Screwy about screwworms

The Texas Observer semi-laughingly hopes for a quick end to screwworm, without mentioning climate change, and also without interviewing a representative of the Texas Farmers Union, like you know, Democrats' candidate for Ag Commish. Bernard Rapoport is turning over in his grave again. 

Laugh my ass off that auctioneers and ranchers are talking about the New World screwworm ultimately being good for cattle cuz "survival of the fittest."  

Most ranchers and auctioneers claiming this ignore that climate change allows the fittest screwworms to overwinter ever further north, which is why I said "semi-laughingly" about the Observer. What if it crosses the Red and stays across the border in a mild, wet El Niño winter? Oooopppsssss.

And, the typical rancher probably rejects the broader theory of evolution by natural selection. Many ranchers, and even more, farmers, admit something about climate change while still being in a degree of denial about how bad it's going to get. 

(That said, TFU's parent, the National Farmers' Union, is bad on climate with its support of E15 fuel.) 

Science news roundup on human origins: White Sands footprints, Neanderthal hunting, Heidelberg man houses

Multiple new items on homo sapiens in the news, some directly or indirectly via Carl Zimmer.

First, we have more confirmation for those human footprints at White Sands National Park and their age. They do appear to date to 21-23,000 years before present. This is a final nail in the coffin of the already dead Clovis theory of humans in the "new world." Of sidebar interest? It may just be a hole in the rock next to a footprint, or maybe, one footprint demonstrates polydactyly.

I just don't get the push-back scientists. This all seems pretty solid now, and there's plenty of other evidence in both North and South America that goes back at least 5,000 years before Clovis. Clovis is dead. Be open-minded about the growing accumulation of pre-Clovis evidence.

At least to my mind, I can't figure out anything besides, if not a full Clovis, a "Clovis-lite" or whatever, that is driving the continuing, but lingering, animus toward the White Sands footprints.

Frankly, an older "entrada" also allows for multiple entradas. We have the post-Clovis-theory traditional American Indian one, pushed back, then the later Na-Dene one, then the later yet Inuit-Aleut one. If the original entrada is set 25K years before present, that allows room for multiple "American Indian" entradas. We have evidence for that with Homo sapiens' attempts to enter Europe, after all.

==

The newest evidence that Neanderthals were more like Homo sapiens than once thought? Their hunting skill, refuting earlier ideas:

An academic paper published on Thursday in the journal Scientific Reports proposes that our long-extinct ancestors not only were the first humans to kill and butcher large predators, but that they also used the hides for cultural purposes and perhaps even dressed in them.

Interesting.

Neanderthals are now thought to have been more sophisticated and multitalented than imagined. Evidence is mounting that they used a complex language and even, considering the ritual interment of their dead, some form of spirituality. They made sticky pitch to secure their spear points by heating birch bark; stalked bison, wild cattle and straight-tusked elephants, and ambushed hibernating cave bears as the animals woke from their annual slumber.

And, per the new story, add cave lions to the hunting targets.

==

Heidelberg Man or similar ancestor was creating wood structures nearly 500,000 years ago.

Coronavirus week 36: Science! And scientific precautions!

 

• Vaccine science: Meet BioNTech co-founders — and husband/wife — Ugur Sahin and Özlem Türecki, and the story behind their creating the vaccine that now is being manufactured by Pfizer. I don't know if any Turks have won a Nobel outside of Literature, but, if this pans out, the whole idea of creating the first viable mRNA vaccine is surely going to short-list them. In addition, the couple, who started their work on antibody work for cancer, still hope for an mRNA based treatments of some sort there. Many other vaccine scientists remain skeptical, but let is see.

• The science goes next to South Korea, with a detailed study (of a type not done in the US, even in "blue states," by and large) of how the coronavirus can spread in a restaurant — and well beyond the six-foot social distancing line. A summer study here in the States, broader, on how HVAC systems work, notes that by drying the air out, they can aerosolize droplets, helping increase their spread. I attest to this as a local newspaper editor, as for calls to get fresh air into school buildings. But, per that second link? That drives your electric costs a lot higher! This is all, of course, important because a jab is not a cure. Assuming that Phase 3 clinical trial information, when it comes to the public, shows the vaccine is 70 percent effective? That's not 90-95 percent. 

• Yet more science: It's nice to see Carl Zimmer, if not pumping the brakes on direct vaccine enthusiasm, remind us that the coronavirus will continue to evolve — as it has been during the pandemic — and that how much and how quickly it continues to do so will affect vaccine efficacy. 

Example of that evolution last week: The NFL's Baltimore Ravens, hit hard by the virus, reportedly had four different strains show up in testing of infected players. Remember that, with the annual flu vaccine, it fights some strains better than others, and sometimes, as two years ago, it takes a semi-whiff because the most prevalent strain that flu season evolved the most from the time the year's vaccine was being finalized.

None of this is meant to give comfort to antivaxxers. Seventy percent effectiveness is still a lot more than 0 percent, which is what no vaccine is.

• Coronavirus public health science: STAT has a deep dive into issues of vaccine administration.

STAT adds this important point:

One of the biggest questions about these vaccines is: Will they stop people from being infected? Or will they just prevent infected people from becoming sick by jump-starting an immune response? It’s no small distinction.

In other words, will a vaccine stop asymptomatic spread? If it doesn't, then it's a LOT less helpful than currently touted, especially if its real world effectiveness rate in preventing actual sickness is around, say 70 percent. The answer is that it may not stop this. Infected animals given the virus were still "shedders."

As for that "70 percent"? As STAT points out, clinical trials generally recruit younger, healthier participants and for other reasons as well, have higher success rates than in the real world. So, again, pump your brakes.

• Related immunology science: How long will the protection last? Lots of shots in our standard armamentum, like tetanus, need a booster every 10 years, and they're not for rapidly evolving coronaviruses. My guesstimate? If we have another coronavirus-based pandemic, and it's more than 5 years from now, we'll need brand new vaccines.

• More, sad public health science: the winter surge is getting worse, especially in Midwestern states like mask-flouter Gov. Kristi Noem's South Dakota.

• Vaccine science, international: Turns out Russia's Sputnik vaccine (like Pfizer and Moderna, a two-stage jab) has more production problems than either of them. Namely, the second shot can't be stably made right now, which undercuts vaccination, period. China, of course, crickets. Easier than lying.

• And, coronavirus social science: COVID will also affect future retirement plans of people now at the tail end of the baby boom. That's from a dearth of underpaid home health aides who will be more choosy if another pandemic hits, to children of older retirees being more leery of nursing homes, and many other things. It will also cut the average lifespan of those today 65 and older, affect exercise health and many other things.

There's lots of things society can do to address this, but "can do" and "will do," in an America that remains, and likely will remain, hypercapitalist with Status Quo Joe as president for the next four years and a divided Congress? Two different things.

• Linguistics is a science, too, right? The Oxford English Dictionary doesn't have a single "word of the year" this year; rather, it's a suite of English language changes centered around the virus.

• Austin Mayer Steve Adler rightly deserves a butt-kicking for his trip to Cabo. That's a shorter one from the Trib; this is a longer one from Dan Solomon at the Monthly.

• As we wonder if and when before Christmas Congresscritters will pass a stimulus bill and how much big biz pork will be in it, Texans facing unemployment have a complex system, which the Trib tries to explain. Of course, many people aren't counted as unemployed, as, just like in previous recessions, they've given up trying to find jobs. This is why the U-6 rate is the "real" unemployment rate. Currently, it's still at near 12 percent.

You're far more than your genes

Herding Hemingway's Cats: Understanding how our genes work by Kat Arney
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Throw out what you thought you knew about genes, DNA, etc.

Several great things here.

First, the book explains in good detail things I've already known about how genes can code for proteins for various things, whether in combination with one, two or ten or more other genes.

Second, it explains in good detail what I've known about non-gene "control switch" areas of DNA, including how they usually act more like dimmer switches than on/off straight up/down switches.

Third, it revealed a lot I didn't know.

First, the DNA near the center of the nucleus is generally more "active." Arney talks about this, the relation to histones in positioning segments of DNA and more.

Second, coding areas on DNA evolve much more rapidly than genes themselves and are usually the primary driver of evolutionary change.

Third, epigenetics, while not all wet, probably needs more skepticism than it's gotten at times. She gives some detailed insight into this, and the exceptions to it.

Fourth, after splashing cold water on epigenetics, she brings to a boil something I wasn't aware of — micro-RNA. Apparently this has at least as much effect on inheritance as the biggest touters of epigenetics have claimed for it in the past. For example, sperm cells appear to have micro-RNA, and are NOT, therefore, just a load of DNA and that's it.

Also note that there are multiple different types of micro-RNA.

Fifth, although these discoveries aren't quite "Lamarckianism," nonetheless (and she barely touches on prions, speaking of) they put "genes" in a whole new context.

In short, the Human Genome Project and similar likely won't be in that much better position to tell us that much more about "you" and "me" twenty years from now than it is today.


View all my reviews

Why demographics don't guarantee Democratic wins, part 172

Having lived a fair chunk of my adult life in black-plurality or black-majority areas, those green circles' locations, in general, do not surprise me. It's a bit sad. And, it has political ramifications. If the GOP did not have 50 years of perception, and reality, with the "Southern shift," of having a large anti-black element, it would be getting more black voters precisely because of things like this.

Click here for an explanation of the data source for the graph (it's the 2007 version of Pew's religious study; a new one came out earlier this month, but the raw data from it isn't yet available), the calibration of the graph and more.

In Southwestern states (counting Texas as Southwestern for this purpose), one should note the rise of various Hispanic evangelicals, especially Spanish-language Baptists, whether affiliated with the SBC or not. They're not specifically marked on this chart, but, for the sake of argument, I'll place them where the SBC is, roughly.

Update, Jan. 17, 2018: Expect more and more of them to come, AND to look at allying with the GOP, as evangelical religion continues to grow in Latin America AND to more openly ally with center-right parties there.

Speaking of Baptists, one sidebar. It's interesting that American Baptists, while more liberal-minded on evolution than their Southern Baptist kin, don't track any higher than them on environmental activism. I wonder if that holds true for other federal regulatory activism.

That said, once we get outside these two issues, black and white evangelicals don't totally track together:

In Grant’s version, evangelicals cluster together as advocates for small government in general who nevertheless want government to take a bigger role in promoting morality, while historically black church members cluster together as advocates for greater government action and greater role of government in morality. 

(I count the AME as "evangelical" by focusing on the M, not the E.)

For people who think demographics will thus magically guarantee Democratic party success in the future, this is why I have said before and say again: Think again.

That includes people who think "most Hispanics are Catholic." Actually, only 55 percent are. Of the Protestant Hispanics, more than 70 percent are evangelical. And, among those Catholic Hispanics, if their immigrants, they likely are more conservative on social issues than US Catholics, anyway. Definitely, a large chunk of those evangelical Protestant Catholics are Latino immigrants. And, more and more of Hispanics are from those Protestant-explosion areas of Latin America south of Mexico.

I've written about this plenty of times before, most notably here, with detailed graphics, most notably the one at right.

Key takeaway from that "here" link? Hispanic Protestants, in Bush-Kerry, broke almost as much for Bush as did white evangelicals, as that graphic shows, at right, with original story here.

Pew offers more information of relevance. The biggie is that a little less than half of Latinos are Catholic and a full one-fifth are evangelical Protestant.

I've also covered somewhat related issues, namely, the idea that minorities may look more to Washington and less to Austin for help in general.

But that graphic above is the biggie, and is reinforced by the one at right. A growing number of Hispanics are evangelical Protestants, and are likely to vote Republican. Catholic Hispanics may have different concerns than other Democrats. And religious "nones" may be tuned out to politics as well as religion.

(Dos Centavos claims Latinos nationally are moving further left on the two hot button social issues. Without links in the piece, I remain a bit skeptical. Sorry.

Now, per a blog post by Perry, which is where I found that Dos Centavos link, yes, the leading group within Hispanics or Latinos is still Mexicans, and certainly in Texas. But, sub-Mexican Latinos, that is, from further south in Latin America, is a rapidly growing portion of Latinos. And, the evangelical Protestant explosion from that part of Latin America has made some inroads in Mexico, too.)

Anyway, back to all these differences.

Again, if you're Texas or national Democrat type, please, think again. Don't assume Hispanics are Catholic, and don't make other assumptions related to that. I mean, if you've lived in this state for any amount of time, especially if you've gotten off the main drags in big cities, you can see plenty of churches with names like "Primera Iglesia Bautista." Folks, those churches aren't inhabited by Anglos, and in case you can't figure out that last word readily enough, they ain't Catholic.

And also don't assume that Hispanics, whether Catholic or non-Catholic, are going to agree with all white liberal Democrats on social issues; don't assume that Hispanic Catholics dine at the same cafeteria as white liberal cafeteria Catholics. And, if they're immigrants, unlike African-Americans, they have no expectations of socially activist governments in general.

Now, it's true that many of the Hispanics from further south than Mexico are illegal immigrants and can't vote. But many already have kids born here the USofA who will soon be old enough to do so, if not already. And, many of them, like their parents, are still involved with the local Primera Iglesia Bautista.

Carrying assumptions about Hispanics, especially recent arrivals, is part of how Democrats are continuing to lose elections in Texas.

Let's also not forget Maslow's hierarchy of values. For immigrant Hispanics living in colonia-type conditions, clean running water, an indoor flush toilet, and a secure job that pays at least a few cents above crap, long before they worry about gay rights or even reproductive choice.

I don't recall Wendy Davis, or previous Democratic gubernatorial candidates, campaigning in the Valley on these issues. Until they do, they probably won't draw much enthusiasm.

Finally, on a different demographic, Slate's Jamelle Bouie says Democrats shouldn't lean too hard on the age demographic either.

Curt Schilling: Non-equal-opportunity douche

Curt Schilling:
'Monkey's nephew'
and a douche, too 

So, Curt Schilling got in a Twitter argument with ESPN's Keith Law over evolution, which got Law a Twitter suspension from the liars at the Great Red Satan in Bristol.

Since then, Law punked both Schilling and ESPN with his initial post-suspension Tweet.

And since then, as Craig Calcaterra explains, with link to Schilling's Facebook feed, Schilling's doubled down on douchery and butt-hurt.

Here he is:

Not sure how many of you, if any, followed the Twitter explosion last week. I was arguing, debating, talking with some folks about Evolution/Creation. Somehow someone made it into me not believing in the Theory of Evolution? I never said it, not even close. I said as a Christian I understand where man came from and how, regardless of whether I can imagine it, God did it, that's good enough for me. Keith Law got suspended from Twitter for publicly arguing the point I think, it certainly wasn't for his opposing view. I like Keith, just thought it odd he'd want to publicly pick that fight, though I had zero problems with it ESPN took action. I actually thought they would suspend me as well, was expecting it. 

Anyway, the reason I am posting this is, if you are on my feed, check out the evolution (no pun intended!!) of the conversation. Unsure of what stunned me more, the anger, hatred and vile tweets from Atheists/Liberals, Democrats or the lack of Christians chiming in? I totally buy evolution within species, 100% as science has easily proven that. But as a Christian did people really need me to tweet that to know how I felt? Or was it the simple fact I publicly stated what anyone that knows me already knew? By the way, stunned at the language and commentary made by seemingly 'adults', scientists, teachers etc. Like they were 7 year olds on the playground again. 

I understand why non-believers get upset at this conversation, because many know in their hearts that if it's true their future is not in good shape. But the anger? Cussing? Every single follower I blocked had in their profile somewhere "Atheist" "Liberal" "Democrat" or some such label.

What is he really saying?

First, the "God did it, that's good enough for me," is an old classic of Biblical literalists. That's especially true when coupled with the denialism of not believing in evolution. He's claiming that he didn't say anything against evolution, just in favor of conservative Christian creationism.

Second, the old "microevolution" ploy in the second paragraph to prove he's pro-evolution. Not worthy of further comment.

Third, in the second graf, he's butt-hurt because ... well, because he's not as famous as Kirk Cameron or Ken Ham among literalist Christians. Well, he probably rectified that, and will be wanting fundamentalist speaking fees next.

Fourth, in the third graf? Ahh, blocking everybody who doesn't agree with you.

What Schiling really is saying is:

"I get to be a public douche on social media. I get to be a public douche a second time by blocking you for calling me a public douche. I get to be a public douche a third time by calling you the equivalent of a public douche."

Meanwhile, let's not forget this liberal-hater's hypocrisy of taking a $75 million guaranteed loan from the state of Rhode Island for creating 450 jobs, which one HBT commenter notes is about $167,000 per job. (And, Schilling's business venture flopped like a beached Rush Limbaugh.)

That said, I don't get some secularists (or at least I think they are, one in particular) on Hardball Talk who says that religion, like science, is "a way of knowing."

No, it ain't. That's Steve Gould's non-overlapping magisteria, perhaps on steroids.

Religion is certainly "a way of explaining." But, it's not a way of knowing. Nope.

#Creationists, critters and #Cosmos — Fox vs. PBS

Not that I'm bothering to track down links to individual stories, but, per a number of online friends of mine, creationists, especially young-earth creationists  have been all atwitter about Neil deGrasse Tyson's remake of Cosmos on Fox. (Yes, there are old-earth creationists, too, who don't take Genesis 1-2 literally, but who don't generally accept the neo-Darwinian synthesis; one is named Pat Robertson.)

Well, Fox the broadcast network, as opposed to Faux News the stream of blather doesn't necessarily track conservative. Wouldn't shows like "The Simpsons" and "Married with Children" have gotten more wingnut blather, otherwise.

It's interesting, though, that PBS' recent three-part presentation of a film version of Neil Shubin's "Your Inner Fish" has apparently gotten less atwitterness.

There's a couple of possible reasons, I guess.

One is that PBS doesn't have Fox-like marketing department money, so this didn't hit the YEC world's collective dashboard, outside of professional agitators such as Discovery Institute.

Another is that, for professional or semi-professional "scientific skeptics," or "movement skeptics," or whatever handle we and they use, Shubin isn't one of "us/them" (I'm not an "us" myself) in the same way Tyson is. In short, tribalism has led such folks to notice YEC umbrage at Cosmos more than at Fish. And, to shove it back in YECers' collective faces.

In reality?

Given that OECers as well as YECers are hung up on evolution by natural selection, Fish was/is a much bigger time bomb.

It was also much better produced.

Take Cosmos week before this. The first half of the episode was pretty good, about trying to date earth and rock formations by geologic strata. Then, when it was realized that wasn't perfect, on we moved to uranium-lead radioactive dating.

However, Tyson then threw a curveball. Just before one of the many usual, long commercial breaks, he said that U-Pb chemist Clair Cameron Patterson wanted to tell his mom about his discovery and nailing down of this method before anybody else, but that he was about to land in big trouble.

I figured, after the break, that we learn his mom is a YEC who disowns him.

Not even close.

Tyson moves on to tetraethyl lead in gasoline. "Nice," but not much more. The issue of lead poisoning from our pre-1980s gasoline has been thoroughly covered in the past few years. Waste of half an hour for Tyson to do this.

Instead, he should have first given a hat tip to Marie Curie's work on radioactivity. He then could have gone to C14 dating for earlier events in our history, while noting its limitations. From there, he could have gone to strata, then uranium-lead dating, and briefly touched on other radiometric systems like potassium-argon that are used on certain rocks, and why other radiometric dating systems are used in certain cases. He could have wrapped up with an overview of how star and galaxy types, and finally, cosmic background radiation, are used to date the universe.

It would put his whole "calendar" schtick into one program and given a lead-in to this week's episode about stellar evolution and star types.

But, he didn't. That's how poorly produced Cosmos is. Not to mention cheesily produced.

Fish? Well done. One episode each on our inner fish, our inner reptile and our inner primate. Animation, when used, was of better quality and uniform design.

And, as far as something that should have both YEC and OEC folks gagging? It's Fish, more than Cosmos. With the three episodes, Shubin simple nailed how our evolutionary history, hundreds of millions of years of it, is present in our current human bodies.

===

Coming soon: Cosmos and commercialism.

How fragile is man ...

I had started this poem about two weeks ago, when Shekespeare's one Hamlet soliloquy had a mash-up in my mind with Psalm 8. I finished it up today, motivated by some existential philosophy and comparative religions reading.

HOW FRAGILE IS MAN

How fragile is man in constitution

Like a creature without divine design

Evolved through naturalistic process

Without omnipotentcy’s strictures.

Noble in reason in his own mind’s eye

As maker of gods in his own image

In action how like them, and they like him.

Petty, petulant and vindictive.

Made but little higher than chimpanzees

Crowned not at all by divine glory

Not shaped from clay, but proteins and sugars

A product of eons of slow shaping.

Glory enough is this, if one allows

Taking awe at rude shaping by nature.

Even if a Humean abortion

This life, nonetheless, is still a wonder

Cosmic quantum nothingness, after all

While it might guarantee something starting

Gave continuation no surety

The abortion, if you will, could have died.

Marvel existentially, then, will you

At this Daoist moment in time, so brief;

It, you, and I, may not have more breath.s

Blackmore ignorant on both memes and religion

Susan Blackmore admits that religion isn’t a “virus of the mind.”

Are religions viruses of the mind? I would have replied with an unequivocal "yes" until a few days ago when some shocking data suggested I am wrong.

Why?
From a conference on “Explaining religion,” she cites the following reasons.

1. Religious activity correlates with more children.

And, no others.

Yep, that’s it.

First, despite her noting her previous mea culpa over believing in the reality of paranormal phenomena, it shows Blackmore might still lack intellectual rigor in some areas.

This is a prime example. She didn’t even look for additional information, like average lifespan of children from religious vs. nonreligious families.

Nor did she take a look at a single datum of cultural evolution that might be connected.

Nor did she acknowledge this might be an issue of cultural evolution trumping genetic evolution.

Shoddy, shoddy.

Beyond that, she didn’t even ask the most pertinent question:

Shouldn’t this put another nail in the coffin of “strong” theories of memes, at least?

Answer? Yes.

And, shouldn't this column show that Susan Blackmore is overrated as a skeptical thinker? Absolutely.

If not, this should.

When Blackmore first developed the "meme" idea, within biology, epigenetics was barely on the horizon. Now, a decade-plus later, I've not seen her (or Dawkins, or others), improve the analogy to include something analogous to epigenetics. (And I haven't even thrown out the issue of what might be an analogy to prions.)

On modern mind analogies in general, I think we just don't know enough about the mind right now to throw out ANY analogies, though. Years ago, it was an engine or motor. Then, a computer. Then a parallel processor. Now, a quasi-biological replicator. Our analogies rise to the level of our technological advancement, but no higher, and so none of them are that strong in either direction.

If it doesn't, the vapidness of her "third replicator," "temes," as inarticulately discussed here, definitely should. It's so inarticulate she can't even really explain the analogy to memes, let alone to genes, very well.

Back to her skeptical starting point, though, her "repentance" of early thoughts over psi phenomena. What if, per the idea of one skeptical blogger, she never really rejected her original beliefs, but just said that psi phenomena weren't falsifiable?

Well, if that take is correct (and I can at least "see" that, yes) maybe she never should have been put on a skeptical pedestal in the first place.

That said, I have gotten some meditation and affirmation insights from ideas she put together after a Buddhist retreat. But, especially in light of this column of hers, would I ever consider her either a scientific or a philosophical "go-to" person on cognitive matters?

Big no on that.

Meanwhile, I can't wait for the Christian version of a Pop Ev Psycher to actually cite this column.

Evolution defended - against misguided attack meant for Pop Ev Psych?

In The Nation, Jerry Coyne has a double book review: A thorough defense of Richard Dawkins' latest, while exposing the flaws in Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini's new book, "What Darwin Got Wrong."

As to the latter, Fodor sums up by saying he thinks Fodor has jumped from an attack on Ev Psych (Coyne doesn't distinguish what's legit from Pop Ev Psych) to an attack on natural selection in general.

National Science Board goes chicken-shit on evolution

The board, which oversees the National Science Foundation, omitted questions on evolution and the big bang from a biennial survey of science and engineering issues.

Why?

(B)ecause the survey questions used to measure knowledge of the two topics force respondents to choose between factual knowledge and religious beliefs.

Well, the NSF is about science, not belief. Or, at least, I thought it was. Apparently not. John Bruer, a philosopher (NOT identified as a philosopher of science) who heads the St. Louis-based James S. McDonnell Foundation (big biz dictating science – that's the "McDonnell" of McDonnell-Douglas fame) took the lead on pulling the two questions.
He calls the survey questions "very blunt instruments not designed to capture public understanding" of the two topics.
That's bullshit, and I'm not the only one to say so:
"I think that is a nonsensical response" that reflects "the religious right's point of view," says Jon Miller, a science literacy researcher at Michigan State University in East Lansing who authored the survey 3 decades ago and conducted it for NSF until 2001. "Evolution and the big bang are not a matter of opinion."
Indeed, a mix of the religious right and big biz. Oy.

A dinosaur ‘missing link’

A new South African fossil illustrates how quadriped sauropods may have evolved.

AI, computers, minds, algorithms, evolution, Dennett

If even artificial intelligence advocates have largely abandoned the idea that AI is ultimately algorithmic, it’s time to question a lot of related assumptions, some of which I already have.

First, the human mind, then, is clearly not algorithmic. And, it’s likely even less algorithmic than a computer.

Second, being “kludged” together by evolution, it’s most surely not a black box, like a modern software program, routine, or subroutine.

Third, running off that point, contra Dan Dennett, evolution is most assuredly not algorithmic, either, as I’ve said before.

Fourth, the Turing test, as stipulated by Alan Turing himself, was NOT about whether a machine could think, but about whether a machine could simulate thinking. In other words, in modern philosophy terminology, Turing was a functionalist, as is Dennett (on this issue, at least), even as he continues to deny it.

Anyway, read the full story linked above.

Evolution - why fall colors are different in Europe, US

Here’s a very simple explainer of why fewer bug problems mean European trees in fall are more yellow, less red.

COTG – Godlessness and Mississippi, Mormons, morals and more!

Welcome to the Aug. 9, 2009 Common Era (no AD here!) issue of Carnival of the Godless.

First, a housekeeping note to Brent, and possible future hosts. I tried the “InstaCarnival”; it shows all the HTML coding, for bolding, hyperlinking, paragraph returns, etc, when you copy, paste and upload, so, it needs some tweaks, methinks! It is a nice idea, though.

Second, who am I?

I am one of those rare critters: An atheist with a graduate divinity degree. And, not from a fly-by-night place, either. I can still, more than 15 years later, crack open the Gospel of Mark in the original Greek and do more than just muddle So, I know how to refute theological and philosophical claims of many of the fundamentalists in detail.

That said, right now, I’m also an unemployed newspaper editor. While I don’t feel any psychological pangs myself, for a variety of reasons, I can understand the heightened allure of religious belief – especially organized groups rather than “spiritual but not religious” individuals. Group support, cohesion, etc. are all powerful.
Anyway, with that, let us jump right in!

Billy the Atheist really does exist. And, as he reminds us, so do other atheists, like people involved in this blog carnival. Just because we’re nice, moral, etc., doesn’t mean either we, or our anti-theistic stance (PLEASE, not “belief”) isn’t real. (I was going to say “antimetaphysical stance,” but Buddhist atheists might have an issue with that one. That’s you, Sam Harris.)

Probably, as Cubik’s Rube reminds us, the type of people who believe atheism isn’t “real” find our lack of religious belief disturbing. Reminds me of H.L. Mencken’s comments about Puritanism being disturbed by others’ happiness.

Perhaps part of what is disturbing is that the religious worry about uncertainty in their belief, whereas atheism requires no such certainty, Atheist Revolution tells us. This brief post reminds me of issues such as “hard” vs. “soft” atheism, or other, similar terminology.

Dr. Jim then has another reminder for us – creation museum nuttery isn’t limited to the United States. Even with a real dinosaur museum right down the road!

(Which reminds me: a recent ruling from U.S. District Judge Casey Rogers ordered that nine of 10 properties linked to the Dinosaur Adventure Land launched by Kent Hovind, who also founded Creation Science Evangelism, can be seized. The irony!)

So, does “materialistic atheism” mean we can’t be happy? Gerry Canavan reminds us it’s a step of freedom outside of something we knew wasn’t working for us anymore anyway.

I’ll try to remember that on the job hunt.

Of course, being unemployed means worrying about health insurance. Between that and being/having been a newspaper editor, I’m following the national healthcare battles in detail. So, I note with interest that Mississippi Atheists talks about Christian arguments against universal healthcare. Other than this allegedly undermining the Protestant work ethic (though Ted Rall’s most recent column reminds us that the French have higher per-person job productivity than the U.S.), I guess “the poor you will always have with you” trumps “love your neighbor as yourself,” eh?

Dr. Jim blogs again, keeping us in Mississippi, a good Southern ground zero for abstinence-only sex education. Why do we need Christian-based abstinence-only sex ed? “Keeping Satan out of our underpants!”

Joshua Williams at 13.7 blogs about one of my favorites – that evolution is “only a theory.” My personal answer to that, Joshua, is, “So is gravity. And, if you want to ‘test’ that, there’s a skyscraper right over there, Mr. Fundie. Let me know more about your research later.”

Next, we get a little “history of atheism,” as Scholar at Large takes a close reading of Diderot and his snarky, Twitter-length comment, metaphorically for safety, of course, about Mary’s Annunciation, especially Catholic iconography.

Going beyond Diderot, Learn-Gasm has 25 great thinkers for every college student to know. How many are on your list? What different ones would you have?

Broadsnark says atheists need to make sure they don’t explicitly frame their atheism in terms of anti-Christian reactions, speaking from his own Jewish background. A good reminder to be broad-minded.

Along the lines of Broadsnark’s reminder that atheism can and should be more than anti-Christianism, Prior Adams gives us a snarky morality tale swatting down one of New Agers’ most cherished ideas – that nothing is coincidence.

Meanwhile, A Nadder brings his own Jewish background to looking at the biblical book of Job at warp speed. He’s dead-on; a pissed-off Job, not knowing he’s a pawn in a cosmic craps game, and no concept of “heaven,” wants some answers!

Next, Living with Mormons tells us what we’re missing at First Sunday testimonial at the ward. Sounds like Southern Baptists, with the addition of the “underpants” they ripped off from the Masons. More seriously, having grown up in the Four Corners area of the U.S., this is all quite familiar, along with men just past teenage years with white shirts, black pants, and black ties. No wonder the Eff-Bee-Eye recruits them so heavily!

Meanwhile, I earlier mentioned the Twitter-length Diderot. Well, in case you have religious hankerings, or a desire for a laugh, in what appears to be an attempt at “infiltration,” Online Christian Colleges gives us 100 “uplifting” Twitter feeds.

The Chaplain then gives us his personal response to people so troubled by our unbelief that they want to know what will cause us to believe. “I ask for clarity, simplicity and inclusiveness. Is that too much to ask of a supreme being?” No, it’s not.

Greta Christina, reminding us that Satan is NOT in our underpants, takes on Christian fundamentalists’ top bogeyman – human sexuality. She has some stimulating thoughts on sexuality and transcendence from a materialist point of view.

Finally, Procrustes gives us his hugely tongue-in-cheek thoughts about one particular alleged nexus of religion and politics, namely, the Artistic Expression Protection Act. You never know …

And, that’s it for this edition of Carnival of the Godless. If you want to host, hit the BlogCarnival link for more information.

Meanwhile, if you have a minute or two, stroll around. Vote in one of my polls on the right hand rail. If you want more in-depth philosophical thought, or comments on arts and literature, or poetry, visit my Philosophy of the Socratic Gadfly blog. Or, if you're a nature lover, visit my online photo albums. If you need something to read, I've got plenty of Amazon reviews.

Birds didn’t evolve from dinosaurs?

A number of legitimate evolutionary biologists say, instead, the class Aves and the dinosaur members of class Reptilia’s subclass Diapsida evolved separately from a common ancestor. Their latest claim of support? The fixed nature of the femur in birds; Aves being the only class of vertebrates to be so structured.

Interesting.

Texas Senate rejects McLeroy

The Texas Senate, on a party line vote, got all Democrats to stand firm, thereby rejecting Don McLeroy to head the State Board of Education.

McLeroy, a strong opponent of evolution, and upholder of creationist principles, along the lines of "teach the controversy" (there is none within the peer-reviewed scientific world) was opposed for his divisiveness and contentiousness.

Here’s a backgrounder on final debate before the vote.

Science in public schools gets a reprieve in Texas

A split vote by the State Board of Education keeps the creationist/IDer camel’s nose of evolution’s “strengths and weaknesses” out of classrooms. My SBOE rep, Mavis Knight, recovering from surgery, cast her vote the right way, by video.

Celebrating Darwin – looking for the ‘third wave’ in evolution

For the Darwin bicentennial, Seed magazine has an excellent collection of special articles.

One of the most seminal, to my mind, is Eva Jablonka’s call to integrate much more epigenetics into the modern neo-Darwinian synthesis.

Things like Lynn Margulis’ symbiosis have already been incorporated, as a big enough issue. But, as Jablonka notes herself, epigenetics would more directly challenge the integration of genetics into Darwinism that brought about the neo-Darwinian synthesis as the “second wave” of modern evolution.

After starting by noting the evidence is accumulating for more than just DNA being involved with evolution, Jablonka gives us a definition:

Epigenetics is a term that includes all the processes underlying developmental flexibility and stability, and epigenetic inheritance is part of this. Epigenetic inheritance is the transmission of developmental variations that have nothing to do with changes in DNA base sequences. In its broad sense, it covers the transmission of any differences that do not depend on gene differences, so it encompasses the cultural inheritance of different religious beliefs in humans and song dialects in birds. It even includes the developmental legacies that a young mammal may receive from its mother through her placenta or milk — transmitted antibodies, for example, or chemical traces that tell the youngsters what the mother has been eating and, therefore, what they should eat. But epigenetic inheritance is commonly associated with cellular heredity, in which differences that arise among genetically identical cells are transmitted to daughter cells.

She then notes that epigentics is connected to cell differentiation within an embryo, and even more, once differentiation starts, how kidney cells “reproduce true.”

Next, she notes that more and more evidence has accumulated for the transference of epigenetic traits between organisms.

From there, she goes to the mother lode of the need to go to a “third wave” of evolution:

Induced and heritable epigenetic change may guide genetic changes.

That’s one big reason I score down, and scorn, modern Pop Evolutionary Psychology, too. It takes no account of epigenetics.

Anyway, read the full story for an idea of where evolutionary research is headed, and where its main theorists need to be focused.

Celebrating Darwin - erroneous poll language

Doing the exact thing I excoriated in my newspaper column this week, Gallup asked Americans if they "believe in" evolution. One no more "believes in" the theory of evolution than in the theory of gravity. One "accepts" (or "rejects") scientific theories.

Anyway, the Gallup results? At least a bit of good news for the use of reason, perhaps. There's a 14-point percentage gap to the good of "believers" vs. "nonbelievers."

Of course, the huge amount of "agnostics" on the issue indicate many Americans DO treat this as a matter of "belief" and not "acceptance."