The fallacy of the creationist distinction between micro- and macroevolution

March 6, 2017 • 1:30 pm

I’ve belabored this issue before, but there’s always a new crop of readers who might need a lesson. I’m talking about a common creationist trope: the claim that microevolution can occur, usually defined as “evolution within a species” or “evolution within a kind” (whatever a “kind” is), but that macroevolution—seen as a transition from one “kind” to another—doesn’t occur. So antibiotic resistance in a bacterial species, or a change in coat color of a mouse, is fine, because that’s just “microevolutionary change”. Ditto with the evolution of different species of cats, which is simply microevolution within the “cat kind.” And ditto for the creation of different breeds of dogs by artificial selection: breeds so different that, if they were found as fossil skeletons, some would be seen not just as different species, but as different genera. Nevertheless, creationists see that as simply change within the canid “kind”, so that artificial selection is mute about the possibility of macroevolution.

This, of course, is bullshit. Even creationists—those who lie for Jesus—are surely aware of the pervasive empirical evidence for macroevolution. Much of it is outlined in my book, including embryological development, the fossil record, and dead genes. All of these testify to a distant evolutionary kinship between members of different “kinds”. We have, for example, transitional forms between fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and birds, reptiles and mammals, and, of course, early ape-y ancestors and modern humans (to a creationist, Homo must always be its own “kind”). And those transitional forms just happen to occur at the proper time in the fossil record. Mammal-like reptiles, the transitional forms between reptiles and early mammals, occur in the sediments after reptiles were already around for a while, but before easily recognizable mammals come on the scene. It’s not just that they look intermediate, but that they lived at the right time for demonstrating a true evolutionary transition. (A “mammal like reptile” that lived 500 million years ago wouldn’t prove anything.)

“Dead genes” (stretches of DNA that don’t produce a product, but are largely identical to working genes in relatives) are likewise evidence for distant ancestry between “kinds.” Why do humans have three dead genes for egg-yolk proteins—just the proteins still produced by our reptilian and avian relatives? Why do cetaceans like whales have hundreds of dead olfactory-receptor genes? Those genes testify to a terrestrial origin of whales, with the sniffer genes no longer needed for a life underwater. That, too, shows macroevolution, for surely a whale and a deer are different “kinds.”

And of course there’s no theoretical or empirical reason we know of that sets limits to how much evolution can change plants or animals—yet such limits would have to exist to allow microevolution but not macroevolution.

So for both theoretical and empirical reasons, we can reject the macro/micro difference so beloved of creationists.

This tweet shows the theoretical weakness of the creationist argument, with “First Clown,” who defends evolution regularly on his/her Twitter site, taking down the “no macroevolution” argument in a nice way:

h/t: Barry

North Korea’s unexpected success in developing nuclear missiles

March 6, 2017 • 12:15 pm

An article in yesterday’s New York Times, “Trump inherits a secret cyberwar against North Korean missiles“, details not only the U.S.’s largely futile efforts to use hacking and antimissile defenses to derail or neutralize North Korea’s missile drive, but also the remarkable progress that that most repressive of all countries had made in missile production. I’m not sure how they did it. Despite sanctions, embargos, and so on, North Korea is poised to be able to deliver its warheads long distances, as shown in the second plot below.

North Korea being where it is, and being so small, I’m not sure what the DPRK’s monomania about missiles is all about. The only explanation, besides national pride, is to stave off a preemptive strike on their country. Perhaps, in their paranoia, they think they won’t be invaded if the invaders (read: U.S. and South Korea) know the devastation that would ensue to their own countries (right now only South Korea) . (The North Koreans would, however, need ample advance warning to have time to launch their own arsenal when they detect incoming missiles.) As for the world worrying about North Korea making its own preemptive strike, well, the DPRK would have to be suicidal, as the entire country would be immediately wiped out. But even preventing a preemptive strike is good for them, for it assures them that nobody is going to take the initiative to go after the world’s most odious regime. (And that would also ensure the deaths of millions of innocent North Koreans.) Nope, targeted assassination would be a better strategy if you’re really trying to destroy Kim Jong-un’s regime.

Here’s North Korea’s missile arsenal; note that the last two, the KN-8 and KN-14 (which haven’t been tested), have a potential range that includes the U.S. When North Korea manages to put a nuclear warhead on an intercontinental ballistic missile, then we’ll be in trouble. And that seems only a matter of time.

From the NYT:

An examination of the Pentagon’s disruption effort, based on interviews with officials of the Obama and Trump administrations as well as a review of extensive but obscure public records, found that the United States still does not have the ability to effectively counter the North Korean nuclear and missile programs. Those threats are far more resilient than many experts thought, The New York Times’s reporting found, and pose such a danger that Mr. Obama, as he left office, warned President Trump they were likely to be the most urgent problem he would confront.

And here’s the estimated ranges of those rockets. They already have delivery capability to devastate Japan once they put a nuclear warhead on a NODONG or a KN-11.

screen-shot-2017-03-04-at-11-01-36-am
Source: The James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies By Troy Griggs

I hope I live to see the day that North and South Korea are united in the same way as East and West Germany. I don’t think I will, and I weep for the North Korean people who, brainwashed from birth, truly believe that their country is a worker’s paradise beleaguered by America. Bit by bit, as foreign media infiltrates into North Korea, they’re learning. But the regime is as brutal as ever, and I despair of any progress.

Google’s quiz on Komodo dragons

March 6, 2017 • 11:15 am

Today’s Google Doodle involves a 5-question quiz about Komodo dragons. (Click on screenshot to begin the quiz.)

screen-shot-2017-03-06-at-10-02-01-am

 

I won! (See below; so did Greg Mayer, who called this to my attention.) You can learn more facts by going on with the Doodle after you get your score. Why a Komodo dragon Doodle today? Because it’s the 37th anniversary of Komodo National Park. I won’t tell you where that is, because it’s the basis of one of the quiz questions. 
 screen-shot-2017-03-06-at-10-03-44-am

Report your results below, and I hope all the readers get at least 4 out of 5.

Now that you’ve taken your quiz, you can read about these big lizards ((Varanus komodoensis) here and watch this nice video:

If you want to see one attacking (and killing) a deer, go here.

 

Dr. Bronner’s soap labels vs. defenders of chiropractic

March 6, 2017 • 10:15 am

When I got the latest attempted comment defending chiropractic “medicine” on my website, I had a déjà vu moment, as if I’d seen that kind of language before. And then I remembered—it was on a bottle of Dr. Bronner’s soap!

I don’t know how many people use this wonderful liquid soap, which comes in varieties like lavender, eucalyptus, and peppermint (I prefer the original peppermint), but it smells great and is useful for all kinds of tasks. You can even brush your teeth with it! It was popular in the Sixties, beloved by hippies, but it’s still sold in a lot of places (Trader Joe’s, for instance, which is where I get mine), and it’s not expensive.

The soap was invented by Emanuel Bronner (1908-1997), a German-American Jew who used his products to expound his philosophy: a “Moral ABC” connected to Judaism and world unity. To promulgate his ideas, he crowded the labels of his soaps with all kinds of bizarre and unhinged statements in tiny print, generously larded with exclamation marks. Here’s a sample:

2012-05-drbronners-peppermint-bottle

An enlargement of a small bit of the label:

2012-05-drbronners-label-detail

Besides the soap being excellent and nice-smelling, you could spend hours reading the label, and I still remember many of the statements, like “Okay! Okay!” Here’s what a whole label looks like (you won’t be able to read it, but you can see a readable version here).

soap-label

Although Bronner died in 1997, the soap is still great and the labels still bizarre.

But I digress. Compare the label of those soaps with this comment from “MILCOON” that I got about one of my anti-chiropractic posts, “More chiropractic shenanigans” (it’s reproduced exactly as I got it):

I’ve heard plenty of people say they have had good results from a Chiro!
Yes some chiropractors don’t care about their patients, but NOT ALL of them!!!
Example 1- lady had migraines for well over 12months suffering every couple of weeks with bad migraines doc no answers. Paid for scan privately still no answers!! Few Treatments with chiropractor no complaint of migraine for months and months!
Example 2- lower back pain and sciatica, seeing physio for months no better! 2 treatments with a Chiro already noticed improvement!
And finally about 4 or 5 examples of persons attending appointments at a Chiro when their doctor has not offered any kind of referral to see a specialist and Chiro has said to them you must ask for a scan or a referral for so and so. All have resulted in findings of health problems!!!
1 of which a cancer was discovered! The partner of the person who sadly passed away was supremely grateful because they found out and were able to spend their last days together as DOCTORS couldn’t do anything to save them!!!!
There are good and bad in EVERY single profession and most likely you will hear about the bad!! Chiropractic clearly works for some people! Not every Chiro is good! But not every chiro is bad or a money grabber! As the same with doctors not all of them are good!!! Not all of them genuinely care about their patients either!! Unfortunately it’s the way things are!! It’s life! Chiro works for some but not others! If you want to try it then why not. Instead of going to the doctors that prescribe pills with endless lists of side affects!
You’re suggesting most chiros are “lining their pockets?”
So people have cancer and the pharmaceutical companies make drugs for people with cancer (or other diseases) are these companies reducing the cost of the drugs to help people live and survive???… or are they continuing to line their pockets???.! I remember a few years ago the NHS saying they would have to stop buying a certain cancer drug because they couldn’t afford it! The pharmaceutical companies don’t then offer it at a lower cost because they want to continue to make their BILLIONS!!!!!! Doctors are a pharmaceutical companies dream (money, money, money!)

I swear to Ceiling Cat that this is just like a Dr. Bronner’s label. MILCOON could get a job writing for them. Okay! Okay!

Such are the followers of chiropractic, though I hasten to add that some of them aren’t this unhinged.

______

UPDATE: This just in: another comment from a chiropractor, who identifies himself as Dr. Christopher Perry. I don’t know what to make of this comment, which seems to both laud and diss his profession. (Poor writing seems to characterize this profession.) Would you want this guy’s hands on your spine? (Note: it’s reproduced exactly as it came in.)

Dr Christopher Perry

As a chiropractor I know that the scientific evidence currently shows the chiropractic is an excellent form of healthcare. As a profession it is nothing more than a healthcare version of used car salesman peddling lemons. The AMA has succeeded in marginalizing chiropractic. As a veteran chiropractor of 30 years once told me the American public is too stupid to understand chiropractic. The AMA and the pharmaceutical industry has one So stick a fork in it chiropractic the fat lady has sung. And if you haven’t noticed everyone is fat

The Southern Poverty Law Center loses the plot when an African-American threatens Jews

March 6, 2017 • 9:00 am

Twitchy is a Twitter aggregation site with a conservative bent, so it’s no surprise that it put up a couple of article about the Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) recent bad behavior, since the SPLC is becoming increasingly allied with the Regressive Left.

You may remember that the SPLC put both Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maajid Nawaz on its list of “Anti-Muslim extremists”. When called to account for this unconscionable slur on Muslim reformers (one of whom is still a Muslim), and on Nawaz in particular, Heidi Beirich, Head of Intelligence (?) at SPLC simply lied, claiming that Nawaz had called for increased surveillance of mosques (see Heather Hastie’s post on the SPLC and the links therein).  This was clearly an untruth that Beirich made up: as Nawaz noted, he’s called for decreased surveillance of mosques:

screen-shot-2017-03-06-at-7-55-13-am

I hope Nawaz forces them to retract their slur, or even sues them for slander, as this is surely a deliberate lie that damages his reputation.

What many people are coming to realize is that the SPLC, once a great organization for protecting civil rights and prosecuting racist offenders, is now transforming into an entitled McCarthyite organization, compiling “hate lists” and defending Islam, even at the cost of slandering reformers. These “hate lists” are not without controversy, and the Center itself has been the focus of credible reports of financial mismanagement (see here).

Like many Regressive Leftists, the Center has taken a position against Muslim reformers. Now, as reported by Twitchy (here, here, and here), the organization tried its best to dissimulate when Juan Thompson, a black man and former writer for The Intercept, was arrested for  making 8 threatening phone calls to Jewish community centers in Atlanta. There have been at least 100 such threats against Jewish organizations so far this year—I haven’t mentioned them lest I be accused of defending threatened Jews but not Muslims—and most of these weren’t made by Thompson. They’re probably part of a general xenophobia against immigrants, Jews, and Muslims that, previously under wraps, was unleashed by Trump’s election.

At any rate, Thompson’s threats were “excused” by the SPLC as “not anti-Semitism” since they may have been made as part of his harassment of a former girlfriend (see the New York Times piece and an article in Time Magazine), since they were made in the name of his girlfriend. The SPLCC swung into action, issuing this tweet which has been reproduced below since the SPLC later removed it:

screen-shot-2017-03-04-at-11-38-53-am

But given that there were a hundred threats, why was the SPLC so eager to exculpate Thompson for 8 of them, denying that he was anti-Semitic? They even issued another tweet (below), saying in effect, “It’s not anti-Semitic because it was a copycat crime. Besides, what about the unsolved threats?”:

More attempts to exculpate Thompson:

Twitchy suspects, and they might be right, that since the arrested suspect was an African-American, he didn’t fit the SPLC’s narrative of hatred emanating from white supremacy groups, and thus they tried to minimize Thompson’s involvement, as in the tweets below:

Thompson was fired from The Intercept for fabricating stories and quotes, and has shown signs of being unhinged since then. And he published some pretty strong anti-Israel tweets before all this went down—statements that should have been noticed by the SPLC’s investigation. Well, Thompson may not be anti-Semitic, but he’s shown clear signs of being anti-white, as the Anti-Defamation League revealed in their own tweets.  But of course to the SPLC, that’s not bigotry. I wonder if they’d have defended Thompson against charges of anti-Semitism if he was a white Republican male who was just trying to harass his girlfriend by making threats against Jewish community centers.

Fleetwood Mac: “Rhiannon”

March 6, 2017 • 8:15 am

Presented for your approval on the fourth day of Fleetwood Mac Week, this is, for many, the best of all Fleetwood Mac songs. “Rhiannon” was of course written by Stevie Nicks, and first appeared on the 1975 album named after the group. Curiously, though, it never got higher than #11 on the U.S. charts and only #46 on the UK charts: a travesty for a song of this quality. You may have heard it a gazillion time before, but listen with fresh ears.

Wikipedia gives the backstory:

Nicks discovered Rhiannon in the early ’70s through a novel called Triad, by Mary Bartlet Leader. The novel is about a woman named Branwen, who is possessed by another woman named Rhiannon. There is mention of the Welsh legend of Rhiannon in the novel, but the characters in the novel bear little resemblance to their original Welsh namesakes (both Rhiannon and Branwen are major female characters in the medieval Welsh prose tales of the Mabinogion).

Nicks bought the novel in an airport just before a long flight and thought the name was so pretty that she wanted to write something about a girl named Rhiannon. She wrote “Rhiannon” in 1974, three months before joining Fleetwood Mac, while living with Richard Dashut and Lindsey Buckingham in Malibu, and has claimed that it took 10 minutes to write. [JAC: OMG—what a talent!]

After writing the song, Nicks learned that Rhiannon originated from a Welsh goddess, and was amazed that the haunting song lyrics applied to the Welsh Rhiannon as well. Nicks researched the Mabinogion story and began work on a Rhiannon project, unsure of whether it would become a movie, a musical, a cartoon, or a ballet. There are several “Rhiannon Songs” from this unfinished project including “Stay Away” and “Maker of Birds.” Nicks wrote the Fleetwood Mac song “Angel” based on the Rhiannon story.

How many girls were named “Rhiannon” after this song came out? I haven’t met any, but I bet some readers have.

This live version comes from The Dance concert and album (1997):

The album:

fleetwood_mac_-_fleetwood_mac

Readers’ wildlife photos

March 6, 2017 • 7:30 am

Reader Loren Russell managed to take photos of arthopods on a snowy hike. Yes, the creatures were on top of the snow! His notes are indented, and we’ll have another batch of ice fauna soon.

Arthropods on snow

A new camera and an email from a friend in Montana prodded me to combine two of my old pleasures — insect hunting and cross country skiing.  The pictures attached are from three recent forays to the snow-covered meadows and noble fir forest”

Noble fir on Marys Peak, a few miles west of Corvallis, Oregon.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Spiders are common and diverse [anyone know the families for these?];  the opilionid [“harvestman”, third photo] is the first I’ve seen on snow.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

At the base of the food chain — springtails, with several species, often in swarms..  Mostly 1-2.5mm body length.  These are hexapods, but not insects, in current classifications, and were among the earliest land animals (Rhynie Chert, Devonian).

Entomobryidae:

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Isotomidae:

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Poduridae:

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA