From the comments, here’s something bizarre: creationists (at least the ones at Answers in Genesis) have defined life…and it excludes squid! I have yet another reason to reject the Bible, in this case for disrespecting perfectly wonderful invertebrates.
Many scientists make the distinction that vertebrates have hemoglobin,
hence red blood, and invertebrates contain other oxygen transporting
proteins, like hemocyanins, and do not have red blood. As far as
we’ve researched at this time, all vertebrates have hemoglobin and
invertebrates do not, though there may be exceptions we are not aware
of.So, animals that contain hemoglobin (vertebrates) and therefore have
red blood can be considered “living” and animals that contain
hemocyanin, or other proteins (invertebrates) and therefore have blue
(pink/violet or brown) blood can be considered “nonliving”. This is
further supported by Scripture since the Hebrew for “blood” (dawm)
is derived from the Hebrew for “red” (aw-dam). And with Genesis
1:20-22 and Leviticus 11:10, there is a distinction between
“living” creatures and “swarming/moving” creatures that teem in
the waters. So the logical conclusion can be made that a “living”
creature is one that contains red blood.
There’s much more, but it’s all masturbiblation, picking at words and extracting far more significance from them than is warranted, all to determine that squid actually aren’t alive*. There’s hairsplitting in Genesis, and a silly exegesis of the dietary rules in Leviticus.
What I’d really love to see now, though, is the rhetorical squirming they’d go through when it’s pointed out that human embryos do not develop red blood cells until about the 5th week of development, and therefore the early embryo, by their own definition, is not living. Heh.
One bit of good news: this definition greatly simplifies the project to create an army of death-ray-wielding undead squid-men.
When words have no set meaning, they can be used to say whatever you like and conclude whatever you prefer.
Logic is the beginning of wisdom. Abandon it and you abandon sanity. These people never took it up in the first place.
Aw-dam. They’ve got me all confused now. Does a little bear bereshit in the woods?
Since a zygote, even blastulas, have no red blood cells, can we all agree they are not human beings?
At least one fish species doesn’t have hemoglobin either.
Comp Biochem Physiol. 1969 Apr;29(1):467-70. Oxygen consumption in an antarctic hemoglobin-free fish, Pagetopsis macropterus, and in three species of Notothenia. Hemmingsen EA, Douglas EL, Grigg GC.
I don’t know how this would play into it, but a lot of republicans are heartless. Without a pumping system, I don’t see why they’d have blood…
I think you know where I’m going with this.
What a bizarre “discovery”! WTF are they thinking? What do they call invertebrates if they aren’t “alive”?! OMG. I am just beside myself with… I don’t even know what to call it. Rage at stupidity? Laughter at morons? I’m sure the Germans have a word for it…
That is SERIOUSLY messed up. Even for AIG…or at least for my former image of AIG. Yow.
masturbiblation
What a wonderful new word!
Goddamn, squid sure look lively when you throw them on the grill!
“We know that a creature that is considered alive contains blood.” – from the linked post
This is really going to piss off bacteriologists. And botanists. And everyone else who studies anything but vertebrates, for that matter. What kind of half-assed definition of life is that? No, wait, I know…
Wait, does that mean that as a botanist, I study the undead? Sweet. This is going to make awkward cocktail party conversation starters even more fun.
And to be more specific, I work on fossil plants, so that means I study the dead undead.
Better than just a species, it’s an entire suborder of hemoglobin-less fish.
Zhao Y, Ratnayake-Lecamwasam M, Parker SK, Cocca E, Camardella L, di Prisco G, Detrich HW 3rd. 1998. The major adult alpha-globin gene of antarctic teleosts and its remnants in the hemoglobinless icefishes. Calibration of the mutational clock for nuclear genes. J Biol Chem. 273:14745-52.
Such incredible sophistry – the mind boggles.
But professor, they were talking only about “animals”, remember?
And, as they’ve already told us, mammals aren’t animals, that means that none of this applies to humans.
I remember seeing this question asked 10 years ago on the web, and not seeing a good reply. They’d usually come back with something like “its not about the life of the body, its the life of the person, and people have souls.” And then they’d be unhappy, because this new definition of life is purely religious.
Its a good question to get the biblical literalists out of an abortion thread, because they don’t seem to want to answer this question.
On that topic…
My Favorite questions that creationists won’t respond to:
1. Goosenecks State Park–
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=16910
How could a flood carve these? If not, where did it come from? Google for pics- it has extreme 270-300 degree meanders with deep canyon walls: 7 miles of river in 1 mile of crow-fly land.
Mud would have slumped. Noah’s floodwaters would have carved a straighter line ala the Grand Canyon or Mt. St. Helens (per the usual creationist flood claims). If its pre-flood geology, why claim that the Grand Canyon and all its layers has to be from the flood?
2. The hominid skull comparison test:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html
(see also the talkorigins “Creationist Classifications” table.)
3. Cain’s fear of people killing him, and Cain’s wife and her people- who exactly are these people?
Any other favorites?
I think the funniest, saddest part was the question at the beginning:
“Could a shark have eaten an octopus before the first human sin?”
Wow.
Second the post by Arun. Thanks PZ: That’s sweet. That red-hot poker you delivered up thier collective rectum about embryos’ (by thier own definition) not being alive is a real crowd-pleaser too. LOL
So, thanks to Answers in Genesis and their pals, we have now made the following earth-shaking discoveries:
1) Squid are not alive.
2) Mt. Rushmore was carved by humans.
Creation science marches on!
Mount Rushmore carved by humans! Poppycock! Were you there!?!?
I keed, I keed.
Since a zygote, even blastulas, have no red blood cells, can we all agree they are not human beings?
Posted by: epistemology
Ah, then are we not all squids at some point in our lives?
Rage at stupidity? Laughter at morons? I’m sure the Germans have a word for it…
Posted by: Jan Andrea
I’m not a native speaker, so I undertake this only with hesitation, but, nonetheless, I would translate “rage at stupidity” as “Wut gegen Dummheit” or, if you want one word, “Antidummheitszorn” (which may more literally translate as ‘holy wrath against stupidity’). I would translate “laughter at morons” as “Schwachsinnigkeitslachen” or “Geschwindigsbehinderung” (which, in turn, may translate more literally as ‘speed bump’)
Lexegete-flexegete,
Answers in Genesis
Claims that an octopus
Is not alive…
Bloody Flexegesis
uh, leeches have hemoglobin (their own, not just the stuff they eat)…
last I knew, they were also invertebrates…
but maybe that makes sense, given our politicians…
One of the first arguments I heard from a creationist was that insects and plants were not alive. Some babble about the meaning of an ambiguous word in Genesis that avoided the whole “what did insects eat before the fall” problem. I think they just didn’t want to answer if tarantulas ate tomatos and if spider webs were made to catch falling fruit.
No no no. God doesn’t hate squid – he’s not an asquidist. He just doesn’t think belief in them is warranted yet and wants to keep an open mind.
Many organisms of the annelid persuation use hemoglobins for oxygen transport, and bleed red.
They also suck dirt for a living. Remind you of anyone?
Squid not living?!
This blasphemy against Our Most Tentacular Lord, the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Blessed Be His Name) is not to be endured! To the streets! We shall flog them with wet noodles!
PZ, you’re killing me! “Masturbiblation” — what a word! That’s the funniest thing I’ve read all day.
I just love the way AIG attempts to look oh so scientific for the rubes, what with references and a bibliography and everything. What very knowledgeable evangelical men those knowledgeable evangelical men must be! Why, one of their reference books is less than 30 years old!
Negroes.
No, seriously. I doubt that’s the answer you’d get nowadays, except from maybe National Vanguard, but there were a group of polygenesists who believed that Adam wasn’t the first man–there were, in fact, pre-Adamites.
They decided that Adam wasn’t the first man, but rather the first man created in the image of God. And since Adam was white (naturally), this meant that all other races weren’t made in the image of God (or, in some cases, simply weren’t human at all, but Cain could breed with them anyways).
There was perhaps advance warning of this particular piece of idiocy in the way that the creationists’ baraminology site had completely missed out snails etc as well as bacteria. I remarked on it the other year.
So obviously God hates Mister Spock, our green-blooded Vulcan friend. (Although I never believed that part about Spock’s father coming from outer space. I think it’s more likely his mother had a thing for squids.)
Some molluscs have a dimeric hemoglobin.
http://www.umassmed.edu/bmp/faculty/royer.cfm?start=0&
Maybe that makes them like Schroedinger’s cat.
Skemono,
Whoa, that can’t be real… next you’ll be telling me that there’s a “chewed gum” stage of human embryo development. [Reads the wiki article] Oh.
Ok then, there’s another concept which I’m glad to not ever have heard of except in a historic / academic sense. Like the word “miscegenation”- first read about it in history texts rather than from other people, and Lovings vs. Virginia happened before I was born.
Back to my short list #1…Been poking around the web about Goosenecks. A CreationWiki article fails badly to address the issue of Goosenecks as mentioned in the Index of Creationist Claims:
CH581 ‘3. The Grand Canyon contains some major meanders. Even worse is upstream of the Grand Canyon, where the San Juan River (around Gooseneck State park, SE Utah) has some of the most extreme meandering imaginable. The canyon is 1000 feet high with the river flowing five miles while progressing one mile as the crow flies. There is no way a single massive flood could carve this.
CreationWiki Response:
“Cracks can and do meander. The larger a crack is the more it is likely to meander. If the Grand Canyon formed from a crack, then given its size it would be expected to meander.”
(http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=CH581)
Um, CreationWiki? Did you look at a picture of Goosenecks? Have you ever worked with stained glass?
But don’t worry! Our well trained Genesisicists are hard at work doing scientifical research on it as we speak!
“…’You shall not eat the blood of any flesh..”
This is the basis of Jewish Kosher laws. Jewish butchers kill cows by hanging them with the head down and cutting their throats so all the blood drains out (I am only nominally Jewish, so I’m not certain about that, but I seem to remember it that way.)
Do the Christian Literalists practice Kosher dietary practices?
Then they are all sinners.
So there.
You got the poor exegetist wrong. He meant that red-blooded critters have soul while skids, fishes and those cold wiggling thingies in the water do not. Although he is a theologist, he is not so stupid to propose that squids are not living in the sense you mean living, that is, objects that are born, feed, grow, grow, reproduce, etc. You are making fun of a semantic misunderstanding, which is right and legitimate … in a kindergarten.
Now please dont ask me what he means by “soul”.
Other than that, I enjoyed the mastur… whatever.
Quote from a christian friend after reading that to him: “That’s so fucked up I can’t even get my mind around it.”
I’m sorry, but you totally skipped the best part:
So: conclusive demonstration that squid and octopi are not alive because they utilize copper to bind oxygen instead of iron! Is my girlfriend only half-alive because she’s anemic? I don’t know! I demand an answer!
Thirding Arun’s post.
“Masturbiblation” is my new favorite word.
Masturbiblation” This is a word that Jon Stewart or Steven Colbert could use- I think you should send it their way. Funny and just so wrong it is just right!!!
Okay, just a moment. Excuse me folks, I’m just setting up an ‘evil monitor’ … just a few more whacks … there, planted firmly in place. Sorry for the interruption … I’ll drop in tomorrow to take the meter reading. Cheers!
The correct question should have been, “Could an octopus eat a shark?” At least according to that video from a few weeks back.
Although God hates squid, squid tolerate God, despite all the nasty things he’s said about them. I think there’s a lesson in that for all of us.
what about the first squid made in the image of squid-god? obviously, cuttlefish are an advanced form of squid-dom, and they can still interbreed with the “mud-squids”. So your real problem is not admiring the RIGHT squid, fool.
I have many handbills with illustrations showing how to recognize a chosen squid. Write to my mailbox at Postal Annex in Bakersfield.
Masterbiblation is a good word, but I think Antidummheitszorn is better. What a great title for a blog!
He meant that red-blooded critters have soul while squids, fishes and those cold wiggling thingies in the water do not…
Now please dont ask me what he means by “soul”.
Man, if you have to ask, you’ll never know.
Uh-huh.
What about manimals?
And if I pour a few cc’s of blood into my crankcase, will my pickup truck be alive?
Pre-enlightenment, this is what was considered “science” – cite some famous thinker or the Bible and it must therefore be true.
Of course, this is where certain pieces of our society would like to take us again…
Well, this seems to also decide the debate if a virus is truly alive. Everything below a squid is non-life. Sure clears up the evolution of lifeforms.
ok, NOW I think AiG is insane.
Bloodworms are the aquatic larval form of any number of midges, the family Chironomidae. They’re called bloodworms, because they use hemoglobin for oxygen transport.
As adults, they don’t use hemoglobin. Does that mean they are alive as larvae, but not-alive as adults?
God is not deceptive, but Creationists sure are.
fusilier
James 2:24
I’d think that Hemoglobin is one thing the Intelligent Design people ought never to comment on. One of the common variations in human hemoglobin is Sickle Cell Anemia. Having two copies of the abnormal gene can make some unfortunate person’s life pretty short and painful, but having one normal gene and one abnormal gene makes the person less likely to get the worst types of malaria.
So the gene lives on in the population – something that makes perfect sense from the viewpoint of natural selection, but zero sense from intelligent design-“see how perfect the body and its little molecular motors are “.
Good catch, fusilier. I was just thinking about chironomids…had a prof who was very fond of the buggers. I’ve spent more time than I care to in drainage ditch muck…
I find it difficult to believe that our host is unaware of the existence of the Squidblog – all squid, all the time – at http://squid.us/, but I thought I should mention it anyway.
Interesting stuff. I found http://tinyurl.com/kjcb6 for reading up on oxigen transport and storage in various animals.
A generous reading would simply conclude that the use of the term “living” by strict biblical reading is not the same (or possibly even related) to the way we use the term in modern times and non-biblical contexts. I realize generous readings are not popular, largely because they generate fewer witty quips, but they might make us less dismissable.
Leviticus 11:9-12 says:
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
Deuteronomy 14:9-10 says:
9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:
10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.
“A generous reading would simply conclude that the use of the term “living” by strict biblical reading is not the same (or possibly even related) to the way we use the term in modern times and non-biblical contexts. I realize generous readings are not popular, largely because they generate fewer witty quips, but they might make us less dismissable.”
I think it’s pretty clear we appreciate that there is some vagueness over the term “living” here. But I would offer two points about that. One, if those making this argument (AIG) don’t mean “living,” then they need to use a different term or phrase. Two, even with the use of a better term or phrase, the position would be just as worthy of ridicule, if a little more opaque to the casual observer. They are trying to use biology to draw a clear division amongst organisms in support of a purely religious position. Biology, in its glorious messiness and sloppy innovation, isn’t letting them get away with it. It is especially humorous in that their very effort to exploit biology reveals how poor their knowledge of biology actually is, and greatly erodes their credibility.
According to Leviticus and Deuteronomy, insects have (or had) 4 legs and bats are (or were) birds. That suggests a grant aplication: Maybe the DI or AIG would fund an expedition to dig for fossils of 4-legged locusts and egg-laying feathered bats. It might take a loooong time to exhaustively look for this confirmation. I’m looking for a job rihgt now, so I volunteer.
No silly. God hates shrimp.
http://www.godhatesshrimp.com
“I’d think that Hemoglobin is one thing the Intelligent Design people ought never to comment on.” But what about the Himogoblin?
http://sortakinda.com/look/withyoualways.shtml
What’s that you say, Bacterial Hemoglobin?
Why not? After all, the capybara is a fish.
That’s one of the great things about reality, eg Dictyostelium (slime mold).
There is something fascinating about exegesis. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact. (Apologies to Mark Twain.)
The other interesting aspect of this discussion is that it moves the goalposts — in the wrong direction for the creationists. If “living” means “terrestrial vertebrate with hemoglobin”, then I think that means that living beings evolved from Sarcopterygii. That means it’s probably possible to provide a nice neat fossil sequence from nonliving to living creatures.
Gee, and all this time I’d been mumbling stuff about “open question”, “ongoing research”, “RNA world”, and so forth.
garth:
Cthulhu ftagn! Mglui naflftagn Dagon e Y’ha-nthlei!
Whoever wrote that vertebrates have red blood forgot the marvellously adapted icefish (family Channichyidae) of the Antarctic: their blood is cold enough to carry dissolved oxygen without hemoglobin.
Article, fourth paragraph: “Antarctic fish and squid
So if mammals have souls but invertebrates do not, then isn’t it a sin to eat mammals but not a sin to eat invertebrates?
For the record I do not eat any creature that has neocortex, and eat non-vegetables only rarely. I guess I am a good christian after all?
aren’t you aware…
http://www.godhatesshrimp.com
:)
Thank you kindly, Benzene! I can now say with confidence that I am full of Antidummheitszorn. And the second definition of Geschwindigsbehinderung as “speed bump” — genius! There are many morons who fit the description all too perfectly.
NOTOTHENIA ROSSII IS KOSHER FISH ..
IS NOTOTHENIA ROSSII A KOSHER FISH ..
They could just have answered the question “no.”
They’re dealing with human languages anyways. Humans had not yet explored the sea thoroughly, so to humans at the time, all blood was red, which is why their word for blood came from the word for red.
It’s more of a question about linguistics than it is a question about biology. Bloody bastards. ;)
i precive these statments as a desperate attempt to disprove something that is not easy to understand. something that requires an open heart and spirit to realize. in the most obvious ways there is no posible way for there not to be a creator. it is easy to think this was all here to begin with. i am not in any religious group. but with much contemplation and meditation i knew i was somewhere before i was on this planet. i know i am going back after this life. i know evry one of his creations has a direct connection with our creator. even if we dont belive it. even the being who wrote this has the light of god within them.
Hey, what that guy was saying the word “living” is in quotations, in his mind that probably means he is using it in the context of defining what types of animals are in what categories of Biblically defined food groups. I dont think he is saying that they arent alive.
Im a Christian at a liberal College and I can say right now that if he is saying squids arent alive then he is just stupid. Im at UCF in psychology and Astronomy, not every Christian is retarded and goes around making illogical statements. A stupid man of any belief is still a stupid man. So if you want to be mad at Christianity then please refer to a Bible and talk to an expert about greek and roman cultural contexts, dont go to some idiots blog. We have more than enough people misrepresenting us. I dont like most Christians either, ironically and i have been one inspite of most of the ones involved in my life.
Refer to the actual Book, not people. If you find something there that is completely illogical and destroys my faith, id sure like to know about it. Untill then stop hating us just because some guy made a poor argument. Where does the Bible say what kind of blood counts as real blood or not? He is invalid anyway. What a stupid reason to dislike a whole religion. We arent all so zealous. I personally respect other peoples views and thats the same respect I want from others. SOme Christians make that hard though, like the “christian” that shot the abortion doctors. But seriously, nearly every other belief in the world is more violent than us and real Christians are appalled as much as you are by that mans actions.
We only fight abortion b/c we think it is saving lives. Why would we condone killing to stop it? If you are going to use logic to put us down then use it to give us a fair chance. If nothing else, just to understand us correctly. We will probably still disagree but we arent as different as you might think.
There is a a lot of misrepresentation out there these days. Go to the core belief for your opinion on the subject. Basing it off what stupid people do is not fair. Thats all Im saying.