French, the language of love

Mon coeur! I swoon. I don’t understand a word that Claude Malhuret is saying, but I am dizzy with adoration now.

His speech sounded so lovely, I had to look up a translation. It’s even better in English.

My dear colleagues,

Europe is at a critical turning point in its history. The American shield is evading, Ukraine risks being abandoned, Russia strengthened.

Washington became the court of Nero, an incendiary emperor, submissive courtiers and a jester under ketamine in charge of the purification of the public service.

It’s a drama for the free world, but it’s first a drama for the United States. Trump’s message is that there is no point in being his ally since he will not defend you, that he will impose more customs duties on you than on his enemies and threaten you to seize your territories while supporting the dictatorships that invade you.

The king of the deal is showing what the art of the deal is on a flat stomach. He thinks he will intimidate China by lying down in front of Putin, but Xi Jinping, faced with such a shipwreck, is undoubtedly accelerating preparations for the invasion of Taiwan.

Never in history has a president of the United States capitulated to the enemy. No one has ever supported an aggressor against an ally. No one has ever trampled on the American Constitution, made so many illegal decrees, revoked the judges who could prevent it, dismissed the military staff at once, weakened all counter-powers and took control of social networks.

It is not an illiberal drift, it is a beginning of confiscation of democracy. Let us remember that it took only a month, three weeks and two days to bring down the Weimar Republic and its Constitution.

I have confidence in the strength of American democracy and the country is already protesting. But in one month, Trump has done more harm to America than in four years of his last presidency. We were at war against a dictator, we are now fighting against a dictator supported by a traitor.

Eight days ago, at the very time that Trump passed his hand behind Macron’s back at the White House, the United States voted at the UN with Russia and North Korea against Europeans demanding the departure of Russian troops.

Two days later, in the oval office, the military service hide-and-seek gave moral and strategy lessons to the war hero Zelensky before dismissing him as a brother-in-law by ordering him to submit or resign.

That night, he took a step further into infamy by stopping the promised delivery of weapons. What to do in the face of this betrayal? The answer is simple: face it.

And first don’t make a mistake. The defeat of Ukraine would be the defeat of Europe. The Baltics, Georgia, Moldova are already on the list. Putin’s goal is the return to Yalta where half of the continent was ceded to Stalin.

The countries of the South are waiting for the outcome of the conflict to decide whether they should continue to respect Europe or whether they are now free to trample on it.

What Putin wants is the end of the order put in place by the United States and its allies 80 years ago, with the first principle of prohibiting the acquisition of territories by force.

This idea is at the very source of the UN, where today Americans vote in favor of the aggressor and against the aggressor, because the Trumpian vision coincides with that of Putin: a return to the spheres of influence, the great powers dictating the fate of small countries.

To me Greenland, Panama and Canada, to you Ukraine, the Baltic States and Eastern Europe, to him Taiwan and the China Sea.

This is called “diplomatic realism” in the evenings of the oligarchs of the Gulf of Mar-a-Lago.

So we are alone. But the speech that we cannot resist Putin is false. Contrary to the Kremlin’s propaganda, Russia is doing badly. In three years, the so-called second army in the world has only managed to grab crumbs from a country three times less populated.

Interest rates at 25%, the collapse of foreign exchange and gold reserves, and demographic collapse show that it is on the edge of the abyss. The American boost to Putin is the biggest strategic mistake ever made during a war.

The shock is violent, but it has a virtue. Europeans come out of denial. They understood in one day in Munich that the survival of Ukraine and the future of Europe are in their hands and that they have three imperatives.

Accelerate military aid to Ukraine to compensate for the American release, to make it hold, and of course to impose its presence and that of Europe in any negotiation.

It will be expensive. It will be necessary to end the taboo of the use of frozen Russian assets. It will be necessary to bypass Moscow’s accomplices even within Europe by a coalition of only voluntary countries, with of course the United Kingdom.

Secondly, require that any agreement be accompanied by the return of kidnapped children, prisoners and absolute security guarantees. After Budapest, Georgia and Minsk, we know what the agreements with Putin are worth. These guarantees require sufficient military force to prevent a new invasion.

Finally, and this is the most urgent, because it is what will take the most time, we would have to build the neglected European defense, for the benefit of the American umbrella since 1945 and sunk since the fall of the Berlin Wall.

It is a Herculean task, but it is on its success or failure that the leaders of today’s democratic Europe will be judged in the history books.

Friedrich Merz has just declared that Europe needs its own military alliance. It is to recognize that France was right for decades in pleading for strategic autonomy.

It remains to build it. It will be necessary to invest massively, strengthen the European Defense Fund outside the Maastricht debt criteria, harmonize weapons and ammunition systems, accelerate Ukraine’s entry into the Union, which is today the first European army, rethink the place and conditions of nuclear deterrence from French and British capacities, relaunch anti-missile and satellite shield programs.

The plan announced yesterday by Ursula von der Leyen is a very good starting point. And it will take much more.

Europe will only become a military power again by becoming an industrial power again. In a word, the Draghi report will have to be applied. For good.

But the real rearmament of Europe is its moral rearmament.

We must convince public opinion in the face of weariness and fear of war, and especially in the face of Putin’s companions, the extreme right and the extreme left.

They pleaded again yesterday in the National Assembly, Mr. Prime Minister, before you, against European unity, against European defense.

They say they want peace. What neither they nor Trump say is that their peace is the capitulation, the peace of defeat, the replacement of de Gaulle Zelensky by a Ukrainian Pétain in Putin’s boot.

The peace of the collaborators who have refused for three years any help to the Ukrainians.

Is this the end of the Atlantic Alliance? The risk is great. But in recent days, Zelensky’s public humiliation and all the crazy decisions taken over the past month have ended up making Americans react.

Polls are falling. Republican elected officials are greeted by hostile crowds in their constituencies. Even Fox News becomes critical.

The Trumpists are no longer in majesty. They control the executive, Parliament, the Supreme Court and social networks.

But in American history, the supporters of freedom have always won. They begin to raise their heads.

The fate of Ukraine is played out in the trenches, but it also depends on those in the United States who want to defend democracy, and here on our ability to unite Europeans, to find the means of their common defense, and to make Europe the power it once was in history and that it hesitates to become again.

Our parents defeated fascism and communism at the cost of all sacrifices.

The task of our generation is to defeat the totalitarianisms of the 21st century.

Long live free Ukraine, long live democratic Europe.

Can you repeat that in Italian now? In Spanish? German? It would sound terrific in any language, except maybe Russian.

SOTU, in brief

I didn’t watch Trump’s cavalcade of lies last night, so I appreciate this compressed version that squeezes it down to a minute. Greenland, huh? No unelected bureaucrats while praising Elon Musk? Throwing out a protester while claiming to defend free speech? Woke is dead?

OK, that was bad, but possibly worse was the Democratic response in which Elissa Slotkin looked back fondly on Ronald Reagan’s presidency and was a cheerleader for American exceptionalism. Go away, Republican wanna-bes.

I thought they were free speech absolutists

I call this an attempt to crush dissent. I guess I’m going to have to protest.

All Federal Funding will STOP for any College, School, or University that allows illegal protests. Agitators will be imprisoned/or permanently sent back to the country from which they came. American students will be permanently expelled or, depending on on the crime, arrested. NO MASKS! Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Like on Friday, when I’m protesting for science in St Paul.

Interesting planet, but not on my tourism itinerary

What a dramatic planet!

Astronomers have found a weird planet orbiting a very Sun-like star. Called K2-360b, the planet is 1.6 times Earth’s diameter, but 7.7 times its mass. That makes it dense: with an average density of 11 grams per cubic centimeter, it’s twice as dense as Earth! That’s literally as dense as lead. That mass and size makes its surface gravity three times Earth’s. If you could stand on it (which I would not recommend for many reasons, as you’ll see) you’d weigh three times what you do here.

…

Its size makes it a super-Earth, an exoplanet less than about twice Earth’s diameter. Why is it so dense? It likely started off life more like Neptune, with a thick atmosphere, but over time its ridiculously close orbit to the star meant its atmosphere got stripped away by the intense heat. What was left was the rocky-metallic core. The astronomers who did this research ran some models of what the interior is like, it’s likely to be about 50% core, which would explain the density; the cores of such planets are mostly metals. Fun place.

It’s close enough to its star to melt lead and iron, which immediately made me think of the phrase my brother and I would chant while capering about plotting mischief…”Molten metal! Molten metal!”.

I think we identified with Quasimodo in that old movie.

Easier to predict than the weather

As part of their program to completely eliminate the federal government, the latest act of random destruction and intellectual vandalism by Musk, Trump, and Co. is the gradual cancellation of national weather forecasting centers.

As my friend
@drshepherd2013.bsky.social
says, asking why we need a National Weather Service when we have apps and the Weather Channel is like asking why we need potato farmers when we can buy fries at McDonalds.

This is going to be very unpopular here in the Midwest. The weather is the primary focus of conversations around these parts!

It might be a matter of more import in southern coastal regions, but they won’t be talking about it — they’ll be dead, or washed out, or fleeing inland.

Furious overconfidence does not counter the evidence

Here’s another wild creationist claim that just popped up from the YouTube algorithm. It’s a shouting match between a Muslim creationist (Subboor Ahmad) and an individual from the crowd, who is challenged to define evolution. He says “natural selection plus mutation,” which prompts this furious response from Ahmad.

If it’s natural selection plus random mutations, it becomes epigenetics.

What? No it’s not. That’s absurd. It just tells me that Subboor Ahmad knows nothing about evolution.

It also includes a clip of an encounter between Ahmad and Aron Ra, in which Aron correctly points out that drift is the major driver of evolutionary change, and Ahmad blows up in fury and accuses him of being drunk.

A creationist denies molecular evolution

Last night, Aron Ra got into a discussion about a claim that protein evolution is impossible, specifically, that different protein families could not have evolved. Here is the provocative and baseless claim.

There is no research that says protein evolution is possible, unless you appeal to evolution. That’s circular.
There is no research published that explains how a new protein family, with stable novel folds, can evolve in the rugged evolutionary landscape. Only conjecture and always with an appeal to the theory. That’s called theory laden evidence.

I have issues with the premise that evolution is fact (bad science). That demands a better definition of evolution so I’ll clarify, I have problem with the premise that random mutation, gene duplication, gene transfer, gene shift, and anything I may have missed, under the influence of natural selection is sufficient to produce biodiversity.

Perhaps a new mechanism will be discovered, but at present there is no evidence that evolution is possible beyond an appeal to evolution.

There is a barrier to protein evolution. Gradual change doesn’t provide a path from one protein family to another because the landscape is rugged. Point mutations will lead proteins off the functional cliff. Duplication doesn’t fit the bill either, not enough variety. Fact is, without some sort of bridge protein evolution is inconceivable. No bridge has been found.

I’m not claiming that there isn’t one or that it will never be found, I’m saying there is no evidence for one. It’s a leap of faith to say it happened.

I know you’re not a fan of that word, faith, but there is no alternative. The only justification for that faith is ontology. It’s your belief in naturalism which cannot be proven one way or the other. in fact, the very problem I’m discussing here is a thorn in the side of naturalism.

You’ve waged a lifelong war against theism and always appeal to intellectual honesty. Well, I’m being intellectually honest. There in no evidence that evolution is possible because protein evolution has no known solution.

Proteins exist on peaks separated by valleys where function drops off completely. The “rugged landscape”. The peaks play home to a variety of related proteins with limited variety of amino acid sequences called families. A peak is more like a plateau. Small changes can produce variety of function and fitness. Large changes cause function to collapse into a valley where the protein gets deselected.

The amount of change required to find a new stable fold with novel function, a.k.a. a new family on its own plateau, far exceeds what proteins can tolerate by incremental change without losing all function. This is not controversial.

Proteins need to leap or require a bridge. Leaps in sequence change are irrational because the search space is too large and the target too small.

The presumption is that there is an unknown “bridge” that allows proteins to make the transition from one peak to another. That bridge has yet to be found (or even adequately hypothesised), and without it proteins are trapped on local peaks. Meaning evolution is limited to variety of what is, with no access to cool new stuff. Micro but not macro.

The premise that evolution is a fact allows for the presumption that “we don’t know yet” is a valid placeholder for the bridge. A glaring “god of the gaps”. My “dilemma” is how can evolution be called a fact, when the facts exist to challenge it? It can only be reckoned that belief is the “Jesus nut” that keeps it from flying apart.

Anyone who is a materialist will naturally, and justifiably, search for that bridge. Dualists can as well, but it’s discovery isn’t an imperative. For the theist, that bridge may well be agency. In any case, agency is no worse than “we don’t know yet” as a filler.

My question is, on what basis do you declare the materialist ontology correct and the dualist ontology false? The inability to test is a feature, not a test in itself.

What does it matter if the problem was before Eukaryotes? Evolution covers the first cell to everything. From what I’ve read, the Cambrian Explosion is where the problem is most evident with many new protein families that have no observed precursors. All within a tiny fraction of evolutionary time.

“A protein family is a group of proteins that share a common evolutionary origin, typically reflected in their similar amino acid sequences, structural features, and often their biological functions. These proteins are usually derived from a single ancestral gene that has undergone duplication and divergence over time, leading to variations within the family. Members of a protein family may differ in their specific roles or expression patterns but retain enough similarity to be classified together.” -Grok (I trust AI is allowed for definitions?)

I understand the standard hypothesis. Gene duplication allows one to remain stable while the other continues on down the evolutionary trail. I also understand there is a vast leap required for a protein to diverge into a new family. Recombination is most commonly considered for large leaps, though no evidence exists it can be done.

I understand the standard hypothesis. Gene duplication allows one to remain stable while the other continues on down the evolutionary trail. I also understand there is a vast leap required for a protein to diverge into a new family. Recombination is most commonly considered for large leaps, though no evidence exists it can be done.

I also understand that proteins are intolerant of big change. That paper by Axe estimated that only 1 in 10^63 random sequences fold right. Leaps mean a big change which hits that small target.

On the other hand, incremental changes enjoy a similar problem of losing functionality (which can kill all progress), while also facing time constraints. There isn’t enough time for evolution to search out functional sequences. Even a nice new protein with a stable fold must break the barrier of epistasis.

Finally, I’m talking about entirely new families. Think Superfamily. Like a transporter to the first protease. The information hurdle is massive, and the serendipity required makes Powerball look like a sure bet.

Evolution is not really varying allele frequencies. That works for HS kids but it falls short. Evolutionary theory is the explanation for those varying frequencies. Theories explain HOW, not what.

So we talked for a while about this silly claim. As Aron points out this is just the old show me a cat giving birth to a dog creationist claim translated to show me a transport protein evolving into a protease. It’s the same thing and the same answer. We can trace the ancestry of cats and dogs and see that they converge on a common ancestor in the distant past; we can trace the ancestry of various proteins and follow them back to a distant duplication event to the modern diverse pattern. The creationist wants to argue that the process is simply impossible by throwing around various sciencey terms. He uses the old creationist claim that the probability of a particular functional sequence is only 1 in 1063, a calculation built on faulty premises. He invokes the barrier of epistasis…what barrier is that? I don’t think he knows what epistasis is, let alone the nature of his imagined barrier. He throws around the term rugged fitness landscapes without recognizing that landscapes are an explanatory metaphor, not an actual physical entity.

If you don’t want to listen to us babble, I sent Aron a link to a paper by Tomoko Ohta that summarizes it all.

In eukaryote genomes, there are many kinds of gene families. Gene duplication and conversion are sources of the evolution of gene families, including those with uniform members and those with diverse functions. Population genetics theory on identity coefficients among gene members of a gene family shows that the balance between diversification by mutation, and homogenization by unequal crossing over and gene conversion, is important. Also, evolution of new functions is due to gene duplication followed by differentiation. Positive selection is necessary for the evolution of novel functions. However, many examples of current gene families suggest that both drift and selection are at work on their evolution.

The creationist says that all of that is inconceivable, of course. Never mind that we have evidence of each incremental step and can see intermediates in the process preserved in the genome.

Then he falls back on free will and morality as obstacles to evolution, somehow.

The hateful loons are gathering in Austin this month

The eugenicists are back, and they’re having a big splendiferous conference in Austin, Texas this month. It’s called the Natalism Conference, and their theme is that women must have more babies, or we’ll go extinct. Which is not true, by the way — a population that has constant, unlimited growth is going to exceed the carrying capacity of the environment, and is going to crash hard. But OK, this is a conference about reproduction by people who don’t understand biology.

It’s a two day event, and they have 27 ‘speakers’. Actually, it’s a mob of sensationalist, narcissistic weirdos who are going to be disappointed to discover they aren’t the center of attention, and that they will be competing for the spotlight with even freakier people who will be capering and gibbering in their short slice of time on the stage. On the roster are:

Sargon of Akkad. I thought his 15 minutes were up a long time ago.

Razib Khan. Yeah, sorry, he’s got legit academic credentials, but he uses them to push race science.

Scott Yenor. If your mission is to get women to have more babies, why invite this guy who wants to deny education and voting rights to women…oh, wait, that tracks.

Robin Hanson. America’s Creepiest Economist.

Geoffrey Miller. Evolutionary Psychologist who loves the idea of selecting babies for their IQ.

Malcolm and Simone Collins. Silicon Valley neofascists.

Most of the people on the schedule are total unknowns to me, but I think it’s safe to assume that they’re all right-wing assholes. The Guardian has a more thorough breakdown, and it looks like my assumption is valid.

I must admit I’d like to see this guy perform. He adds a certain luster to the lineup.

Sadly, “babygravy9” is not his real name. He has been outed, and his actual legal name is Charles Cornish-Dale.

Cornish-Dale is a figurehead of the rightwing bodybuilding scene, and has been a keen promoter of the “Great Replacement” conspiracy theory. He had nevertheless lived with his mother in sleepy south Dorset during the entirety of his career as a rightwing influencer, according to Hope Not Hate.

Guy, you’ve got to get out of your mother’s basement if you hope to repopulate the world!

The Democrats are dead, we need a new party

I get email from the Democratic party:

PZ,

In just a few weeks, Elon Musk has shown that he is the worst president America’s ever seen.

We have one message for Trump and Musk: We’re coming.

This is a new Democratic Party, and we’re taking the gloves off. We cannot and will not stand for their extreme, harmful agenda and efforts to drag our country back centuries.

We’re in this fight until the very end, but it’s going to take Democrats from every corner of the nation stepping up and joining this movement to defeat Trump and his MAGA cronies.

Then it asks me for money.

I hate it.

They’re going to be running forever on the “TRUMP BAD” idea, aren’t they? Not one specific, positive idea was anywhere in that message. Come on, come right out and tell me you’re going to rescue social security by raising the cap, you’re going to finally get around to a federal law allowing abortion, you’re going to build programs to help immigrants integrate, you’re going to give trans people respect and dignity, you’re going to fully fund the NIH and NSF, you’re going to stand up to Putin and give aid to Ukraine, you’re going to give everyone Medicaid…I can think of so many things I want the American government to do, and the Democrats are afraid to push them. It’s convenient for them to have an undeniably horrible boogeyman in office so they can run against him, get elected, and not have to do anything.

Then I read this list of things a centrist group within the Democratic party calling itself “The Third Way” is proposing. This is coming from a bunch of Clintonesque, Blairite neoliberal stooges who fear socialism — wanna-be Republicans. (This comes from Politico, a conservative rag that is not at all friendly to progressive values, and even they are sneering at this list.)

  • The party should “embrace patriotism, community, and traditional American imagery”;
  • Democrats should “ban far-left candidate questionnaires and refuse to participate in forums that create ideological purity tests” and “move away from the dominance of small-dollar donors whose preferences may not align with the broader electorate”;
  • They should “push back against far-left staffers and groups that exert a disproportionate influence on policy and messaging” ;
  • Candidates should “get out of elite circles and into real communities (e.g., tailgates, gun shows, local restaurants, churches)”; and
  • The party needs to “own the failures of Democratic governance in large cities and commit to improving local government.”

We’re gonna lose again and again and again, aren’t we?

Treat your allies like crap, this is what you get

Do these things have oars?

A Norwegian fuel company is refusing to fuel US Navy vessels. I can’t blame them.

A petrol giant in Norway has announced a ban on fuel sales to all US forces following Donald Trump’s treatment of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House, it has been reported.

Norwegian firm Haltbakk Bunkers announced it will stop providing fuel to all American forces in Norway as it declared “No fuel to Americans!”. The firm posted on social media to declare its support for Zelensky as it dealt a hammer blow to US President Trump following the heated spat televised from the Oval Office.

It said: “We have today been witnesses to the biggest s***how ever presented “live on tv” by the current American president and his vice president. Huge credit to the president of Ukraine restraining himself and for keeping calm even though USA put on a backstabbing tv show. It made us sick. Short and sweet. As a result, we have decided to immediate STOP as fuel provider to American forces in Norway and their ships calling Norwegian ports.

“No Fuel to Americans! We encourage all Norwegians and Europeans to follow our example. SLAVA UKRAINA”

They also refuse to fuel Russian ships.

This is how Donald Trump weakens the US military, by poisoning our alliances.