This is a special edition of the Tangled Bank: you get to choose your own adventure!
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
I’m going to give you a choice today.
If you’ve only got a moment and want to click a button and be done with something fairly trivial, vote on whether to impeach Bush.
For a change, if you’ve got a half hour or so and would like to contribute data to serious research, take Elisabeth Cornwell’s research survey. I think we could add a large dollop of godless attitudes to her work.
(Hmmm…I should do a poll on who would rather crash a poll vs. take a serious survey!)
Something is wrong on the internet.
It should be “complexity”, not “purity”, and the arrow should point to the left. And obviously it should be arranged so that the biologist is on top — the others don’t have a cephalopod.
While I was traveling last week, an important paper came out on evolution in E. coli, describing the work of Blount, Borland, and Lenski on the appearance of novel traits in an experimental population of bacteria. I thought everyone would have covered this story by the time I got back, but there hasn’t been a lot of information in the blogosphere yet. Some of the stories get the emphasis wrong, claiming that this is all about the rapid acquisition of complex traits, while the creationists are making a complete hash of the story. Carl Zimmer gets it right, of course, and he has the advantage of having just published a book(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll) on the subject, with some excellent discussion of Lenski’s work.
The key phrase is right there at the beginning of the title: historical contingency. This paper is all about how accidents in the genetics of a population can shape its future evolutionary trajectory. It is describing how a new capability that requires some complex novelties can evolve, and it is saying plainly that in this case it is not by the fortuitous simultaneous appearance of a set of mutations, but is conditional on the genetic background of the population. That is, two populations may be roughly equivalent in fitness and phenotype, but the presence of (probably) neutral mutations in one may enable other changes that predispose it to particular patterns of change.
Minnesota is a pretty darn good state, usually fairly progressive, but sometimes…sometimes it can plunge off the deep end into the credulous muck of woo. My state has just approved the title of doctor for naturopaths. I imagine the MDs are a bit aghast, and even us Ph.D.s are feeling a bit diminished.
It’s also a law that was pushed by the Democratic-Farmer-Labor party. My party. Minnesota Democrats are responsible for elevating respect for quackery. I’m embarrassed by that, too.
If only I’d known, I would have proposed an alternative idea at the DFL caucus: we should ennoble naturopaths with an even older, distinguished title: “hedge-witch” or maybe “witch doctor”. That last one has “doctor” in it, so it should be acceptable, right?
At last, military forces around the world have coordinated to take out a tyrannical dictator: we’ve invaded heaven. The dishonest leader of that country, with his scourges and plagues and cataclysms and arbitrary executions, has been deposed.
The denouement was a bit predictable, however.
It’s awfully easy to forget Ken Ham’s monument to malevolent ignorance, the Creation Museum, but while we’re not visiting it, it’s apparently doing a bang-up business, and they’re even planning a major expansion. Stupidity sells, especially in America.
So it’s a good thing that some people are still shining the spotlight on it. There’s a new review of the museum from Demonbaby that’s worth a read. This one highlights the creepy and gruesome nature of Ham’s bogus theology.
I think this is his June 2006 speech — does anyone know if he has expressed similar sentiments now?
(via Atheist Media Blog)
Randy Olson has a new movie that is premiering today: Sizzle: A Global Warming Comedy. We all know it’s going to be funny, and that because it will also criticize the scientists studying climate change, it will be infuriating and annoying and will draw lots of fire from both sides.
Go ahead and start sharpening your knives, but do keep this in mind: Olson is the only guy we’ve got trying to widen the market for science documentaries beyond the gray-haired, PBS-watching, NPR-listening audience. He’s opening this thing at Outfest, the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Film Festival, rather than as a collection of droning heads airing in some godforsaken hole of blandness right after the News Hour with Jim Lehrer, so give him some credit, too. While he doesn’t sing in tune with the rest of the chorus, he’s going to force us all to think, which is something we’re supposed to like. If you’re in LA, go to it and give us a review.
Besides, it’s got Muffy Moose in it. How awful can it be?
A while back, I said, “Somebody somewhere is going to have to someday point me to some intelligent arguments for gods, because I’ve sure never found them. And I know, someone is going to complain that I always pick on the weak arguments…while not bothering to tell me what the strong ones are.”
In a fit of unwarranted hubris, the odious Theodore Beale/Vox Day rushed to arrange a debate on a local conservative radio show. Unfortunately, he didn’t stop to think — how would debating Vox Day, christofascist misogynist, beneficiary of wingnut welfare, prominent freakshow participant, possibly rebut the complaint that I only pick on the weak arguments?
Besides, I learned my lesson in the Geoffrey Simmons radio debate: it’s a waste of time to go up against one of these insane babblers, because all they can do is high-frequency repetition of nonsensical claims. I’ve also acquired a deep distrust of conservative radio — the outcome of that debate, in which Simmons was flattened, was that they merely reinvited him back on the show without me around to puncture his claims. The fact that the Northern Alliance radio show actually thinks Vox Day is a credible voice for conservative thought tells me right away that there is something wrong with them, and no, I’m not going to trust them at all.
I’ve also read Day’s horrible little book, The Irrational Atheist. Well, to be honest, I read a few chapters of dreck, then flipped through the rest rather quickly. It’s actually the “Vox Day Hates Sam Harris” book, with occasional potshots at other New Atheists, and it’s really not very good. You would think that if he had a strong rational argument with evidence for any gods, then he would have put it in there — nothing would more seriously deflate one of us scientific atheists who claim there is no evidence for god than, say, presenting credible evidence for god. That was what I actually skimmed through the book for, but it wasn’t there.
I would think that if he had some zinger of an argument, there would be better ways to reveal it than on an obscure AM radio talk show in a debate with an equally obscure professor at a liberal arts college. He could, for instance, put it right at the top of his web page, where we could all marvel at it before rushing off to our much-neglected church.
