The old man would be 199 years old today, so biologists and other science-supporting people are celebrating all around the world. Even in Morris.
I'm actually giving two lectures today. The first is a fortunate coincidence: I'm teaching an introductory biology course that emphasizes the history and philosophy of science, and today just happens to line up with my coverage of the late 19th century, and especially Darwin … so the freshman get a mini-biography of Charles Darwin. I emphasize something I think many of them can relate to, that Darwin was a young man once, who went off to college uncertain about what he was going to do with his life, and that the voyage of the Beagle was an event that changed his life. We're so used to seeing Darwin portrayed as an old man, but he was 22 when he set sail.
The second lecture is a public lecture sponsored by our biology club tonight, at 7:00, in 1020 Science. Charles Darwin's Origin is 149 years old this year, and although it is a very good book and well worth reading for the historical context and as an outline of the beginnings of a science, it is, well, 149 years old. There's much more to evolutionary biology than Darwin. My talk is titled "Evo-Devo: the future of biology?", and I'm going to be discussing new perspectives on evolution, why I think development is an essential component of our understanding of how organisms evolve, and giving several specific examples.
If you can't make it to Morris tonight, though, that's OK. This is a preliminary version of a keynote lecture I'll be giving at GECCO, the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, on 12-16 July in Atlanta, so you could always sign up for that.
- Log in to post comments
This is one of those days I'm really sad to be at a place with no biology degree. There will be maybe three of us wishing each other a happy Darwin Day, yearning for the festivities of larger campuses.
The University of Edinburgh is certainly not celebrating it, I assume they just don't know about it. We have a major science-based schools here too so it's a shame that nothing has been arranged. Ah well, I've wished everyone in the lab Happy Darwin Day, and bought some cake from the nice cake shop up the road. Wild.
Happy Darwin Day indeed.
The Guardian newspaper has a superb series of articles on the 'Origin' including extracts, commentaries and dedications. Well worth browsing.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/darwinbicentenary
Happy Darwin Day everyone!
I also find it sad that my school (the University of Ottawa) likely has nothing planned - not even a note on their webpage I see! I'm sure that when I wish my labmates a happy Darwin Day they will look at me in total bewilderment... so many close-minded young scientists!
Today is also the 199th birthday of Abraham Lincoln, who famously said something about being unable to fool all of the people all of the time, a proposition that has yet to discourage the creationists at the Discovery Institute or Answers in Genesis.
maxi - Why do you think that is? I am interested, as my daughter has applied to study abroad at Edinburgh...
J-Dog: it's partly because we Southerners have stolen one of their evolutionary biologists to come to Darwin's Birthday Party in London.
(What's your daughter going to study? I did Genetics at Edinburgh and loved it.)
Another thing that most of our undergrads can relate to: in his autobiography, Darwin write how dissolute his life was at Cambridge, drinking, carrousing, and gambling. Darwin played a lot of Van John, an Anglicization of Vingt Une or 21. Yep, ol' Charlie was a blackjack player! Spending a bit of time at the tables myself, I've often wondered if his card playing wasn't the real basis for natural selection. Nothing give you a better example of the effects of small changes over time than slowly winning (or losing, if you don't get out in time) a large sum with minimum bets.
By the way, I asked my Nature of Science class of 21 students yesterday whose birthday it was today. *I wasn't surprised that no one knew it was Darwin's, but none of them even knew it was Lincoln's. Ahh, the ignorance of multiculturarity!
I happen to have on my Darwin t-shirt here at work. I'm not even going to bother trying to explain any of it to my co-workers. I work in a machine shop in Phoenix. It's possible the particulars of Evo-Devo might be lost on a few of them. The guy I share an office with saw my shirt and just laughed. At least he gets it, but then I did tell him I planned on wearing it today.
Happy birthday, Chuck.
(º)(º)
Vivan las tetas.
Viva La Darwin Day!
Viva L'Evolution!
Happy Birthday Darwin
You're keynoting at GECCO? Now I'm definitely going to go!
J-Dog:
What is your daughter going to study? I will second MissPrism's recommendation, Eddy is a top place! Perfect for students. Plus it has a castle which fulfills my criterion for a Good Place to Live.
I say the university isn't celebrating, that is only because I have not received any emails in my school inbox for any lectures, nor is there anything posted on the intranet. However, I may be missing out on the whole picture, as I work in the veterinary school. The schools of biology/zoology/medicine might be doing something and I would not know about it.
so what's so great about darwin, who spawned a religious movement that claims only populations evolve via natural selection....when in reality, individuals generate their own adaptive evolutionary modifications?: Horizontal gene transfer, epigenetic modifications, nonrandom mutation, etc....all of which can be heritable. The Darwinian ship has giant holes all in it. There is no way selection can responsible for the prolification of new traits in a population if the individuals are non-randomly generating them themselves and passing them on.
The joke is on you people who've been tricked by the likes of Dr. Myers and company, who've laughably replaced actual science (the study of organisms as they interact with their environment) with science-fiction (the study of isolated genes, as if they act independently).
How does it feel to have the truth furiously jabbed in your crotch?
I battle bearfoot
you are riding on a window
the quieting night
ghost of a theory
riddle us this
keep on waiting
on goes the gong
the never-ending song
the never-ending song
somehow, somehow the truth is evading
somehow, somewhere the truth is explaining
embrace life like a baby
in the beauty we find a diamond
it's hidden like a misfit
viva la evolution
somewhere someone the question transpires
so there's a song for every occasion
under our spells playing creators
there's a rainbow of frustration
embrace life like a baby
in the beauty we find a diamond
it's hidden like a misfit
viva la evolution
embrace life like a baby
viva la evolution
it's hidden like a misfit
in the beauty we find a diamond
viva la evolution...
"The University of Edinburgh is certainly not celebrating it, I assume they just don't know about it. We have a major science-based schools here too so it's a shame that nothing has been arranged. Ah well, I've wished everyone in the lab Happy Darwin Day, and bought some cake from the nice cake shop up the road. Wild."
Could it be that the University of Edinburgh has a long memory ?
After all Darwin did study medicine there for a year before dropping out to study natural philosophy at Cambridge. It seems he could not stand the sight of blood.
Ahhh Stan, you really are a sad pathetic little man aren't you. Oh well, better you than me.
Happy Darwin Day to all!
How sad that you're in no position to answer this question, Mr. Empty Intellectual Nutsack.
So next year is the bicentennial of both Lincoln and Darwin, and the sesquicentennial of Origin? We should start making some plans right now.
Happy Darwin Day to you all from his home turf, and thanks for all the support from scibloggers this year.
It's such a great day I merely smiled at stan's eloquence: 'the Darwinian ship has giant holes all in it'.
They're not that big, and they're called gunports, stan.
Check out the strange story of Darwin's crabs at:
http://www.ox.ac.uk/scienceblog
what's hilarious about Darwin is this: he was so convinced that the finches proved his theory of evolution, but little did he know that the finches did not change in an "evolutionary" (aka genetic) way.....there is no change in the sequence of finch dna to make a finch-beak adaptively longer or stronger. Darwin was simply wrong: the physiological changes we see in the field today, which have long been dubbed "evolutionary" by desperate evos, are actually just adaptive, non-genetic traits self-generated by individual developing bird embryos. Signals from the outside get transmitted through the mother bird to her offspring via hormones, which go about altering morphology in an adaptive way. Too bad, so sad.
I'm still coming to grips here... I'm trying to figure out how evolution would work without natural selection. Without a mechanism to differentiate the usefulness of adaptations it seems to me that we end up in a creationist world where things "just happen" and where evolution really is just a random process.
Whats hilarious is that you are suggesting Darwin knew anything about genetics and that you are equating genetics and evolution which makes no sense whatsoever.
check it out, PJ.......there is no "evolution" with the crab thing ---- the crabs' claws are simply exhibiting a plastic response to a changing environment. Crabs that consume diets of hard shells are likely to develop larger, more powerful claws. No evolution....just adaptive change among indiviudals.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;264/5159/710
"Crabs grown experimentally on fully shelled prey developed larger and stronger claws than those raised on nutritionally equivalent unshelled prey. When one claw was immobilized, claws also became asymmetrical. These use-induced changes differ from skeletal remodelling in vertebrates and many invertebrates because changes in the rigid exoskeleton can occur only after molting, and claw muscle mass must be reduced substantially before the molt. Such short-term adaptive responses to environmental stimuli, if heritable, could yield long-term evolutionary changes in claw size and, if combined with behavioral biases toward one side (handedness), could also promote the evolution of claw dimorphism."
it's the same with Gould's snails --- which is ironically one of his few examples of gradual evolution.....yet it is nothing of the sort! lol.....darwinian evolution is a complete and total failure to describe reality.
Ah, no, dumbass, they result from heritable changes in the regulation of the gene for bmp4.
Some ignorant troll said:
"Darwin was simply wrong: the physiological changes we see in the field today, which have long been dubbed "evolutionary" by desperate evos, are actually just adaptive, non-genetic traits self-generated by individual developing bird embryos."
So since you have all the answers, what the hell is an adaptive, non-genetic trait and how is it "self generated" by an "embryo"?
Signals from the outside get transmitted through the mother bird to her offspring via hormones, which go about altering morphology in an adaptive way. Too bad, so sad."
How are hormones made by a living organism? (Hint: not non-genetic.)
I suggest that for your Darwin Day activity you should go read a book about genetics, then read about how Darwin actually developed his theories, then think about the wrongness of your assertions of Darwin wanting to "prove evolution" If after doing that you still want to argue the specifics, I would be happy to explain why you are a moron.
"How does it feel to have the truth furiously jabbed in your crotch?"
I don't know. Can you tell us?
Looks like the creatins are out in force today. I guess the thought of a paragon of science getting his recognition makes them feel rather emasculated.
I'm trying to figure out how evolution would work without natural selection. Without a mechanism to differentiate the usefulness of adaptations it seems to me that we end up in a creationist world where things "just happen" and where evolution really is just a random process.
There are several kinds of selection other than environmental; sexual selection is a biggie, as is predator-prey selection. And then, sometimes things do just happen, which is one of the reasons that everything isn't perfectly suited to its environment and life. Drift is usually fairly nasty to the population that experiences it, but it is still evolution too.
Stanley - Developmental biology. You're doing it wrong.
What was that Stan? Didn't quite catch that. The worlds flat you say? The Sun revolves around the Earth? It's hard to understand you when you screech like that all the time.
Hey Stanley,
On second thought, rather than responding to anything anyone says to you, you should explain to us how the diversity of life that we can observe on this planet came to be. Since you know that evolution did not happen, simply explain the process which did give rise to the diversity of life and how you came about your conclusions.
sexual selection is accomplished by the mind of the female.....how else could they "sense" who is and who is not a good mate? This, of course requires intelligence on some level.
and matt, you seriously need to read a book on biology.......not genes, but the endocrine system is responsible for the release of hormones.
The Beagle Project wins the Internet!
#15's comments come straight out of a Chick Tract. Maybe someone needs to read a real book. Exclude the Bible from that list by the way. That's like trying to get science out of Mother Goose.
Come on, people. Stan's a deluded cherry-picking troll. Leave him alone in his under-bridge home.
steve: "Ah, no, dumbass, they result from heritable changes in the regulation of the gene for bmp4"
right.....in otherwords NO CHANGE in the sequence of DNA.
Not only that, but gene regulation and alternative phenotypes is ultimately controlled by the nervous system, which regulates hormone secretion:
http://www.biology.duke.edu/nijhout/polyphenism.htm
"It appears that in the control of polyphenic development, hormones act as stimuli that induce discrete switches in developmental pathways. There is independent regulation of the pattern of hormone secretion, of tissue receptivity to the hormone, and of the developmental response of each tissue to the hormone. Because hormone secretion is regulated by the central nervous system, this mechanism allows development to become responsive to environmental variables. Variation in tissue sensitivity to the hormones allows the developmental switch to produce alternative phenotypes in response to specific environmental signals. This is interesting from an evolutionary perspective because genetic variation in the signal and the response mechanisms provide the basis for the evolution of adaptive developmental responses to environmental contingencies."
gee I bet it sucks to be a darwinist.
Oh look at the cute little god-warrior. "I don't understand genetics so I'll pretend like large complex systems in the body just magically control themselves, with the help of big ghosty daddy in the sky of course!"
Someone as far off base on understanding what genes are, and how they work, doesn't get to tell ANYONE to read a book.
Can we not feed the trolls? Stan has been here whining his whole 'you don't know nuffink' loop before.
Matt Penfold: Yes, I am aware Darwin spent a year at Edinburgh to study medicine, but he did leave of his own accord, it wasn't like he was kicked out or anything. Surely this is a claim to fame the university shouldn't be passing up?! I mean, we even have a Darwin Building!
"you seriously need to read a book on biology.......not genes, but the endocrine system is responsible for the release of hormones"
Nice Stan you got me there. I forgot that there is no genetic basis for the endocrine system, God created it right?
I've just been listening to the Fossils from Saint-Saens "Carnival of the Animals" (along with the rest of it and some other tracks). Any other suggestions for suitable Darwin Day music anyone?
Might want to read what you just linked Stanley.
Gee, it sucks to be illiterate.
From all of us to you who mean so much:
Happy Birthday CHARLES DARWIN !
If you were with us today the maniacal fundies will
be laying siege to your house and screaming for the
torture of the one who is causing them so much grief!
Even in death they rant your honorable name and memory
with fanatical derision! So nice to know that you are
still driving them isane, and perhaps, to suicide!
My utmost regard and honor to you for having lived.
Signals from the outside get transmitted through the mother bird to her offspring via hormones, which go about altering morphology in an adaptive way.
So hormones are energy, not molecules.
And you know this... how? Can you hear them on your fillings?
Matt: "On second thought, rather than responding to anything anyone says to you, you should explain to us how the diversity of life that we can observe on this planet came to be. Since you know that evolution did not happen, simply explain the process which did give rise to the diversity of life and how you came about your conclusions."
Well, considering adaptive phenotypic traits cannot be matched up or correlated with changes in DNA sequence, it's pretty safe to say the genome did not get built up from the adaptations we see in the field. This leaves out any scientific or naturalistic explanation for how genomes came to be.
The only thing left then, is instant creation, brotha! It's not scientific, but neither is life in general...It is not, for example, "scientific" when a waterflea pops out a new spine just because a predator comes around. Getting something from nothing (aka a spine from thoughts or sensation) is not scientific.
God did not make animals pre-adapted to specific environments, He made them so they are individually adaptive to a wide array of environments. Therefore what has long been dubbed as a populational process that would take thousands of years for a trait to spread throughout a population, can actually happen in just one generation. What we see in the field and fossil record is actually just a historical process of individual change. There are, of course, limits to change, as the developmental program of a dog, for example, cannot be changed into a developmental program of a cat or a fish. But within their kinds, there is a vast array of poential. This potential is seen in finches, but there is no genetic change involved -- it's just an internal process in each developing organism, which responds somatically to external conditions.
zero...the "genetic variation" is a guess about the past, it's not observed. He needed to throw that in there so not to tick off his fellow scientists.
Hormones are like light Graculus. I would think you knew that. They're part wave, part particle, and they always travel at a certain speed called "Stan's Constant".
"I'm teaching an introductory biology course that emphasizes the history and philosophy of science, and today just happens to line up with my coverage of the late 19th century, and especially Darwin ... so the freshman get a mini-biography of Charles Darwin. "
We need more of this.
So when a tree grows stunted and leaning to the north, it's becaue mommy tree sang the wrong cradle song to the acorn, and not because there is a strong southerly wind.
Riiiiiight.
We had a Darwin Day event scheduled. Sean Carroll was coming in to talk to us tonight. But we got walloped by an icestorm last night, and for the first time since I got here in 1999, the university is closed due to the weather. ARRGGGHHH!!!
I am very disappointed. We put a lot of work in, got the word out, expected a good audience and...bam. Our Darwin Day event got canceled due to weather last year, too. Utterly stunning... I think we will not be trying again next year, or we'll time it with some other event in Darwin's life rather than his birthday. Mid-February is too risky!
Frank Anderson:
Give up, God is clearly punishing you.
ELL OH ELL
Luckily for us (the ones defending the evil that is Darwin) our side doesn't substantiate its claims by saying anything just "pops out a new..." or "...something from nothing". If we did, the science of it all would fall flat on its ass. What we do say however, is that over long periods of time the long spiny appendage (that has grown longer over time) has proven to be advantageous to the water flea, reducing the likelihood of predation. Here's a news flash for you Stanley... if you're less likely to get eaten, you're more likely to have offspring, because *GASP* you're around to HAVE OFFSPRING. Those offspring also have the advantage of being less likely to be eaten, which means they are -- are you still with my Stanley? -- more likely to have offspring. Thus, the advantage can happily over hundreds or thousands of years propagate nicely into a population.
Now, Stanley, I would suggest you stop using Conservapedia as your only source. Maybe you should actually try to learn about what your arguing against.
Frank Anderson:
Give up, God is clearly punishing you.
Yes, the jokes were already flying around my department yesterday...
Stan,
Thanks but a simple GODDIDIT would have been sufficient.
Now, do you have a "scientific" argument to support any of your bizarre scientific claims, or are you just trolling for attention?
I realize that Darwin day is not promoted in order to attack the Bible directly. However, since many would say that it is, and they swear their preference for Lincoln (see Expelled's webpage), here:
So let's see, Lincoln pointedly attacked Christianity, Darwin did science and tried to avoid attacking Christianity. I say let Ben Stein and his fellow IDiots plump up Lincoln, since the latter was anti-religion, the former was not, or at least not unambiguously so.
I have heard it claimed that Lincoln did accept evolution as the probable explanation for the variety of species as well, however I have not found anything to confirm that statement (and don't have enough time-interest to search further). It wouldn't surprise me, though, as there appears to have been nothing (no Xian religious prejudices) to prevent it.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Stanley's musical tribute to Charles Darwin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esl2NNOtHQE
There's no question that Darwin gave to us a new sense of how systems can become ordered. Newton gave us order underlying the chaos, but Darwin told us of order coming out of the chaos. More importantly, new orders arise in relation to each other, orders which are constrained by physics, yet which are not actually predicted by physics (though aspects of evolution are predictable).
The difference in the pre-Darwinian and post-Darwinian worlds are staggering, partly because Newton had to take a "God's-eye" view of the cosmos in order to understand it and we no longer have to, and partly because information affecting other information has since become part of our conception. The anti-evolutionists still can't wrap their minds around co-evolution and the massive integrations possible through that process, and instead must have the most infinitely complex mind figuring out the entire biosphere, either creating it de novo, or tweaking it constantly with nearly infinite knowledge.
Effectively, then, they're incapable of dealing with the age of information. They cannot understand how an individual is shaped by a much larger whole, how culture develops, and how economies function. Top-down control from the "God's-eye" point of view is all that they know, and why they flock to churches to be controlled and to control.
Indeed, it is likely that anti-evolution is not as much a threat to biology as it is to the broader understanding of functions, from languages to weather systems. For if you sever observations of biological integration from the only processes capable of actually producing such a combination of historical constraint and nearly infinite variation, you have effectively denied understanding of the nearly ubiquitous systems evolutions that are all around us. No doubt some are able to compartmentalize and deny biological evolution while accepting economic evolution, however such compartmentalization makes a huge rent in the fabric of the understanding of our integrated world, one likely to adversely affect much of their understanding.
The information age may be considered to have started with Darwin, and the efforts of a few precursors to his thought. I know that top-down control is often credited, such as those produced by Babbage, Jacquard, and Hollerith, and these indeed deserve credit. But however important top-down computing is, what it always bumps up against is the extreme complexity of evolved systems. Biological evolution is not really computable at any large scale (especially great temporal scales), and likely never will be. We even use genetic algorithms to deal with complexity that top-down computing does not handle very well by straightforward design principles.
Newton, Einstein, and the various QM physicists gave us the basics, but Darwin (with others, of course) told us why initial conditions inform us so very little about the complex arrangements we see today. Interactions of information are the reason, with biology being far and away the best medium in which a combination of conserved information and rampant variation can produce amazing adaptations. In fact, it is not so very surprising that all cannot understand the beauty of such complex evolutions, but it perhaps is surprising that 150 years after we emerged from great darkness that many still wish to hide themselves and others from increases in knowledge.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Ugh, I'm in no mood for stupid trolls today (as if there were another kind?)
A few years ago (2002, I think), I took an introductory paleontology/geology course from Dr. Hans Machel here at the U of Alberta. He's definitely one of the nuttier professor-types--he likes to illustrate the earth's history with a 2 km long spool of twine, compares the process of fossilization to that of the process of roadkill (flattening, disarticulation, etc.) plays Bad Religion before starting class, and irritates woo-woo practitioners on his days off.
On Feb 12 in that class we celebrated Darwin's birthday with a cake, candles, and balloons.
So, happy birthday, Chuck!
And, Stan, you snivelling little nitwit, I share this with you so you know you can't place the blame solely on Dr. Myers. Not only are 99.9% of academics and scientists in the 'Darwinist Conspiracy' (ever wondered why biology professors are all so opulently rich?) but you forgot to point your Christian judging finger at the worst perpetrator of all:
The data.
Hormones are like light Graculus. I would think you knew that. They're part wave, part particle, and they always travel at a certain speed called "Stan's Constant".
NO. Light doesn't travel to us, our eyes spring out and collect the image. In the same way, the mother's hormones must jump out of her body, figure out what's going on, and then return into the body. AFter all, cells have consciousness.
Well said Glen D. Someone's fishing for a Molly ;)
To the parent who was concerned whether there was some problem with evolution at the University of Edinburgh: that University has one of the finest groups of evolutionary biologists in the world. They are certainly not negative about Darwin or eviolution.
Brownian, it's not just academics & scientists who are part of the Darwinist Conspiracy; it's degenerate artists like me. And I plan on opening an painting school to teach others how to paint portraits of our lord and master Charles Darwin.
Sorry I'm so late to this party. I finished a surreal portrait of the birthday boy for the website The Eloquent Atheist, which should be up some time today.
To further this shameless plug, you can see a 'making of' at my site. Let your eyes jump out and collect the image, MAJeff.
... evolution, not "eviolution" or "evilution", that is ...
Saturday's 'Guardian' included a free guide to 'Origin' introduced by Dawkins. Nice for 199, but next year we need to push for something bigger.
UK readers should consider the vacant plinth in Trafalgar square and our paucity of public holidays compared to the rest of Europe.
to LisaJ:
Too bad Ottawa U isn't having any official Darwin day celebrations. However, the Ottawa Skeptics are having a get-together tonight at the Clocktower Brewpub ( http://skeptics.meetup.com/166/calendar/7276267/ ). And, if you can wait a couple of weeks, there will be an event on Feb 29 at your university, jointly sponsored by Ottawa U Skeptics, Carleton Secular Association and the Humanist Association of Ottawa: The Weakest Missing Link - a game show on evolution vs creationism. http://secularhumanism.meetup.com/7/calendar/6050501/ (We are having it so late to avoid conflicts with long weekends and winter breaks etc)
Happy Darwin Day !
Happy Lincoln Day !
@PZ Myers:
U r too kind sir ....why do u insist on letting trolls
live ? Plz end their miserable existence on this fine place
Brownian, it's not just academics & scientists who are part of the Darwinist Conspiracy; it's degenerate artists like me.
True, and as I mentioned, the biggest perpetrators of the Darwinian fraud are the fossils, the geology of the Earth, the atmosphere of the Earth, the DNA and morphological features of every living thing on the planet, past and present,....
All those things should be ashamed of themselves, existing merely to irritate stupid biblical literalists.
It doesn't even have to have a permanent installation. A bit of Darwin-themed performance art by some local students might cause a stir. (Thinking about that as I typed, I even know one student who is doing both biology and drama!)
Ha, ha! I'm inspired.
10, maybe 15 minutes later...
Happy Darwin Day! I'm celebrating with my new manifesto:
The Evil Darwin Conspiracy for Dummies
Well, that didn't work right. Memo to self: Don't italacize href calls in the future...
Anyway, used one of those "Dummies" parody book cover generators.
Mine is here: http://thefaithfulpenguin.blogspot.com/2008/02/its-darwin-day.html
Have fun here: http://www.customsigngenerator.com/
OK, I know I should stop feeding the trolls, but for the benefit of any naive persons who might be reading this: Bzzzt- wrong. Genes have regulatory sequences, not just coding sequences. And a lot of evolution occurs by changes in just the former.
#65: Do you want a cheezburger or something? PZ is a loving blog host, he does not smite.
I'm dominant/neutral with occasional flips into submissive. I 'm not into S&M though I do like light bondage and fetish/erotic gear. I'd ask you if you liked fetish gear or liked to be tied up but, while I'm a bit twisted, I'm not a closeted-gay-Republican so I'll have to pass on your kinky foreplay. Also, I'm extremely monogamous so the thought of going extra-marital is abhorrent, so in any case I'm not available.
Good luck, though. And try one of those S&M sites. You'll get all the crotch stabbing you seem to crave. Here you'll just get mocked for being an idiot.
I have mixed feelings about celebrating Darwin Day.
The funda-mental-ists already think of Charles Darwin as a prophet who only needs to be falsified to bring down the foundation on which pretty much the whole of biology rests. Wouldn't celebrating his birthday look too much like acknowledging him as a prophet? Society today seems to pay more attention to what things look like than what they really are.
On the other hand, if we don't celebrate Darwin Day, then doesn't that mean the cdesign proponentsists have won by default?
Perhaps Darwin Day should be viewed as an opportunity to celebrate others who contributed to evolutionary theory rather than a singular focus on one figure. My suggestions: Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, James Mark Baldwin, R.A. Fisher, Richard Goldschmidt, William D. Hamilton.
AJS, I understand your concern. But shedding more light on a subject, such as Darwin's remarkable contributions to science, will do more good than harm.
It's precisely because so many people don't understand evolution by natural selection that they can be swayed into thinking "Darwinists" are "worshipping" his breakthrough ideas.
AJS, I've wondered that too - lots of nutters do seem to have the idea that we "worship" Darwin, and things like Darwin Day and the Darwin Fish sometimes play up to that deliberately to enrage them.
Nothing wrong with enraging nutters of course - good clean fun - but maybe we should show that we aren't obsessed with one great scienist by also celebrating Mendel Day, Morgan Day, McClintock Day, Muller Day, Fisher Day, Dobzhansky Day, Wallace Day, Haldane Day, Sewall Wright Day, Crick Day...
My "Darwin Day" entry from my blog, cross-posting here -
--------------
There is no such thing as "Darwinism".
It's important to be clear about that. "Darwinism" is an idea made up by lying ignorant hate-mongering slimeballs who only see the world purely in terms of faith, bias and dogma - and who believe that everyone else does, as well.
There is no such thing as a "Darwinist". Charles Darwin was not a Holy Lawgiver, his groundbreaking work On The Origin Of Species is not a sacred text. He was merely an intelligent, thoughtful and honest man who reached the logical conclusion of many years of careful, painstaking work; his book was merely the beginning of modern scientific understanding that has progressed far beyond the limits of available knowledge at its initial publication 149 years ago.
Charles Darwin was a scientist. He sought knowledge and understanding. He didn't just wake up one morning and declare "Today, I will discover that natural selection is the mechanism that explains the fact of common descent that we observe in Nature"; he gathered information and made observations and, when he had enough data that the data told him something, he wrote up his conclusions. After publication, his conclusions were there to stand or fall on their own merits. 149 years later they not only stand, but have been bolstered by a vast array of findings from many fields of scientific endeavour, from work done by the future generations who came after to expand the trail he blazed into a complex superhighway that leads to greater knowledge and understanding at every turn.
There is no reverence for Charles Darwin, and he would be appalled if there were. There is only the respect due a man industrious enough to do his work, intelligent enough to see where it led, and honest enough to speak the truth about it. These qualities are nowhere to be found in the self-appointed and self-described "culture warriors" who shriek that Darwin is responsible for racism and slavery and Nazism and whatever alleged "moral decay" is tacked onto this week's list of talking points, who set forth a pogrom of lies and hatred and censorship and misdirection and contempt for law and lack of integrity or common decency and threats of violence... all the while falsely accusing honest men and women of these same faults in a transparent and pathetic act of projection.
There is no "Darwinism" and there are no "Darwinists", there is merely a recognition of the self-evident fact of evolution, and people who understand that. That such people do not base this understanding upon an ideology, and indeed derive no ideology from it, is terrifyingly incomprehensible to those for whom everything is ideologically driven - and we would pity them were they not so pernicious and dangerous.
The brittle strawman of "Darwinism" is everything that the modern theory of evolution by natural selection is not, and reveals only the intellectual and moral vacuity of those who hurl the word like a club at anyone who refuses to be as petty and hateful and small-minded as themselves. To them I give nothing but my scorn. To Charles Darwin I give a respectful salute and my thanks for his work, and then I give my full attention to those who now patiently and enthusiastically push back the frontiers of human knowledge for the betterment of us all.
Happy Darwin Day, everyone.
MissPrism, AJS,
I'd add another set of holidays, based on Carl Sagan's cosmic calender. We'd get a great mess of holidays in December, and lots of presents.
You can see the calender here:
http://school.discoveryeducation.com/schooladventures/universe/itsaweso…
AJS: My thought is that we've handed the creationists a small victory just by worrying about what they may think with everything we do.
AAA! Look what I found at http://darwinday.org/NEWlang/home/2008.php :
Title: Discovery Institute Presents: Darwin Day in America ( Public )
Start Date and Time: 2008-02-12 12:00:00
Event Website: http://atheists.meetup.com/530/
Activities:
Meeting Description: https://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=EV08A05&track=0
PLEASE RSVP ONLINE By Monday Feb 11
Witherspoon Fellowship Lecture: Darwin Day in America?
February 12, 2008
Time: 12:00 PM - 1:00 AM (ET)
Click here to RSVP online.
WHO: Dr. John G. West, Ph.D.
WHEN: Tuesday, February 12, 2008
12:00 noon to 1:00 pm
WHERE: Family Research Council
Media Center
801 G Street NW
Washington, DC 20001
(Across from Gallery Place Metro)
RSVP: online below or call 800-225-4008 before Mon., February 11, 2008
Lunch will be provided.
The lecture will also be available via live webcast at www.frc.org
Join FRC in welcoming John G. West. Dr. West, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and author of the provocative new book Darwin Day in America: How Our Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized in the Name of Science* (ISI Books), will speak on Darwinian Fundamentalism and its dehumanizing effects on our politics and culture.
February 12 used to be celebrated in schoolrooms across America as Abraham Lincoln's birthday. Not anymore. In recent years, schools, museums, and community groups have decided to use the day to celebrate the birthday of the father of evolution instead. Darwin Day celebrations provide an eye-opening glimpse into the world of grassroots Darwinian fundamentalism, an alternate reality where atheism is the conventional wisdom and where traditional religious believers are viewed with suspicion if not outright paranoia. Darwin Day events often explicitly attack traditional religion, and the original "honorary president" of Darwin Day was biologist Richard Dawkins, author most recently of The God Delusion. Darwin Day celebrations are symptomatic of how science is routinely misused in America today to attack traditional morality and religion, and how Darwinian biology in particular is influencing virtually every area of our culture--morality, the courts, the welfare system, medicine, and even our churches. Join author Dr. John West as he explores the Darwin Day movement and what it reveals about the pervasive influence of Darwinism and scientific materialism on every part on our culture.
*Copies of Darwin Day in America will be available for purchase. A book signing will follow the lecture.
Sponsored by The Witherspoon Fellowship, Family Research Council's professional fraternity for civic and cultural leadership development.
Address:
Family Research Council Media Center, 801 G Street NW
Washington, DC UNITED STATES
Sponsor: Beltway Atheists (http://beltwayatheists.org/)
Contact: Jeff Wismer & Rick Wingrove, jdwismer922@gmail.com, 571-214-8620
AAA-AAA They're HERE, Right here in rainyland!:
http://darwinday.org/NEWlang/home/2008.php
Title: Discovery Institute Announces 2nd Annual Darwin Day Celebration ( Public )
Start Date and Time: 2008-02-12 12:30:00
Event Website: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&i
Activities:
Note from DarwinDay.org: The Discovery Institute is better known for promoting "Intelligent Design" than celebrating Darwin's theory of evolution. However, we are including this Discovery Institute event in the spirit of open discussion of viewpoints.
--
Supporters of Darwin's theory have claimed to oppose teaching religion in the nation's science classrooms for years. Now, just in time for Darwin Day 2008, leading evolution proponents (including the National Academy of Sciences, the Public Broadcasting Service, and the National Center for Science Education) are cynically promoting religious instruction in schools as a way of defusing opposition to Darwinian evolution.
Join Discovery Institute Senior Fellow Dr. John West, author of Darwin Day in America (ISI Books), as he presents a tale of hypocrisy and hubris on the part of leading Darwinists and examines how they are willing to undermine the First Amendment's Establishment Clause to promote their views. This event is being taped for broadcast on the web as part of the ID the Future Darwin Day broadcast on Darwin Day, February 12.
Address:
Discovery Institute,
Seattle, WA UNITED STATES
Sponsor: Discovery Institute
Contact: Robert Crowther, rob@discovery.org, 206-292-0401 ext.107
Irony: When I click on the Discovery institute's link in my previous post I get an error:
"No ID specified"
Maxi and Miss Prism -= Sorry to take so long in getting back to you, but she is a Chem E major, and will be looking to play rugby too while over there. I know she is really looking forward to it. Hope you had a Happy Darwin Day.
Ahhh the great minds born today...
Charles Darwin...
Abraham Lincoln...
dogmeat ... ;o)
On the other hand, if we don't celebrate Darwin Day, then doesn't that mean the cdesign proponentsists have won by default?
If we outlaw Darwin Day, then only outlaws will celebrate Darwin Day...
Well if we're going to cross post from our blogs....
Today is Charles Darwin's 199th birthday. So raise a glass to the man who came up with the concept of evolution through inherited characteristics and differential success aka natural Selection. While Darwin's theory has been modified over the years to the New Darwinian Syntheses he is still the man who started it all. Darwin is a giant of science ranking with Galileo, Newton and Einstein as a father of a scientific revolution.
As for those who still can not except evolution or Darwin's theory after 149 years, enjoy your 12th century religious myths the rest of us will get on with the 21st century.
Darwin day, a building named after Darwin? Meh. In Australia we've got a whole city named after Darwin.
Stanman said "But within their kinds". Isn't it only the godbots that speak of kinds? Seems kind of archaic and something only the fundies would use when they're spewing their bio-babble.
Oops. City of Darwin name link is here: http://www.nt.gov.au/lands/lis/placenames/origins/palmerstondarwin.shtml
Skepchick has what is now my (second-) favorite science blog: see this: http://skepchick.org/blog/?p=975#more-975 The video by The New York Dolls: "Dance Like a Monkey" is perfect for today:
You're designed so intelligent
Ain't no way that was an accident
C'mon shake your monkey hips
My pretty little creationist
Oh yeah!
Ain't gonna anthropomorphise you
Or perversely polymorphisise you - yeah
Little girl you look so sweet
You gotta dance like a monkey, dance like a monkey, child
You just started ten thousand years ago
Presto Adam and Eve and go man go
Abel died, Cain took his life
And headed straight to the jungle to find a wife - wow!
Non-believers blame it all on apes
It's monkey time - I want to see you shake
Evolution is obsolete
You gotta dance like a monkey, dance like a monkey, child
Stomp your hands and clap your feet
You gotta dance like a monkey, dance like a monkey, child
Oh one more time yo!It's monkey time!!
www.onlylyrics.com
I had no idea this was coming, so I was pleasantly surprised to find posters and flyers in the corridor shared by the Bio/Chem buildings (which anyone going to the engineering building or physics buildings from the student center walk through, too). Warmed my heart, it did! ^_^
Way ahead of you, OrchidGrowinMan.
Just heard this on the evening news: Today, for the first time in its 130+ year history, the Westminster Kennel Club named a beagle as Best in Show.
On Darwin Day. How absolutely fitting!
See NYT story at
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/sports/othersports/12westminster.html…
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080211172609.htm
what does darwin and his later-day mental-lightweight minions have to do with this?
hahahahahahahahahahhaaha!!
*sigh* Ah, onion test?
Or maybe you could read the actual article and then maybe do some research on micro-RNA's and perhaps, maybe then realise said RNA's make up sweet-fuck-all of the genome.
Oh, btw, beautiful contradiction there oh disingenuous troll.
Hey Stan, what else do you pick up on your fillings?
Other than hormone songs.
Yea, it turns out Darwin got just about nothing right. Ditto with the later-day Neo-darwinists. These kooks have fooled millions of people with their lies and distortions, and now it is hilarious to watch their stupid theory blow up in their faces.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11814-opossum-genome-sequence-rev…
"Modern mammals, including humans, evolved not so much by inventing new genes, but by redeploying existing ones - with a surprising assist from genetic elements usually derided as mere junk.
Genome biologists had speculated for several years that this was true, but now they know for sure,"
"Evolution is tinkering much more with the controls than with the genes themselves," says Eric Lander"
http://www.broad.mit.edu/cgi-bin/news/display_news.cgi?id=4163
"More broadly, the (genomic) research reveals that little invention of genes has occurred since mammalian ancestors diverged from the non-mammalian lineage. "There's no real creativity going on in the mammalian genome," explained Clamp. That means that the number, structure, and function of protein-coding genes are not expected to differ very much from mammal to mammal, so what makes humans different from mice and dogs likely lies outside this realm of the genome."
Of course you know, when you here there's "no real creativity going on in the mammalian genome" that it means that there's no real creativity going on with natural selection selecting randomly-mutating, protein-coding genes....which means there's no real evolution going on at all.
Anyone else seem to notice -- or am I the only one -- that "evolution" just never seems to happen? Animals change in a thousand and one different ways -- but the atheist fairytale otherwise known as RMNS just never quite seems to present itself.
I don't care what you say...Darwin saved me!
Where the hell is the truth machine when you need him the most?
"that it means that there's no real creativity going on with natural selection selecting randomly-mutating, protein-coding genes....which means there's no real evolution going on at all."
Lawl, ah jumping to conclusions... See, the thing is the article doesn't mention a damn thing about any changes in gene regulation systems, e.g. micro/small RNA's along with promoter and activator sequences. And while I might be rusty on my gene regulation knowledge, fact remains, these are all genetic, i.e. encoded in the genome.
When you understand, you'll shit bricks.
Of course it could be epigenetic in nature, to do with patterns of histone modification and methylation of DNA as well, but these aren't entirely the result of hormones, which by the way are actually produced from the genome... I heart internal contradictions in creo's, it makes cluebatting that much easier.
Also, explain nylonase. If you can.
Unfortunately, it seems they are just a little too far outside the target area for it to make sense for them to get involved.
Meanwhile, I did think of another idea for an installation - not necessarily on the Trafalgar plinth. I recall there being a recent 2D re-drawing of the evolutionary tree of life in a radiating manner (ie in a circle of radial branches, interconnected by circular arcs for speciations). It would be nice if someone had the time, resources, inclination and ability to produce a 3D version of that for next year.
It could be something large using strong wire or something smaller such as one of those internally etched glass/acrylic blocks (ie a sphere in this case). Although there wouldn't be much room for labels on a small incarnation. It could even be a virtual or holographic display of the structure. Anyhow, ideally it should have the circumferential arcs at the appropriate time-line distances from the centre (which I think wasn't the case with the original 2D diagram).
By the way, "stan" is supersport, a YEC with weird lamarkian leanings, who is reasonably notorious for spouting the same old oft-refuted shit across numerous creation/evolution messageboards. Possibly the most amusing supersport incident came last year when he misrepresented a particular workers research on tadpoles. The researcher was contacted and he turned up to say:
This will be my one and only post to this message board. It is my research you are falsely using to support you arguments. Please do not reference my work in this way in the future.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=91038&highlight=just…
Supersport then flipped completely (the worst of which was moderated I think). He's a complete nut. Possibly mentally ill. I'd ban him - it would save everyone precious braincells.
steve is just another evo mental-lightweight who can't debate me so he pushes to get me banned. Good job...you're a great evolutionist.
I started casting my planned Darwin biopic some years ago... sailing ships, earthquakes, cowboys, tortoises, storms, a borderline-mad captain, love, bereavement, heated public argument about the meaning of life - it's "A Beautiful Mind" meets "Master and Commander" meets "The Motorcycle Diaries".
Unfortunately I had Heath Ledger as the young CD. But I think Alan Rickman as Captain FitzRoy would still work. Anthony Hopkins as the older CD... other suggestions?
I hate to feed the troll (although this is a pretty good one), but my poor, limited understanding of Descent with Modification is that it is unnecessary to specify a mechanism: genes, gene control (activators, promotors [go go CaMV!], epigenetics), cytoplasmic DNA, "hormones," etc., immaterial. Phenomenological Statistics: the selection force doesn't care HOW the Modification nor the Descent is effected.
Anyway, one of his links, the one with the lampreys (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080211172609.htm) repeats a prejudice that I just HATE:
Vertebrates - animals such as humans that possess a backbone - are the most anatomically and genetically complex of all organisms
W.R.O.N.G. Look at the genome of an autotroph. Consider the extranuclear inheritance in not one, but two or more organelles (mitochondria, plastids [several kinds])? 2n>80? Where's YOUR 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase buddy? You ALL depend on RuBisCO (="All flesh is grass") Bwa ha ha haaa.
Autotrophs Unite! Take your Place! From Genesis take your Anthem!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastid
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0055894/
http://www.tubecodes.com/watch=SDwyBWjfFaM
http://windywillow.blogspot.com/2007/06/attack-of-giant-hogweed.html
Stan.
You have yet to debate anyone.
You post patently absurd crap and ignore the responses.
Cheers Steve, he's on RantsnRaves too, under the name Guzman, spouting off the same old inanities...
Yo, stan/supersport :
You CLAIMED on that theologyweb thread that 'information can flow both ways - protein to genome', and that 'the Weismann barrier had been breached, allowing Lamarkian inheritance'.
As that would require a reverse translase, and NONE ARE KNOWN, I hypothesize that either :
1) you are making sh*t up
2) you have (again) misunderstood a paper (ie, it doesn't say what you desperately WANT it to say)
BTW - I happen to know FOR A FACT that altering a genome can indeed alter phenotypes. As part of my Master's thesis, I had to transposon tag fruit flies (ie, CREATE mutant phenotypes in such a way that the DNA could be isolated, and the region involved in the change identified).
The DNA of the mutated flies is DIFFERENT than that from the parental stock. How do I know ? I isolated the DNA, restriction digested it, ran it on a gel, and blotted for P-element DNA. The DNA from parental lines is DIFFERENT than the mutated lines.
Were your Lysenkoist* gibberings valid, such a project would be impossible; the FACT I succeeded shows your views are quite in error.
Were your Lysenkoist gibberings valid, radiation would not harm us at all - it mainly degrades DNA in the genome. And, since the genome is relatively unimportant in your silly delusion, it should be harmless.
Examination of reality shows that idea is wrong.
Were your Lysenkoist gibberings valid, damage to the genome (chromosome breakage and such) should have NO phenotypic effects - it should be possible to remove the genome of a cell and still have it develop into a fully functional critter. Examination of reality shows that idea is wrong.
* Trofim Lysenko thought that willpower could influence phenotypes as well, and did not approve of Darwin's ideas. He was one of Stalin's favorites - care to guess what happened to those that showed that Lysenko's views were erroneous ?
Stan, I would love to discuss the speed of light vs. "speed of sight" with you at your convenience.
We should do that here.
It'll save the rest of us a lot of time to see exactly how well you understand the science you hate so much.
Besides, as a Darwinist I must necessarily enjoying kicking puppies and other dumb creatures.
And there are no puppies nearby.
A belated Happy Darwin day to all of us evolved apes.
Clearly from reading the comments here there are a few that have evolved less than others.
My formal biology ended at first degree level but I do my best to keep up. Like many these days I try to do my bit to promote scientific rationlism in the face of all those ID'ers and religious nuts out there. I would welcome any comments on my own Happy Darwin Day post if anyone has time.
A belated thanks for supporting the Darwin Day extravaganza! We had some 50 odd links and that seems like a pretty good endorsement of the importance of the day.
We're going to donate the ad revenue for the day to National Center for Science Education, the Institute for Humanist Studies or someone else, so if anyone has ideas, pass them along.
Happy birthday, Chuck.
(º)(º)
Vivan las tetas.