Here it is. I haven’t watched it, so maybe it sucks.
Here it is. I haven’t watched it, so maybe it sucks.
Man, I hate TED talks. I know there are some good ones, but like anything, 99% of them are crap, and the garbage gets gobbled up with the same fervor as the jewels.
So I get this blurb from a book publisher, promoting a new book coming out about evolution, by some guy whose main claim to fame seems to be that he’s a “TED all-star” (I looked a little deeper: he’s also a businessman who runs a biotech investment company). The email was titled “George Clooney’s wedding isn’t just unfair, it’s unnatural selection”, which set off alarms all over the place — klaxons and those whoop-whoop howling noises I’d hear from the fireboats on Puget Sound. (Actually, every morning my inbox produces a cacophony of bullshit, so this is nothing suprising.)
I was curious, though, so I read it instead of hitting delete.
It’s also MDs who avoid the “E” word. A survey of the literature found an interesting shift in usage:
The results of our survey showed a huge disparity in word use between the evolutionary biology and biomedical research literature. In research reports in journals with primarily evolutionary or genetic content, the word “evolution” was used 65.8% of the time to describe evolutionary processes (range 10%–94%, mode 50%–60%, from a total of 632 phrases referring to evolution). However, in research reports in the biomedical literature, the word “evolution” was used only 2.7% of the time (range 0%–75%, mode 0%–10%, from a total of 292 phrases referring to evolution), a highly significant difference (chi-square, p < 0.001). Indeed, whereas all the articles in the evolutionary genetics journals used the word “evolution,” ten out of 15 of the articles in the biomedical literature failed to do so completely. Instead, 60.0% of the time antimicrobial resistance was described as “emerging,” “spreading,” or “increasing” (range 0%–86%, mode 30%–40%); in contrast, these words were used only 7.5% of the time in the evolutionary literature (range 0%–25%, mode 0%–10%). Other nontechnical words describing the evolutionary process included “develop,” “acquire,” “appear,” “trend,” “become common,” “improve,” and “arise.” Inclusion of technical words relating to evolution (e.g., “selection,” “differential fitness,” “genetic change,” or “adaptation”) did not substantially alter the picture: in evolutionary journals, evolution-related words were used 79.1% of the time that there was an opportunity to use them (range 26%–98%, mode 50%–60%), whereas in biomedical journals they were used only 17.8% of the time (range 0%–92%, mode 0%–10%).
Carl Zimmer wrote a good article on bedbugs as an example of evolution. In their shift to human victims, they’ve acquired a new morphology and new physiological requirements, and are distinctly and clearly different from their ancestors that fed on bats.
Answers in Genesis, though, has this idea that their perspective is just as valid as that of scientists: they claim to be viewing the same evidence just as fairly, but through the lens of the Bible rather than those crude human-made texts (I think you can see a problem right there).
But if it isn’t enough for you yet, here’s another one: I was interviewed for the Phil Ferguson show.
A song that could be silent. An ocean that could be dry. How about a book that could be nothing but deepities? That last one exists: it’s called A God That Could Be Real: Spirituality, Science, and the Future of Our Planet by Nancy Ellen Abrams, and it’s one of the more empty-headed collections of glib clap-trap I’ve seen in quite a while. It’s also really hard to describe, because the contents are so slippery.
It’s the last week for the fundraiser for the conference on secular women, to be held in Minneapolis this summer. Last chance! Get your donations in by Thursday!
This is an amazing “discovery”! Someone named JA Tetro has been selling interviews and articles to women’s magazines and other credulous sources, claiming that your microbiome is the key to compatibility.
Tetro says that when you kiss your date, his or her germs make their way into your mouth’s ecosystem. And if it’s a match, you’ll want to keep smooching.
This study does one amazing thing, it shows you that kissing is the best way to find a mate for the long term. It might sound really gross but if the bacteria from the other person harmonizes with your bacteria, your immune system is all good. You feel a sense of calm and happiness, maybe even addiction,he explained.
But if the bacteria don’t align with your microbes, you actually feel disgust and revolt. Your immune system is rejecting that person as a possible mate.
Breaking news: an attack on a cartoonist who had drawn a picture of Mohommed has led to another death.
Gunmen stormed a Copenhagen building Saturday where controversial cartoonist Lars Vilks and his supporters had gathered, killing one man and wounding three police officers before driving away from the scene, police and witnesses said.
People killing people over bad ideas…it’s got to stop.
Just in case you can’t make it out to Fargo or LA this weekend, where I’ll be, I’m going to reciprocate by not showing up at the Creation Science Fair.
Twin Cities Creation Science Fair (Fair Guidelines)
University of Northwestern, Maranatha Hall
3003 North Snelling Ave. Roseville Minnesota
