them look. "Do you realize what this would have meant to the trial of Galileo if this had occurred previous to his trial?"
No they didn't and they returned, unimpressed, to their coffee. This was the first time I realized that I was "not like the others."
Sven: as long as we are pulling techs on one another the third and forth order rainbows occur at 45.5 degrees from the sun and do not require looking directly at it. It helps to mask the sun with a building, watertower etc.

BS

Posted by: David Marjanović | January 20, 2010 1:26 PM

and if you lie there until they're over, you'll probably realize you're suddenly feeling Liszt-less.

:-D :-D :-D

I'll watch the videos later.