jesus

Biblical fever = influenza. You're kidding me, right?

tsmith — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 18:38:00 +0000

Biblical fever = influenza. You're kidding me, right?

Via Bob O'H and Cath Ennis comes this truly bizarre article from the Virology Journal: "Influenza or not influenza: Analysis of a case of high fever that happened 2000 years ago in Biblical time".

Now, regular readers will know that I normally love this type of thing; digging back through history to look at Lincoln's smallpox; Cholera in Victorian London; potential causes of the Plague of Athens, the origin of syphilis, or whether Yersinia pestis really caused the Black Plague. I've even written a bit about the history of influenza. So analysis of a 2000-year old potential flu case? Bring it on.

But. For Christ's sake (really), *bring the evidence with you.* From the article's abstract:

The Bible describes the case of a woman with high fever cured by our Lord Jesus Christ. Based on the information provided by the gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke, the diagnosis and the possible etiology of the febrile illness is discussed. Infectious diseases continue to be a threat to humanity, and influenza has been with us since the dawn of human history. If the postulation is indeed correct, the woman with fever in the Bible is among one of the very early description of human influenza disease.

Infectious diseases continue to be a threat to humanity, and influenza has been with us since the dawn of human history. We analysed a case of high fever that happened 2000 years ago in Biblical time and discussed possible etiologies.

(more after the jump...)

OK, so they set up their premise. Fine, I'm on board with that, though it's obviously always a bit of a problem when using English translations of the Bible. Still, I'm all about checking out the descriptions, which include a high fever, being bed-ridden, and, oh yeah, that Jesus cured her, upon which time she "rose up and ministered unto them."

That's the extent of the information.

From this, the authors conclude that the fever must have been influenza. Their rationale? Well, they exclude bacterial septicemia because "the fever retreated instantaneously. This implies that the disease was probably not a severe acute bacterial infection (such as septicemia) or subacute endocarditis that would not resolved [sic] instantaneously."

Seriously. I'm not even sure what to do with this. From the wording of the abstract, it very much appears that the authors are Christians--so are they saying that Jesus could not have miraculously cured a bacterial infection, but he could have done so for flu? Or that the flu, on its own, resolved the instant Jesus stood over/touched the ill woman, without any divine intervention?

They go on to dismiss a significant number of other viral pathogens, as well as demonic influence (phew! Those are so hard to get rid of):

One final consideration that one might have is whether the illness was inflicted by a demon or devil. The Bible always tells if an illness is caused by a demon or devil (Matthew 9:18-25, 12:22, 9:32-33; Mark 1:23-26, 5:1-15, 9:17-29; Luke 4:33-35, 8:27-35, 9:38-43, 11:14) [1]. The victims often had what sounded like a convulsion when the demon was cast out. In our index case, demonic influence is not stated, and the woman had no apparent convulsion or residual symptomatology.

(Bonus: this was the first post I've ever gotten to tag with "demonology".)

Seriously, how did this article get published? I'm not a virologist, but if the standards for this journal are this lax, I wouldn't be wasting my time sending any of my papers there.

tsmith Tue, 08/10/2010 - 14:38

Tags

General Epidemiology

Historical studies of disease

infectious disease

influenza

Wow. Who publishes virology and what else do they publish?

This is an example of lame fake "research" that scientific journals are, unfortunately, becoming more and more fond of because it gets their name out. Unfortunately for them, it lowers their standing among their target audience. I'm with you, if I were a virologist, I wouldn't send my papers there either.

Well, if you remember correctly Jesus IS the Son of God wh created the entire universe, so I am sure he could heal the flu in millseconds if He so chose to do so.

Remember Lazarus? He was dead for four days. People didn't want jesus to open the tomb becuase of the smell, yet all He did was call for lazarus to come forth and He was ressurected immediately after being dead for four days. He was completely healed and back to his old self immediately.

How's that for science?

Wow - and who was the editor and reviewers? Didn't Hippocrates describe flu-like symptoms? And wasn't the bible written ~1700 years ago, not 2000?

Also - you can apparently leave comments if you scroll down to the bottom of the article...

It's 'Virology Journal', not Virology (Elsevier) or the Journal of Virology (Americal Society for Microbiology), which are both quite respectable journals.

Virology Journal is part of the BioMed Central empire, who must be even sleazier than I thought.

Thanks for your excellent fisking! And BTW - Chalk up another Virology Miracle For Christ - I was not violantly ill, only nauseated, when I read about this.

I think the most that can be said is that fevers were known at the time it was written (a bit over 1900 years ago).

The original is Mark 1:30 and Matthew 8:14 (Matthew borrowed a fair bit from Mark)

ÏÏÏÎÏÏÎ¿ÏÏÎ± - puressousa - feverish - related to 'fire' (modern English words, pyre, pyromaniac...)

Wow, this online journal's been around for seven years! Who knew?

I am very impressed at the way the authors shamelessly used this publication to pump up their own citation rate - 7 of the 9 works cited are by the first author.

This is an allegedly peer-reviewed journal edited by a well-published and well-credentialled professor at a major US school of biomedicine. WTF.

I am very impressed at the way the authors shamelessly used this publication to pump up their own citation rate - 7 of the 9 works cited are by the first author.

Ha! I'd missed that. I glanced and wondered why they were all SARS.

OK, there are two things going on here First, in antiquity, Jesus made a disease so strong he could not cure it (the bacterial one). So now we know the answer to the taco question.

Second, more recently, God made a peer reviewed journal paper so bad (through the writings of his earthly servants) that it could not be published, but he still got it published.

Am I the only person who understands this????11??

ginger @8 wrote,

This is an allegedly peer-reviewed journal edited by a well-published and well-credentialled professor at a major US school of biomedicine. WTF

WTF indeed. From the link, it states:

Received: 16 June 2010
Accepted: 21 July 2010
Published: 21 July 2010

35 days from received to published. That is pretty fast. I doubt this paper received a sound review and if it did, the editor did not do his/her job.

Will they accept my paper on Jesus curing computer viruses?

People need to stop looking at accounts of miracles in the Bible and trying to find rational, naturalistic explanations for them. That in itself reveals a lack of faith. That goes not only for the writers of that totally rediculous paper, but for all those "scientific" Creationists out there. I too would blacklist that journal for accepting that nonsense.

Good point JD. Apparently, according to the comments section of the journal, it was reviewed by 2 people (and accepted with modifications... in only 35 days). Either the reviewers were in on publishing this crap (or were "bible experts") or the editor is being less than truthful. Either way, I can't trust anything that comes out of this journal anymore.

Currently this paper is the 5th most accessed for the journal in the last 30 days: link. I feel bad for the authors of actual science articles in the journal.

If I were an author of a respectable paper in this journal, Iâd get busy writing to the editors, prontoâ¦

I did wonder how serious the authors and editors were - it's possible that none of them were taking it that seriously (or perhaps the editors weren't, even if the authors were). It is quite fun.

The authors reference another important historical medical report "the first pediatric case of mouth-to-mouth cardiopulmonary resuscitation is vividly described in the Old Testament when the prophet Elisha pressed upon an apparently dead child and breathed into him seven times, and the child was revived (Kings 4:34-35) [1]" - and completely mangle the original authors findings. Elisha did not breathe into the child several times - the KJV doesn't even mention him breathing once - it says the child sneezed seven times and came back to life after Elisha had lain on top of him a couple of times. It's amazing the reviewers didn't notice this glaring error. Aren't scientists meant to be up to date on the relevant scientific literature of their field of expertise?
Anyway the good news is that I've found the perfect place to send my manuscript on the first reported case of infectious viral meningitis (not to give all the juicy details away but it involves a young couple that inexplicably go UPHILL to fetch a pail of water and then pass out and fall down due, no doubt, to the debilitating effects of this virus.)

Now I know where to send my case report about Prometheus and his hepatitis...

If you read the comments on the paper, one of them is from one of the editors, who confirms that the paper was peer-reviewed and recommended for publication by both of the reviewers. Where's that third reviewer when you need him/her?

Well, you have to give them credit for something: they pretty much admit that miraculous healing is not distinguishable from natural remission.

I think they forgot to print it in the April issue on April Fool's Day and are just making up for that. No way, a serious editor lets this stuff through. And frankly, I think the authors are in on it.

@#3 Yes, he was called out and came forth, and no one noticed the smell, for this was biblical days, and in biblical days the smell of the dead was not that far off from the smell of the living. Amen.

Does anyone have the address for the parent company of this scientific journal? I have some air-quotes that need a good home.

*facepalm*.

Next up in the Virology Journal : A study of the epidemiology of flu-like illness in the Harry Potter series.

Like I said on Pharyngula :
We all know god is a heartless bastard who doesn't mind humans suffering, since as PZ pointed out in his talk in Melbourne earlier this year, he could have easily dropped a hint in the bible that washing your hands might be a good idea !

If Jebus cured it with magic, then the disease itself had to be magic, probably the result of a spell cast by a witch. It's the never-ending battle between good magic and bad magic.

Next: The malady suffered by Sleeping Beauty, followed by the spell cast on Princess Fiona.

I'm putting much too much effort into my own peer reviewed publications.

Are you kidding me? I'm Christian, but this is just dumb...by both theological or scientific standards. How the hell did this end up in an actual science journal?

We are wondering how it made it past reviewers when apparently it was never seen by an editor worth his blue pencil. There's a full sentence repeated in the abstract, and a spelling mistake in the first sentence of the Case description, which should have been idiot-proof since it's a repetition of the first sentence of the Abstract.

It's an anti-miracle.

he could have easily dropped a hint in the bible that washing your hands might be a good idea !

And then you have Mark 7, when Jesus says that washing your hands before eating is for hypocrites. (Ok, someone might argue that hygiene is not the point of that passage and they might be right, but the fact remains that Jesus seems to think that not washing your hands before eating is swell.)

I wonder if this is simply a case of a 'journal' getting Sokal-ed by a few Hong Kong researchers with a sense of humor. There are major problems in this two page letter both in terms of biblical accuracy (the "Luke" who wrote the gospel of Luke is not believed to be the disciple Luke mentioned as a physician here, and they get the story of Elisha wrong), and in terms of theology (Jesus couldn't instantly cure bacterial septicemia but could cure viral influenza? - I suspect someone who can cure a four day long case of rigor mortis would find bacterial infections childsplay !) The references look like a fairly obvious joke too - 7 out of nine being from the authors themselves and the remaining two being the King James Version Bible and a website for the Fahrenheit temperature scale!
Perhaps we should await word from the authors before we criticize them - they could be doing us a favor in exposing the terrible peer review and editorial standards of this journal.

Interestingly, the chapter headings for the NIV refer to Jesus "healing a boy with epilepsy" :
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 17:14-18; Mark 9:17-27; Luke 9:37-42

Obsciguy- "And wasn't the bible written ~1700 years ago, not 2000?"

Most of the texts in the new testament were probably written between 40 and 150 CE or so. However, the canonical list of texts more-or-less agreed to by most branches of Christianity was not complied until well into the 4th century -- by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria in 367.

Teaching world civ fills up your brain with all kinds of trivia.

I've submitted a comment to the paper, but it has to get the editor's approval. The criteria are that it must contribute to the topic under discussion and does not breach patients' confidentiality or libel anyone. We'll see if it's acceptable.

Comment by: Dr Rosemary Redfield, University of British Columbia

Title: This is not science.

Comment:
This paper in no way qualifies as science. It doesn't even qualify even as a case report, because the authors have no personal experience of this case. They basically say that, if their assumption that the woman had influenza is correct, then their conclusion that she was cured is justified.

The citations are also disgraceful. The authors cite only the bible, a web page about temperature measurements, and themselves (seven times!).

If BioMed Central hopes to build a reputation as a home for serious science then they need to first withdraw this paper and then have some serious discussions with this journal's editor.

Competing interests:
None.

@15, 16: Point taken.

I have published in and reviewed manuscripts for BioMed Central journals before.

I now regret having done so, and I will not repeat those mistakes.

As Editor-in-Chief of Virology Journal I wish to apologize for the publication of the article entitled ''Influenza or not influenza: Analysis of a case of high fever that happened 2000 years ago in Biblical timeâ, which clearly does not provide the type of robust supporting data required for a case report and does not meet the high standards expected of a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Virology Journal has always operated an exceptionally high standard of thorough peer review; this article has clearly not met these thresholds for balance and supporting data and as such, the article will be retracted. I should like to apologize for any confusion or concern that this article may have caused among our readership, or more widely.

Whilst only ever intended as an opinion piece and also a bit of relief from the ânormalâ business of the journal, the speculations contained within this article clearly would be better expressed outside the confines of a peer-reviewed journal. Biomed Central does not support any views outlined in this article.

Ich rieche Lunte.

the first author email is to a hotmail account, the other authors have the expected .edu.hk emails, and the first author webpage gives an .edu.hk email:
http://www.pae.cuhk.edu.hk/images/hon_kam_lun_ellis.htm

But who submitted the Virology Journal report used a hotmail account. Spoof.

Another paper by the lead author (reference 3) gives the expected .edu.hk email.

dots connect ...

Dr Garry,

When you âretractâ a paper, do you delete it completely, or do you add a note to it saying that the paper is no longer valid? Either outcome would satisfy me, along with terminating whoever approved that paper in the first place. Remember, you are not running a popular newspaper or TV newscast in which you always try to outdo your competition with stories that may appeal to the prejudices of your readers. You need reports that are ACCURATE and can lead to more research, even if they take longer to complete the peer review process.

Dr. Garry

I would hope that a "retracted" paper would at least be noted as such at the top of all viewing options (abstract, full text or pdf). Maybe I just haven't given you enough time to make those additions, but as yet the retraction is only noted on the comments page.

The paper will be removed from the website.

All that will appear is Retracted: followed by the title.

This will require a day or so - it's after CoB in London.

Dr. Garry, thank you for your kindness in answering our concerns.

Wow, class and professionalism. Nice work, Dr. Garry.

Thank you for the comments and your attention to this, Dr. Garry. I will put this up as a new post as well.

It's nice to see you posting again semi-regularly, Tara, it's only been stuff from students for so long now! Please keep it up.

Yes. Keep prank papers to the Christmas special or April Fools. And make the joke a bit more obvious, or the idiots will cite it for real.

Since when are centuries old story books accurate descriptions of the natural history of our world? Why would we take first a faith in the authors of the bible, as if they were themselves divine, as to write a book that held the entire truth of the world and as evidence of a creator who is not supposed to have evidence for belief in the first place?

We can't even find evidence that Jews ever enslaved in Egypt. And if faith wasn't more noble to those who desperately cling to what they know deep down might be false, they leave a wake of destruction in their path, forcing others to believe so they feel confirmed in their own belief, and end up rejecting conventional science at the risk of their own children's health as well as that of people around them.

There is nothing honorable or admirable by a dying child at the hands of unbridled power by religious conviction. That is a clear lack of humanity.

I enjoy reading articles speculating about the causes of historical illness/deaths. Clearly, there will not be the amount of information available that would be expected in an actual case report, but that does not appear to have stopped JAMA or NEJM from publishing reviews of historical cases.

This does raise questions about the thoroughness of the search for other potential illnesses. It appears that the lead author has never published anything on viral syndrome, or the common cold. Not enough consideration was given to other causes of fever.

When Jesus took her by the hand and lifted her up, the fever immediately left. The lady began to serve the household and probably prepared a meal.

Since I am a single parent, I have also claimed that I was all better, when my daughter needed something I considered more important than my rest, even when I was sick. This is just something people do, both for our children and for our guests.

Did they describe the method used to determine the absence of the fever?

Did the patient take care of everyone, then go lie down?

Was the man of the house able to cook? It was probably safer for all involved for the person with cooking experience to prepare the meal.

These cases are great for speculation, but the speculation does need to be more thorough. Limiting the possible illnesses to what the lead author has previously written about is not thorough.

Dr. Garry,

Thank you for recognizing and addressing the limitations of this paper.

"Who cured you?"

"Jesus did, sir. I was hopping along, minding my own business, all of a sudden, up he comes, cures me. One minute I'm a leper with a trade, next minute my livelihood's gone. Not so much as a by-your-leave. 'You're cured, mate.' Bloody do-gooder."

(Bonus: this was the first post I've ever gotten to tag with "demonology".)

I think I speak for many commenters here when I say that I hope you soon fix this grievous lack of demonology-related posts.

the only thing it was missing was a personal communication reference!

I wrote a piece too.

http://dskernel.blogspot.com/2010/08/bible-virology-pay-to-play.html

Where's that third reviewer when you need him/her?

Hey lerender, Lazarus was only MOSTLY dead for four days. It is quite simple to "cure" someone who is MOSTLY dead. Another thing entirely if they are COMPLETELY dead.

I was scared there for a moment. I have two articles published in the "Journal of Virology". At first I thought, "there goes the value of my own work down the toilet" by being published in a joke of a journal, but then quickly saw (with great relief) that it was merely "Virology" that did this. So my modest additions to the field of virology is still safe...right? RIGHT?!

The Scholarly Kitchen just posted their view on this with the gripping title "Good God! Canât a Journal Author Have Any Fun Anymore?". Puts it all back into perspective a bit more...
(http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/)

I believe the atheists MUST be **investigated** because of their METHODS to **target and attack** medical journals.

"One of the blogs that brought the paper to notice was This Scientific Life, by Bob O'Hara."
"Blag Hag: A large list of awesome female atheists
-5:24am 3 Jan 2010 ... Bob O'Hara said... Grrlscientist is also an atheist and blogger. I think she's awesome. But then I did marry her, so I might be biased."

" Kam L.E. Hon from the Department of Paediatrics at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, was astonished" the article had produced such a negative response since it was only intended for thought provocation."
"He said he would never to write this kind of article again."

THAT smacks of cyberbullying.
In Scientific circles that is unlawful.
Imho.

correct you are not a virologist,
all for AIDS nothing for free
but if the standards for this journal are this lax,
well....journals are in need of funds
and funds for science are scarce

I wouldn't be wasting my time sending any of my papers there
why not?
Seriously, how did this article get published?
funds management are a divine art
if you pay , you get published....that's all

Next time you activists 'feel' you MUST comment on an article in a medical journal , declare your **conflict of interest**.
If you FEEL you can comment on an MEDICAL article and NOT declare a conflict of interest one might wonder whether your professional conduct is lower than exemplary.
Imho.
You are an avid activist atheist commenting on a religious article.
I believe your conduct should be investigated by your University.
-----------

Comment by: Dr Rosemary Redfield, University of British Columbia
Title: This is not science.

Comment:
This paper in no way qualifies as science. It doesn't even qualify even as a case report, because the authors have no personal experience of this case. They basically say that, if their assumption that the woman had influenza is correct, then their conclusion that she was cured is justified.

The citations are also disgraceful. The authors cite only the bible, a web page about temperature measurements, and themselves (seven times!).

If BioMed Central hopes to build a reputation as a home for serious science then they need to first withdraw this paper and then have some serious discussions with this journal's editor.

Competing interests:
None.

If interested in analyses of historical epidemics, you might like plaguescapes.com (an epidemiological analysis of the ten plagues of Egypt), a recreation of print article originally published in 1997 and then as a website that won critical acclaim in 1998. Please feel free to comment on the blog site.

I enjoyed plaguesapes.com
thanks so much

In the UK this is what we call a 'Tatty Journalism' article. Thanks for pointing it out Tara :)

Jesus appears in Hungary

illconsidered — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 13:24:21 +0000

Jesus appears in Hungary

At least his image does, in a field of wheat!

(go to actual Google Map)

And PZ Meyers still doesn't believe in him!

illconsidered Thu, 04/29/2010 - 09:24

Tags

Well, isn't it interesting that darwin never has appeared anywhere - except where he isn't invited - school textbooks. I still don't believe in him. I guess he has to evolve somewhere, not appear. Right. I hope he's evolving into an earthworm down there in that grave. I'll take him fishing.

Maybe he came back as a frog?

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100429/full/news.2010.211.html

Somebody get him a sandwich! Oh... wait, nevermind. Sorry!

Piltdown man is a troll.

Also, that looks kind of like a homely woman picking her nose with her pinky.

Jesus?
or Frank Zappa?

The BA thinks it is Roger Hodgson, from Super Tramp. We may have a winner there...although the woman picking her nose is pretty good.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/04/26/supertrampeid…

-dan

You can name all the rock stars you want - but not one person has notice that the field to the North West of this image on google maps is another picture of Christ (Top of the triangle field which you cant see in the image) And why has no one mentioned Violinski from E.L.O?

maybe it is just me, but I see a woman's face there...

Jesus dwells not in your heart, but rather...

oracknows — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 13:00:00 +0000

Jesus dwells not in your heart, but rather...

If there's one thing Christians tell us, it's that Jesus is inside each and every one of us. Who knew that this was literally true? Don't believe me? Take a look at this MRI:

Apparently they've been wrong all these years when they said that Jesus lives in every man's heart. He actually lives in the lung. I guess that's all the more reason for smokers to quit smoking. You wouldn't want to smoke out Jesus, would you?

At least this sort of pareidolia makes it difficult for believers to show up to worship, although if this patient's identity is ever revealed it wouldn't surprise me if he became known as some sort of miracle holy man.

oracknows Mon, 04/26/2010 - 09:00

Tags

humor

Pareidolia

religion

Skepticism/Critical Thinking

OK, no, no, no. That looks like evil-Spock, not Jesus. Just because something looks like a *person* doesn't mean they get to say it's Jesus.

That's not Jesus. It's Old Rasputin:http://bit.ly/6sQ6Bv

If this patient was willing to give up their identity, they could make a ton of money by selling them or the tumor on ebay. All joking aside, I wish the best for this patient and family.

I'd swear that's my college comp. sci. prof.

Looks like a demonic ant to me.

I think you have your anatomy wrong. Jesus' hair definitely lives in your aorta. It looks like his beard lives in the left ventricle and his eyes are maybe pulomanry arteries?

That's not Jesus, it's Frank Zappa!

It's the Dude!

Erik, the Phantom of the Opera.

Jesus is wearing dark glasses, which suggests that Jesus is blind and wants us to also become blind in imitation of His example.

Likewise, Jesus is covering His ears, so that He cannot hear. Or He is listening to something with headphones. It is difficult to tell which literal interpretation is appropriate for a picture.

If anyone can identify the brand of headphones (if they are headphones) or glasses (if they are glasses) Jesus is wearing, I would expect that the manufacturer would be willing to pay big bucks for this incredible testimonial. Jesus wears X brand glasses/headphones.

It is Bill Kreutzmann of the Grateful Dead.

So, my vision might be bad, but I really can't see any shape in this picture. Any clues were I should look?

You sure..? Looks more like Charles Manson to me...

lung Jesus appears to be wearing ear protection and a wool cap with a little bob on it, ergo, lung Jesus is a lumberjack.

More likely they would part him out like the other saints.

Wasn't there a connection between "spirit", "psyche" and "breath", in the etymology of the terms? Seems the Greeks got it right (and that is... Zeus?), only to be messed up by a couple thousand years of Christianity!

Funny, I thought it kind of looks like Ted Kaczynski.

Where did you hear that Christians say that Jesus is inside each and every one of us?

Why, just last week, I had a Christian co-worker tell me she had Jesus in her heart. I didn't realize she could have meant it literally.

It's Jim Henson!!!!!

If that's Jesus, he's wearing a toque. I wonder if he's a Leafs fan...

Pathologist's report:
Slight keyhole stenosis of the L4-L5, just to the ventral of Jesus, with accompanying Messianic Spondylolisthesis. Marginal osteophyte formation near the Jesus-facet interface. Likely self-healing.

Oooh... this is someone's real MRI. Now I feel bad...

If it were only a dinosaur, the obligatory pun . . . Thoracic Park.

To me it looks like one of the captains on The Deadliest Catch.

The Placebo Journal has a regular feature of interesting images. This one seems right up its alley. That said not really seeing Jesus. Maybe The Scream?

It's the mirror image of that famous Che Guevara photograph!

Looks like former professional wrestler Mick Foley AKA 'Mankind' to me.

Perhaps because I recently read a book on the Crimean War, my first impression was of a rather dejected-looking Russian.

This probably proves that Rasputin was the reincarnation of Jesus.

@17

Orac is mistaken. It is Elvis that is everywhere, is everything, is in everybody, is still the King.

Clearly it's a screaming monkey.

It looks more like that painting "The Scream" to me...

Christians DON'T claim that "Jesus is inside each and every one of us". Not every Christian uses that terminology and to those that do, He is only in the hearts of believers.

Thank you so much for clarifying that Donahue. That was going to be my point after I asked the question.

"You wouldn't want to smoke out Jesus, would you?"

OMG the bong hits for jesus guy was right all along!!!!!

lung Jesus is a lumberjack

... and that's OK

(I can't believe I'm the first.)

I agree with David@12, definitely Charles Manson. With sunglasses, a toque, and headphones!

Cheers,
Ray

The key is telling your body there wonât be any more famines. There are two primary ways of doing this:

1. Eat real food. When youâre eating quality food and itâs assimilated efficiently, the body begins to receive what it needs to function at its best. This is one very important step in turning off the famine response. The presence of nutrient-dense food in the diet signals to the body that there is plenty of food available and thereâs no need to pile on fat stores. Digestion is also an important part of this equation because you want to make sure the real food you eat is assimilated properly. Including raw and cultured foods in your diet on a regular basis can improve your digestive health and ensure youâre getting the most out of your food.

2. Reduce stress. Another folly of modern society is the intense level of stress most of us are exposed to, often since very early childhood. Stress induces the famine response as much as dieting. After all, the body doesnât distinguish between types of stresses; the same biochemical reactions occur whether youâre stressed by your work, a difficult marriage, lack of real food, poor sleep habits or any number of stressors. So itâs very important to address this and take the appropriate steps to reducing and managing the stress in your life. Read more about the stress connection to weight loss here and here and here.

Without addressing these two components, a healthy body composition is virtually impossible to achieve. Plus, healthy food choices reduce stress, and reducing stress makes it easier to choose healthier food. So making one small change at a time really can add up, and the right choices will come more naturally over time. Granted, this involves patience and wonât produce results like "Lose 10 pounds in one week!" But it will set you on the path to lasting health.

Looks more like Osama bin Laden to me.

The True Story of Easter

gregladen — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 16:46:58 +0000

The True Story of Easter

This is not only the true story of easter, but it is also a commentary on which is better, cats or dogs. Verily, many mysteries are explained in this epic documentary:

h/t: Julia

gregladen Thu, 04/01/2010 - 12:46

Tags

Wait... I'm confused. The dog betrayed Jeshua Cottontail, yet in the end, the dog is in Heaven and the cat is in Hell. So clearly dogs are better cats. But, dogs betrayed the savior not cats, so cats must be better than dogs....

Curse you, Laden! You have only made this age-old conundrum even murkier.

My 9yo asked me a couple of days ago what bunnies and eggs have to do with Easter. This is a much better explanation than the long, drawn out discussion of where traditions come from that I gave him.

We watched this together so that I could answer any questions he had. It was a great family moment. Thank you for sharing.

That bunny reassembled from it's former pieces like a jigsaw puzzle was just creepy. So that's why my dog can't eat chocolate? who knew.

That bunny reassembled from it's former pieces like a jigsaw puzzle was just creepy.

I know, I loved that part. A true horror bunny. And the analogy remains perfect, because when Jesus returned from the dead he instructed the apostles he met (or one of them) to run his fingers through the fatal wound holes in his body.

Lock to lock

stoat — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:00:15 +0000

Lock to lock

About the furthest you can row on the Cam (unless you go over Baits Bite to Bottisham) is Baits Bite lock to Jesus Lock; and that seems to have become our regular monday evening practice. Warmup, spin, down to Jesus Lock, steady state to Baits Bite, then a piece back. It is about 5 km I think; Baits Bite to the Motorway bridge must be ~30 strokes, then it was (tonight, slight following wind, rating 24) 530 strokes to Jesus Lock (and a rapid stop to avoid going under the weir). The rowcoach said ~1:55 split average, maybe a little better. We need to learn to take the rating up; the first half was at ~22 or a fraction under; we ended at 28. This is semi-deliberate to settle us down.

Does that fit? 560/24 ~ 23 1/2 mins. 5km (and against the stream) in 23 mins would be over 2:00, so maybe it is more like 5.5 km. Hmm, and if I put the rate at 25 and say only 20 strokes to the Motorway bridge from the lock? Maybe. Next time we should just time it, that would be easier.

Meanwhile, if you want to see a very rough crew do their first bumps start of the year, try http://www.spannerspotter.com/v/specials/drjpstag/post-drjp-stag-night-5.flv.html. The title is a clue. Note that this was the first time 3 had done a bumps start; in fact it was the first time 3 had rated above 30, let alone 35.

stoat Mon, 02/08/2010 - 12:00

Tags

Ah, memories! I rowed 2 for the second 8 at High School in the UK in the mid-60's. We placed 154th one year in the big annual series (whose name escapes my right now). Middle range. Highly shellacked wooden boats in those days, probably a bit heavier than today's. We put in just below Hammersmith Bridge, and in the winter we had to break the ice to get the hulls afloat. I'm guessing that is not an issue these days.

What really triggered me to comment is bumps starts. Where I caught my one and only crab ever, at about stroke 7, and of course it was in a real race. We called it "take ten", not bumps starts, but the same thing. It was a bit choppy, but even so I was too hasty dropping my blade. Next thing the handle whipped past my nose and I was lying between 3's feet. I was lucky, went down fast enough it did not catch me on my chin. Was able to get back up, recover my oar, and we finished ahead. And then I got the dressing down.

Memories. Every so often I think of joining the row club here on the Island. When I lose that midriff. Someday.

Surely some kind of warmist joke. We all know that a new ice age has descended since 1998 and Great Britain is iced over in the grip of the fiercest winter since the earth was created 6000 years ago.

Noone can row in these conditions .

John McManus
( the world's first private , consulting climate detective )

On a Mission from God

gregladen — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 09:58:15 +0000

On a Mission from God

Lately I've been reading the 19th and early 20th century traveler's accounts of what is now known as the Western Rift Valley and the Ituri Forest, Congo. Some are written by the famous 'explorers' such as H.M. Stanley, others written by scientists on expeditions in the area, and still others by missionaries. Reading these accounts puts me in mind of my own experiences, as a scientist working in that same area, with the missionaries that live and work, or sometimes just visit, there.

So, a few missionary stories are in order.

There were several different 'kinds' of missionaries working on eastern Zaire back in the 1980s and early 1990s, but broadly two types: Catholics and other Christians. The Catholics were permanent residents, and like my own aunts and uncle who were Franciscan Catholic missionaries for decades in Latin America, the Pacific, and briefly, Canada, they left their mission stations only briefly now and then. The other Christians were evangelicals of various stripes, but almost all were from the US, Australia, or Great Britain. These folks lived for anywhere from a few weeks or months to a few years at their stations, and some were simply passing through.

All of them made me mad, made me laugh, and made me scared, each in their own way. Some were impressive individuals who wanted to, and were able to do, good things. Most of them should have been replaced with secular services and removed from the country a long time ago.

In this and the following stories about missionaries, the names have been changed to protect the innocent, and I will deny saying any of this if questioned by any authorities. Don't tell anyone where you heard this.

Story 1: "Why I am a missionary"

Among the many missionaries I came to know, there was a family consisting of dad, mom, and a couple of kids, who were stationed in a city I would occasionally visit. It was routine for me and my colleagues to stay in their home, which was nice of them. We had an arrangement. We would stay in their home and stuff, and in return we would provide medicines (which we would buy from the mission station) and medical help to the people of our project area. Why this arrangement worked at all requires a lengthy explanation I'll provide later. (See "Forget the Maginot Line, What About the Beer Line?" to be published later.)

Since I have a number of stories to tell about these particular, very hospitable folk, I'll name them for you: They were Joseph and Mary and the children were Joe Junior and Little Mary.

So one day we were at Joseph and Mary's home, and by "we" I mean my colleague, Rich Grinker and myself. This was early on in the course of getting to know Joe and Mar, so we were talking about those things people talk about when they are first getting to know each other, like what religion are you, and would you not be interested in converting to my religion, and how Jesus first came into my life, and how Jesus saved me, and so on and so forth. Well, mostly, I was sitting quietly watching the servants and wondering if I could get some time alone with them and Rich was wide eyed and astonished at what I think was his first exposure to really really serious Christians.

So I wasn't paying much attention to the conversation, when I heard Joseph say this: "God told me to be a missionary. Through prayer. I prayed to know what I was to do and he answered me while I prayed."

Nothing unusual there, for a missionary.

"But when it came to where I should serve as a missionary, I did not know for a long time. The whole time I was at Oral Roberts (the University) I kept asking God where I should go."

I would have thought this sort of thing was organized by some administrative body, but if God handles that kind of details, well then, fine...

"Then He sent me a sign."

"A sign?" asked Rich.

I was starting to get interested. Signs from god are always interesting. For one thing, the nature of the sign often depends on the kind of Christian getting the sign. My Catholic missionary relatives got signs consisting of things like the burned image of a hand on a handkerchief neatly folded in the top drawer of the bureau. Protestants received signs as voices in their heads more often, in my experience. So I wondered ... what kind of sign?

"Yes," I added. "What was the sign, Joe?"

"A bumper sticker," he said without skipping a beat.

"I had been praying and walking around, and I was a bit frustrated. So I just looked at the sky and said out loud 'Lord Jesus, where am I to serve?' ... and a car came around the corner just at that moment, and the name of the country I was to serve in, this country we are sitting in right now, was printed as plain as day on a bumper sticker on the back of the car."

Rich and I looked at each other. We both had the same set of thoughts. These were the thoughts:

In our neighborhood in Massachusetts was a discount department store that gave out bumper stickers kind of like those "Where Is Wall Drugs" bumper stickers, but with the name of the store on it. This store was not to be found in Texas or Oklahoma, our missionary friend's home sate and location of his college. So the car was probably from the east coast, midwest, or southeast somewhere, and had one of the these bumper stickers on it.

So up in Cambridge Mass, at the very moment that we were sitting there in a living room of a modest home in a remote city in the country of Zaire, over in Cambridge at the local Zayre's Department Store, was God. Waiting. Waiting for Joseph to show up. After all, a sign had been sent.

Rich and I both were thinking ... "Right. Zayres. And you're here. In Zaire. God is probably really pissed off."

"I'm on a mission from god... to pick up some laundry detergent, toilet paper, and something else, can't remember.... lord help me remember what I was supposed to get at the store.."

Funny. If you look up Zayre's department store in Wikipedia, you find this:

Not to be confused with: Zaire, the African country now known as the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Zayres indeed.

gregladen Mon, 06/22/2009 - 05:58

Tags

Heh!

By the way, by quirk of formatting, the line "Don't tell anyone where you heard this." in your preamble appears next to "Welcome to Greg Laden's Blog!" in the sidebar.

"On a Mission From a Bumper Sticker" doesn't have quite the same ring, does it?

ROFLMAO on this one. What if it had been a KMarts bumper sticker? What country would he be in?

I suppose they were lucky. They could have been sent to Mt. Washington which is much colder than Zayre's.

I have a bumper sticker in my cubicle right now that says "Wall Drug of South Dakota." So if you see any missionaries in Mitchell, ask them if they used to work in the Wells Fargo phone bank in Minnesota.o

Ask them if they prayed when they walked by my desk.

I used to shop at Zayre in Knoxville. As far as I'm concerned, it was a miracle that they could get anyone to put their bumper sticker on a car.

How do you think they would have reacted if you had told them? Dollars to donuts he would have said that God can also use a bumper sticker as a sign, and if he misread "Zayre" as "Zaire" that's because God wanted him to misread it. That's the thing about Providence. Once you start believing in it, everything just _is_ Providential

The ability to see signs everywhere seems to be an example of the human tendency to have overactive pattern recognition features. Humans note patterns all the time. Some humans understand that they don't all mean something. Others convince themselves that they must mean something.

The missionaries who think they've had actual voices of God are at least being more consistent with the source material in the Bible. According to the Bible God talked to almost everyone. Now he sends subtle signs with misspelled bumper stickers? Seems a step down from burning bushes and the like.

I covet your book collection! Is your address public? If your dog friendly? Which room do you keep the books in?

Have you read Mary Slessor's biography?

I think Zayre's went out of bussines; so, maybe Zaire will have to suffer (or not) with fewer missionaries.

The death and resurrection of IRGM - the "Jesus gene"

edyong — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 19:00:16 +0000

The death and resurrection of IRGM - the "Jesus gene"

The world of genetics is filled with stories that are as gripping as the plot of any thriller. Take the IRGM gene - its saga, played out over millions of years, has all the makings of a classic drama. Act One: setting the scene. By duplicating and diverging, this gene thrived in the cells of most mammals as a trinity of related versions that played vital roles in the immune system.

Act Two: tragedy strikes. About 50 million years ago, in the ancestors of today's apes and monkeys, the entire IRGM cluster was practically deleted, leaving behind a sole survivor. Things took a turn for the worse - a parasitic chunk of DNA called Alu hopped into the middle of the remaining gene, rendering it useless. IRGM was, for all intents and purposes, dead and it remained that way for over 25 million years of evolution.

Act Three: the uplifting ending. The future looked bleak, but IRGM's fortunes were revived in the common ancestor of humans and great apes. Out of the blue, a virus inserted itself into this ancient genome in just the right place to resurrect the long-defunct gene. A fall from grace, a tragic demise and an last-minute resurrection - what more could you ask for from a story?

This twisting tale lies hidden in the genomes of the world's mammals and it was discovered and narrated by Cemalettin Bekpen from the University of Seattle. To reconstruct the evolutionary story of the IRGM gene, Bekpen searched for it in a variety of different species.

(Oh come on - you try to find an image to illustrate this story!)

Most mammals, such as the dog and the mouse, have three copies located one after the other. This trio of genes are "paralogs" - slightly different duplicates of a single ancestor. Two species of lemur - the ring-tailed and mouse lemurs - also share the same three genes, but all monkeys have just the one. This suggests that the IRGM cluster shrank from a trinity into a single gene in the last common ancestor of all apes and monkeys, which lived about 40 million years ago.

If that decline wasn't bad enough, Bekpen found that the remaining IRGM gene of monkeys is actually a dead remnant. It's much shorter than those of other mammals, and it has been so heavily abridged that it has lost the ability to encode a protein. In technical terms, it's a "pseudogene" and to paraphrase the Python boys, it's an ex-gene.

The villain that struck the killing blow to the IRGM family will be familiar to geneticists - it's a mobile piece of DNA called Alu. It could well be described as a genetic parasite, for it has the ability to cut itself out of its resident genome and insert itself into new locations. And it's a common feature of primate genomes - as much as 11% of our own DNA is made up of Alu sequences.

In the ancestor of monkeys and apes, an Alu sequence jumped into the middle of the last remaining IRGM, disrupting its sequence. Every three "letters" of a gene's sequence corresponds to one amino acid. To make a working protein, the gene needs to be "read" from the right position in order to manufacture the right chain of amino acids. With the insertion of Alu, that process starts from the wrong place leading to a wholly different chain of amino acids, and one that ends prematurely. It's called a "frameshift mutation" and it renders the gene useless.

Across 15 species of monkey from around the world, from marmosets to macaques to baboons, Bekpen found the same frameshift mutation. This means that Alu must have infiltrated the primate genome before the various monkeys diverged from one another, about 40 million years ago.

For 25 million years, the IRGM gene was effectively dead. But then, in the common ancestor of humans and the great apes, something unexpected happened. The gene somehow regained its ability to produce a protein, albeit a shortened one. The gene had been resurrected, and ironically enough, its saviour was another genetic hitchhiker that inserted itself in just the right place.

The new intruder was an "endogenous retrovirus" - a group of viruses that can integrate their DNA into the genomes of their hosts. The virus jumped into a position at the very start of the gene and its own sequence then drove how the gene was read and activated. Its presence negated the harmful effects of Alu, effectively getting rid of the frameshift mutation.

We humans have this resurrected IRGM gene, and Bekpen found that it's active in a variety of different tissues including the heart, brain, kidneys and particularly the testicles. The results don't provide direct evidence that the gene actually produces a working protein, but there's good reason to believe that it does.

Mutations in the IRGM gene are associated with Crohn's disease - an inherited disease, where the immune system attacks the digestive tract, leading to chronic inflammation. That strongly suggests that the IRGM gene has regained some sort of role in the immune system, and it was one of the reasons why Bekpen started investigating the gene in the first place.

But as he says on his homepage, "Who cares about Crohn's disease? We just discovered the Jesus gene!"

Reference: Cemalettin Bekpen, Tomas Marques-Bonet, Can Alkan, Francesca Antonacci, Maria Bruna Leogrande, Mario Ventura, Jeffrey M. Kidd, Priscillia Siswara, Jonathan C. Howard, Evan E. Eichler (2009). Death and Resurrection of the Human IRGM Gene PLoS Genetics, 5 (3) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1000403

More on genetics:

Subscribe to the feed

edyong Thu, 03/05/2009 - 14:00

Tags

evolution

gene duplication

genetics

horizontal gene transfer

viruses

Alu

endogenous retrovirus

horizontal gene transfer

viruses

The actual paper reference is (Bekpen C, Marques-Bonet T, Alkan C, Antonacci F, Leogrande MB, et al. (2009) Death and Resurrection of the Human IRGM Gene. PLoS Genet 5(3): e1000403. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000403) http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen…

Don't laugh - if some Christians get hold of this, they'll crow at scientific proof of resurrection. Luckily, most won't be able to wrap their heads around it.

Framing for the unwashed masses, sacrilicious!

Don't laugh - if some Christians get hold of this, they'll crow at scientific proof of resurrection. Luckily, most won't be able to wrap their heads around it.

Unfortunately, the fact that most of them won't be able to wrap their heads around it is the problem. They will make it up as they go along and the followers will believe the pseudoscience is real.

Don't laugh - if some Christians get hold of this, they'll crow at scientific proof of resurrection. Luckily, most won't be able to wrap their heads around it.
Unfortunately, the fact that most of them won't be able to wrap their heads around it is the problem. They will make it up as they go along and the followers will believe the pseudoscience is real.

Posted by: Kay |

Interesting I like many ppl believe in both chritianity and evolution. Your arrogance makes you little different than the ppl you believe yourselves better than.

Ive found the feild of genetics to be very interesting now that were learning so much more.

"Your arrogance makes you little different than the ppl you believe yourselves(sic) better than."

I think the grammatical error reveals how disingenuous you are.

loving the picture.

And I really wouldn't be too surprised if this article winds up on a blog like Denyse O'Leary's horrible Post-Darwinist (intentionally not linking heh). Probably with some bizarre title like "evolutionary genetics shows proof of Jesus, scientists bury evidence"

Okay enough folks. Yes I'm sure there's plenty of potential for people to wildly misinterpret the study. But until they do, how about we stop predicting the ways in which they could and concentrate on the really interesting piece of research here?

It would be a sad day for science if the only reaction to fascinating pieces of research was mass speculation about the potential reactions of the anti-science lobby.

Hi Ed! Just found your blog (thanks to the "Now on Science Blogs" ad above). This post was the first one I read, and, boy oh boy(!), it is a good one! This is fascinating. Consider yourself bookmarked. I'm surprised I haven't run across this information yet on other science sites I visit.

Incidentally, appreciate your comment above. There's no need to toss slurs around especially over something that hasn't happened.

Anyway, off to read some of your older articles.

Thanks Daniel. Glad to have you on board ;-)

And as to why this hasn't been mentioned anywhere else, it may just be that it's breaking news. The paper was only published last Thursday!

Abstruse

"Your arrogance makes you little different than the ppl you believe yourselves(sic) better than."

I think the grammatical error reveals how disingenuous you are.

What grammatical error? "You" can be either singular or plural in standard English. It seems clear that James was not criticizing both Kay and Steve, both of whom were quoted in his comment. Two people = plural = yourselves.

James was not criticizing

D'oh! Strike out the "not". That's what happens when you rephrase and forget to proofread ...

"Who cares about Crohn's disease?"

Well, one would suspect those who suffer from it do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyAzwREVBZs

I don't see why you guys turn everything into a Creationism vs. Evolution debate. As I see it, Creationism should at least be everyone's wish, because only God can save us from what you see in that video overtaking the earth within 50 years. Damn you, evolution. DAMN YOU TO HELL.

What the fuck does Jesus have to do with a story about genetics? How about just reporting the facts in a science blog?

What the fuck does Jesus have to do with a story about genetics? How about just reporting the facts in a science blog?

It's a blog, not a peer reviewed scientific journal (and even they have editorials). Who died and made you the blog police? Or perhaps you're from the bureau of oversensitivity to mild tongue-in-cheek religious references? Or the department of absurdly narrow interpretations of media classifications?

Thanks for the roffles, PZ!

palmd — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 19:06:26 +0000

Thanks for the roffles, PZ!

I don't link to Pharyngula very often---our content just doesn't intersect that much, but I followed a link from today's post and had a good laugh.

You see, some ~~comedian~~ creationist cult leader put out a new book, and the reviews on Amazon are a real hoot. From one review:

My only disappointment with the proofs provided in this book is that my favorite, Eve, isn't listed among them. Evolution could have made her look like anything at all--like Rush Limbaugh, a big hairy wookie, or a naked mole rat for example. There's no way Adam would have tapped that. Instead, God chose to fashion one of Adam's ribs into something soft, curvy, beautiful, and desirable (Yes, he did make that little sailor in the boat impossible to find, but that's only because you're not supposed to touch it).

Sometimes I think that the only response to the anti-science, misogynistic, anti-semitic, virulently anti-gay rhetoric of these creation cults is a good laugh at their expense.

palmd Thu, 02/19/2009 - 14:06

Tags

Absurd religious wingnutery

The guy has GOT to be sarcastic. Click on his profile to read his other reviews... he's reviewed "Raising Godly Tomatoes" and the Playmobil Security Checkpoint toy set... no way can this be a living, breathing person who actually thinks this way.

I hope.

Yes, Elissa, there is a Poe.

Sorry, bad joke.

That "review" is from General JC Christian, Patriot. Check out his website for a bit... he definitely is being sarcastic.

Jesus General is a well-known, and very humoristic blogger:
http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/

You mean nobody here heard of the General. He's fantastic. Kinda like Colbert, although Steven has never talked about wrestling in the manly nature of our Spartan ancestors, naked and oiled up, with the little soldier at the ready! Definitely Poe, and he's always a good read. Thanks for reminding me to add him back to my rss feed!

Sorry - I teach high school biology. I'm very, very used to encountering these people in the real world (students and, more often, their parents) - and they're not kidding. You would think they're Poe, but you'd be wrong. My radar must be damaged because of it :)

Right is right, right?

palmd — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 14:31:55 +0000

Right is right, right?

I'm getting really tired of this nature vs. nurture debate when discussing homosexual rights. It's always interesting to investigate the origins of human behavior, and occasionally something is found to be purely genetic, but I suspect that sexuality, like many human attributes, has a complex mix of biological and non-biological causes. That doesn't piss me off. What pisses me off is the insistence by right wing religious cults on "proving" that homosexuality is a choice.

Sexuality phenotype is a tough concept if you really think about it. The harder you try to nail down the difference between "gay" and "straight" phenotypes, the slipperier the concept becomes.

When we try to judge people by whom they love, or by whom they choose to have sex with, there are some problems other than the obvious one of "IT'S NONE OF YOUR GOD DAMNED BUSINESS." Sure, there are some people who appear to be really, really gay, or really, really straight, but what does that really, really mean?

If someone identifies themselves as "gay", and only has sexual relationships with people of the same gender, they may still love people of the other gender. What makes each type of love different? There are plenty of intimate partner relationships that are sexless---does that make the relationship more or less gay or straight? On which relationships do we judge someone's sexuality phenotype?

This is where religious cultists such as evangelical Christians (the most prominent and influential cult in the U.S.) are poisoned by their own ideology. Cultists are "splitters"---you're one of us, or you're one of them, but you must pick sides. Subtlety is scornful, perhaps even sinful. So everyone must be a particular religion, have a particular belief about abortion, and have a specific type of sexuality. You can't be "kinda sometimes gay" or "anti-abortion, but sort of pro-choice too". You also can't be a proper cult member and accept the scientific view of biology.

This is where the science becomes less important. The origins of human sexuality are interesting, but completely irrelevant when discussing civil rights. It doesn't matter whether someone is born gay or straight---each of us is equally deserving of civil and human rights, independent of the specifics of our race, gender, sexuality. People who are focused on the "choice" of homosexuality are about to "choose" to deprive others of their rights. If science were to identify the "gay" gene on the short arm of chromosome 4, they would simply start to oppress homosexuals before they are born. (Imagine the debate behind the closed doors of the churches regarding abortion and a "gay" gene that can be identified in utero.)

The "biology of gay" debate is, and has always been a steaming bucket of crap designed to allow people to be bigots. No matter the ultimate answer (and I don't think there is one), the people asking the question have only one conscious desire---to control others and deprive them of basic human rights.

palmd Tue, 02/17/2009 - 09:31

Tags

Absurd religious wingnutery

For me it's a case of here-we-go-again.

My father was born in 1916, and was left-handed. In that era, left-handedness was considered deviant rebellious behavior and was punished. My dad got switched, smacked on the hand with a yardstick, and had his right hand tied behind his back to his belt. He was shamed repeatedly, humiliated and cowed, but he did learn printing and scripting with his off-hand (and his left as well, on the sly).

Today, nobody in their right mind, and few in their wrong mind, would assert that left-handedness was a lifestyle choice. Why? I think too many people know that handedness is something that happens to someone. Lefties are valued in baseball, but nobody would seriously try to become a lefty if he was born a righty. We all know better.

In time, when enough people know that gender identity, sexual style, gender preference, and mannerisms are not things people can select, all this nonsense will end up forgotten.

Meanwhile, if it's any help, consider that these gay-haters are not arguing in good faith. They're lying and they know they're lying. They want to get their way and don't mind cheating. Actually, they like cheating.

i always turn it back on 'em by reminding them "religion is a lifestyle choice. it is empirically NOT genetic"

... and then wonder i aloud if they'd want the same same rule to apply to them and their lifestyle choice. unsurprisingly, they never do

The origins of human sexuality are interesting, but completely irrelevant when discussing civil rights.

DING! Give this man a plushie toy!

Amen brutha! Amen! Tell it like it is! I couldn't agree more.

Actually, I get just as annoyed - well, not "just as" annoyed, but very annoyed - with gay rights activists who put too much time and energy into "proving" that being gay is not a choice. It does not matter if you were born with a big fat helping of "gay genes" or choose the gender of your romantic partners (or your own gender - shout out to my transgender peeps!) on a thrice-monthly random rotation, you are just as deserving of every human right and freedom that anyone else is - which from any sensible ethical perspective includes the freedom to choose to do most anything you want that is compatible with similar freedom for others.

Look at it this way: I am a life-long heterosexual male - "hopelessly heterosexual," one of my friends says with a shake of his head and roll of his eyes. But if I suddenly decided to give up on women and chase men from this day forward, how does my choosing it rather than being stuck with it from adolescence affect anything? Does it become okay for the bigots to express their hate of me because I "chose" to be gay? Does the power of the state to control my personal sexual choices and activities become less unjust, or more unjust? Does it make my love any less love, or any more?

On the one hand, I get it: The fact is that people do not experience their own sexual identity as a choice, so it's natural to want to argue with people who insist it is a choice. That would be fine if that were all there is to it - but it isn't.

Remember, anti-gay bigots (especially the religious ones) are only saying that homosexuality is a choice because they insist that it is an immoral choice. They are backhandedly acknowledging a basic principle of moral reasoning, "ought implies can." If you have no choice about being gay, you cannot logically be said to have any obligation to change being gay - and they want you to feel obligated to not be gay or "live the gay lifestyle" that causes them such shudders, so they insist that it's your choice. So whenever you fight them over whether or not your sexual preference is a choice, you are essentially conceding the assumption that motivates their insistence that it's a choice - the assumption that your sexual preferences are somehow inherently immoral, that it's not just a choice, but that it's the *wrong* choice. I don't think you actually want to concede that, SO STOP IT ALREADY!

The next time some homophobe says something about how people choose to be gay, pipe up and say, "Yes! I choose to be gay! What can I say? I just love the dick/pussy! And what's your fucking point? Why is my choice so wrong? Do you have any actual reasons to offer, or are you just gonna look stupid and wave a Bible at me? Buy a clue, asshole: Your personal distaste for my decisions about who to fuck does not give you the right to control my life in any way whatsoever. Your personal sexual hang-ups are not a legitimate basis for modifying our most basic moral, political, and legal principles, such as the equality of all citizens before the law."

Here endeth my rant.

Actually, I get just as annoyed - well, not "just as" annoyed, but very annoyed - with gay rights activists who put too much time and energy into "proving" that being gay is not a choice.

I think that, when it really comes down to it at an emotional level, gay activists aren't actually trying to get this across to the "it's a sin and therefore a choice" crowd. (Well, except to the extent that they/we have family members who are members of that crowd....)

Rather, the point is more about sharing the experience of being GLBTWTFBBQ to people who aren't whackjobs but just feel uneasy because it's outside their familiar/comfortable zone. There are a fair number of people that have a vague intuition that sexual orientation is a choice, not for reasons of indoctrination but just because they've never given the matter serious thought. The idea that someone would actually choose something so foreign to their experience is a serious culture shock, which immediately leads to the formation of an ingroup-outgroup dynamic that shuts down rational discussion. I myself have had a few friends that didn't really grok it until the tenth or fifteenth time I explained how I'd been attracted to other boys at age 12 and figured out I was gay by the end of 7th grade.

On the other hand, I seriously don't envy bisexuals on this front, because not only do they have a harder time using this rhetorical device than gay mens and lesbians, but the ground's already been sown with misleading half-ideas planted by clumsy use. Oh, and FSM help you if you're going to try and explain transsexuality to such folks â immediate blank stare and mental BSOD, in the absence of a lot of carefully scripted tour-guiding past Intersex Falls and Lake David Reimer.

Right.Well, I may be odd, but I think if it's kept between consenting adult humans, it's none of my business.

Re Rose Colored Glasses

It is interesting to note that the majority of our modern presidents were left handed.

Herbert Hoover
Harry Truman
Gerald Ford
Ronald Reagan
George H. W. Bush
William Jefferson Clinton
Barack Obama

Well said.

Tangentially related: If you guys can get a copy of "Tearoom Trade" by Laud Humphreys you might be pleasantly surprised to see many happily married men, with children, white picket fence, etc... are also happily gay (on the side).

Really, I think this is unrefutable proof that the cultural and biological confound each other particularly well on this issue. You can't tease these things apart. Or, if you can, we certainly don't have the methods in our social studies at this moment in time.

@skyotter: Wow, what an amazing comeback! I'm totally stealing that.

@Chronos: Yeah, I understand that motivation, too. But it's one of those things that is so fraught with "You're conceding too much!" that I often feel ranty about it. People should always at least point out that the unargued and unsupportable assumption that "teh gay is eeee-vul" is just that - assumed, unargued, and unsupportable. Once you get across the idea that it's not okay for anyone to legislate the behavior of others based on no more than their personal emotional discomfort, THEN it's certainly okay to do what you can to help people past that emotional discomfort. I guess I just want better priorities on this front than I often see.

And yeah, all my bisexual friends get the worst of both worlds. Close-minded heterosexuals revile them, but often they are also reviled by close-minded or resentful homosexuals because some of their relationships can "pass" in a heteronormative world: I've actually heard a gay man say to a bisexual "Pick a damned side!" Real understanding and supportive, dude.

Sometimes I think of a poor, battered tetherball (did you have that game on your playgrounds as a kid?) when I hear the phrase "swings both ways..."

I've actually heard a gay man say to a bisexual "Pick a damned side!" Real understanding and supportive, dude.

I've yet to be told to "pick a side", but if I were, I'd probably respond with, "And why don't you pick a hair colour?"

Or maybe I'd steal a line from Björk: "That's like asking someone to choose between cake and ice cream!"

What if your 'side' varies with your ovulation cycle?

Weekend Diversion: Walking on Water!

esiegel — Sat, 03 May 2008 00:05:14 +0000

Weekend Diversion: Walking on Water!

Clearly, neither the man nor the bull below is headed for anything good in their attempt to walk on water,

and for that matter, neither is this poor, bristling cat,

but what about this reptile?

Unbelievably, this lizard actually can walk on water! And without using any surface tension tricks like insects do, either. No, whereas a human puts his foot into the water and sinks, this lizard has a very low mass and a very large surface area on his feet, allowing him to "run" on water as long as he moves quickly enough. For this lizard, that's about 10 miles-per-hour. As opposed to a human, who would have to run at about 400 miles-per-hour to walk on water.

This lizard is known as the common basilisk, and although an adult basilisk can weigh up to 1.3 pounds (600 grams), an immature basilisk can weigh under an ounce (they are only 2 grams at birth)! Combined with their large feet, this allows them to run on water!

LIZARD! And that's why it's sometimes known as a Jesus Lizard. Have a good weekend!

esiegel Fri, 05/02/2008 - 20:05