Wednesday: Hili dialogue

April 8, 2015 • 5:28 am

Let me first call your attention to Matthew’s post on feathered dinosaurs, which he accidentally posted early this morning, and which preceded this Hili dialogue.

It’s my last full day in Cambridge, and, sadly, I return to Chicago tomorrow. This afternoon after work I will have drinkers with Pinkers, and then a podcast recording with Sam Harris about my book as soon as I return (to be broadcast in about a month at Albatross Time). Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili is taking credit for The Albatross! And there are an unprecedented two pictures to illustrate the dialogue.

Hili: What are you doing?
A: I’m re-reading the review of Jerry’s new book.
Hili: We wrote that book together.

P1020477

Awww! Good times with the Furry Princess of Poland:

In Polish:

Hili: Co robisz?
Ja: Czytam jeszcze raz recenzję z nowej książki Jerrego.
Hili: Pisaliśmy tę książkę razem.

Feathered dinosaurs

April 8, 2015 • 4:24 am

by Matthew Cobb

There are a few people out there who seem to doubt that many dinosaurs had feathers (I’m looking at you Steven Spielberg) and that birds are just one kind of feathered dinosaur that survived the end-Cretaceous mass extinction around 65 million years ago. To settle the question once and for all, here are some pictures.

Just look at this lovely wryneck, posted by @skokholmisland yesterday (Skokholm is an island off the south-west coast of Wales, less well-known than its neighbour, Skomer – I visited it on a field course when I was at school).

Doesn’t it look all reptilian?

And if you are still a doubter, here’s a fantastic illustration by paleoartist Mark Witton (you can buy copies of Mark Witton’s fantastic art here), of Therizinosaurus as a terrifying giant pigeon:

Here’s a typical illustration of Therizonosaurus, taken from Walking with Dinosaurs. Frankly, once you’ve seen the feathered version, this looks like something you’d find in the poultry aisle at the supermarket, plucked and trussed. There’s clearly something wrong.

The makers of the forthcoming Jurassic World have declined to put feathers on their CGI dinosaurs, apparently claiming that ‘feathers aren’t scary’. Really? If Mark’s Therizinosaurus reconstruction doesn’t scare you, I give you this baby bittern:

Readers’ beefs

April 7, 2015 • 3:01 pm

It’s been a while since posted the crazy, nasty, and off-the-wall comments that people have tried to make on this site. That’s not because there haven’t been any, for with the increased readership the benighted come over more often than before. It’s just that I’ve had other priorities. But now, with a short break, let me present some of the comments that didn’t quite make prime time on the site.

On religion:

Reader Isaac comments on “‘What have you done lately?’: Dawkins talks to God.“:

God exist weather you want him to or not and Jesus Christ died for our sins so that we could be forgiven.

Weather?

*****

Reader Sha comments on “Afghan woman beaten to death for burning the Qur’an didn’t even do it.”

“No, we should descrate the book by all means: to show that it’s just a book, to show that its words are hateful and inspire others to hatred, and to show that burning a book is an incredibly trivial “offense” compared to killing someone for supposedly doing the same thing.”

If you have read the Quran, it’s not filled with hatred at all. If you haven’t read it, please don’t comment on it in such a harsh way.

I am SICK with everything that’s happening, and I’m ashamed to call those people a part of the same religion as me. But trust me, the life I lead based on my religion is so different than theirs.

Good for you, Sha. But I have read the Qur’an, and it’s certainly filled with hatred. Could you be reading a different Qur’an?

*****

Reader “Francis assnte” commented on my post about the charlatan, money-extorting preacher Creflo Dollar, “Minister Creflo Dollar asked parishioners to buy him a $65 million dollar jet for Jesus“:

The man is not a notorious. He’s indeed a man of God. There’s nothing wrong with him asking for help to buy a new jet. His plane is old & almost killed him & his family on 2 occasions. Stop tarnishing his image. Do you want him & family dead in a plane crash?

No, I just want him to fly coach, like Jesus would.

*****

Here’s a tired old canard. Reader “Anonymous” comments on “Russell Brand vs. Stephen Fry on the existence of God“:

I believe it’s truly sad that atheism is being confused with science and education. It takes just as much faith to be atheist than it does to be a theist. Scientific evidence has disproved certain religious dogmas sure, but just because some people who believe in 7 day creation also believe in God does not make the belief of God illogical.

Yes, it takes as much “faith” to be an atheist as it does to deny that Santa Claus is real.

*****

Reader “sjsnr” provides a classic example of begging the question (and remember, that means assuming what you want to prove. His/her post on “A writer for CNN debates whether Judas is in hell“, which is missing a semicolon in the final sentence:

Nobody knows if any person that has passed out of this life is saved but our Father in heaven.
There are more useful things to spend your time on than conjecture go out and spread the word about salvation.

*****

On evolution:

Reader Jon attempted to post on “The first U.S. penny touts science, not God“:

Does science have proof of creation? Not just a theory…proof? Evolutionists seem to have an irrational fear and hatred of God. Why is that? Why are you so afraid of us simple-minded deists and religious folk?

*****

Reader Mike tries to debunk evolution in my post “Flood geology“:

Why Evolution is not true – True, there are some people who don’t believe in God. But to me the problems of unbelief in God are greater than the problems of belief. To believe that unaided dead matter produced life, that living matter produced mind, that mind produced conscience, and that the chaos of chance produced the cosmos of order as we see it in nature, seems to call not for faith but for credulity. The president of the New York Scientific Society once gave ten reasons why he believed there was a God. The first was this: Take ten identical coins and mark them one to ten. Place them in your pocket. Now take one out. There is one chance in ten that you will get number one. Now replace it, and the chances that number two will follow number one are not one in ten, but one in one hundred. With each new coin taken out, the risk will be multiplied by ten, so that the chance of all ten following in sequence is one chance in 10,000,000,000 (ten billion). It seemed so unbelievable to me that I immediately took a pencil and paper and very quickly discovered he was right. Try it yourself. That is why George Gallup, the American statistician, says: “I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone – the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity.”- Robert Laidlaw

Umm. . . Mike, you don’t really understand how natural selection constructs adaptations.

*****

Reader Tom Harvey proves that evolution is a lie in his comment on “Adam Gopnik: Why we should quiz politicians about their views of evolution“:

Clearly no science here. Check the laws of science which Darwinian evolution must break if it is in truth “a fact”. The science will show that it is not ” a fact” but a fairy tale. Only the facts, please.

*****

The most odious class—those who tell me what to write about:

Reader Mike Scott on a Hili Dialogue:

I’m getting fed up with your cat !

Dear Mike Scott, What on earth makes you think I’d care how you feel about cats? There are plenty of non-catty websites around, and I implore you to visit those rather than mine.

*****

Reader Andrew defends the TSA when commenting on my post, “TSA Blues.” I would have posted this had he left out the last sentence:

Sir, I read your book and it was great but would you rather fly without security at all. You could always just fly f’ it airlines. In other words if the person checking you just let you go and didn’t check you he’d have to do the same for everyone. When it comes to flying security in particular everyone is equal. Security can’t play favorites. It’d be great but unfortunately he was just doing his job. Yeah there’s some goofballs that work anywhere but it’s not fair to stereotype. The machine alarmed on you he just checked you. I’m sure he used the back of his hand if he did have to pat you down. Violated is a bit extreme to describe the process. Stick to topics of evolution please and I’ll remain a fan.

By the way, Andrew, he did NOT use the back of his hand.

*****

Reader Nick has some scorching remarks on my post, “A hilarious mimetic parrot (and lagniappe)“:

You wrote a blog post (yes, this is a blog despite how often you insist it isn’t) about how much you hate it when younger people use amazing (or awesome, I can’t remember) as a means for hyperbole. Yet here you are, using “hilarious” to describe something that isn’t funny. Seriously, just stick to the science writing. I don’t know how many more years you have to post inane bullshit to realize it’s inane bullshit. We live in an age of information overload, I didn’t come to a website run by an evolutionary biologist to read about stuff that could be found on a default sub of Reddit during the mid 2000’s. We already have plenty of blogs run by misguided children for that kind of stuff.

Fair enough, Nick. So go read those other “blogs”, not this website. I swear, the veil of pseudonymity turns some people into complete jerks. Besides, I find it amazing that a bird has the cognitive and vocal abilities to mimic a human’s telephone conversation. If you don’t find that fascinating, you’ve lost your sense of wonder.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s speech at the American Atheists convention

April 7, 2015 • 10:53 am

Here’s Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s keynote address delivered four days ago in Memphis at the American Atheists Convention. It’s a great presentation, largely highlighting the themes of her new book Heretic, which calls for a reform of Islam. The talk is 45 minutes long, followed by about 15 minutes of Q&A. Especially if you haven’t heard her talk before, do take the time to listen to this:

I am aware of certain benighted segments of the atheist blogsophere that have damned Hirsi Ali for supposedly, in this talk, dismissing the problem of Western gays and urging us to concentrately solely on the more brutal repression of gays—and of women and dissidents—under Islam. I don’t hear that in this talk; what I hear is sympathy for all oppressed people, as well as a call that we pay more attention to the dangers Islam poses for the modern world. On this I agree with Hemant’s take at The Friendly Atheist.

I won’t add more, except to say again that I find it reprehensible to demonize this woman based on out-of-context quotes, her former affiliation with a conservative think tank, or even the political views of her husband. Even if you don’t admire (as I do) her courage and continuing activism in the face of mortal danger, her message is sound and true.

Australian Jehovah’s Witness (and her fetus) die after mother refuses blood transfusion

April 7, 2015 • 9:29 am

Now here’s a conundrum: at what stage of life does a fetus acquire the “right” to be free from having its health controlled by the religious beliefs of its parents? According to yesterday’s Sydney Morning Herald, a 28-year-old woman in Australia was discovered to have leukemia when she was seven months pregnant. She was also a Jehovah’s Witness, which means that it was against her religion to get blood transfusions. Because there were complications of the pregnancy (probably related to the leukemia), the doctors needed to do a Caesarian section, but couldn’t because the mother would bleed to death since she wouldn’t accept blood.

The baby died, and the mother died shortly thereafter from a stroke—a common cause of death in untreated leukemia, as with the Canadian First Nations girl Makayla Sault. In all likelihood the doctors could have saved the baby, but it would have involved killing the mother, although the mother would have died anyway from the disease.

Seven months pregnant is beyond the time when the fetus is considered viable, and beyond the time abortion is legal in the U.S.

The question is this: did the doctors do the ethical thing by letting both die? Their action was legal, as they abided by the mother’s wishes, and couldn’t at any rate kill her, though a bill has been drawn up in Australia that would criminalize harming a fetus in utero). But should the doctors have forcibly transfused her, saved the baby via Caesarian, and then let the mother have her wish and die from leukemia? What we have here is the equivalent of a parent choosing death, but in the process choosing to abort a 7-months-old fetus. In the U.S., I suspect, doctors would have done the same thing, for to save the baby they’d have to kill the mother.

My own view is that nothing could be done, for I am one of those extremists who isn’t opposed to late-term abortions, and don’t feel that the fetus had any “right” to live at the mother’s expense. Nor do I think that in such a case the mother should have been forced to have a transfusion, which violates her religion—even though I think that those religious views are particularly stupid and harmful. She was, according to law, old enough to have “decided” what she did, though, as a determinist, I recognize that she, probably brainwashed as a child, had no more choice in the matter as did her fetus.

Still, the baby was not unwanted, and both it and the mother could have lived with a transfusion. Perhaps the mother would have eventually died of leukemia, for I don’t think one can survive that without transfusions, but I’m not sure. What bothers me immensely is that both deaths were completely needless, based as they were on the two Bible verses that Jehovah’s Witnesses use to justify refusing whole-blood transfusions. (Curiously, they will accept some components of blood, like serum.) It’s yet another example of two lives martyred for an ancient work of fiction.

As for the legal aspects, the paper quotes a bioethicist:

Sascha Callaghan, an expert in ethics and law at the University of Sydney, said the law as it stands allowed the mother to make decisions that would affect the fetus, even if it probably would have been able to survive outside her body.

“This isn’t to say it isn’t a tragic event … but we live in a society where, within reason, we let citizens be the authors of their own lives,” she said. “If you are going to grant women full rights as citizens, are you going to dilute those rights for women who are carrying fetuses?”

Dr Callaghan said Jehovah’s Witnesses were often unfairly criticised for their religious stance against blood transfusion despite it being a thoughtfully and strongly held belief.

“This woman had a long-held commitment to the Jehovah’s Witness faith and that’s how she chose to die. We are all entitled to die with dignity,” she said. “When your fetus is in utero, it is inextricably tied to your life.”

This gives unwarranted respect to a horrible, execrable belief. It is not “unfair” to criticize a belief based on Bronze Age mythology, even if it is “thoughtfully and strongly held.” First of all, it’s hardly “thoughtful”, as it’s based on two Bible verses about eating blood, which certainly can have other interpretations. Jehovah’s Witnesses aren’t allowed to deliberate on the issue, and they get it from indoctrination. Further, there are many “strongly held beliefs” that deserve no respect by virtue of the strength of adherence: denial of rights for gays is such a view. So while I agree with Callaghan’s view that what doctors did in this case was proper, I don’t afford an iota of respect to the religious views of a woman who decided to die and take her unborn child with her. Yes, by all means apprise her of the risk, and treat her with the dignity afforded all humans who choose to die, but do not insult rationality by saying that criticism of her choice is “unfair.” On the contrary, criticism of such choices is almost mandatory, for they are both irrational and murderous.

h/t: Pyers

Spot the humans!

April 7, 2015 • 7:50 am

We’ve featured Johannes Stötter’s work before (see here), in which he body-paints naked women and puts them in poses that make them look amazingly like animals. I’ve featured the frog below, but no harm in seeing it again. But several readers also called my attention to his producing a chameleon using two painted women, as well as other body-painting tours de force that I haven’t shown before. These are from Bored Panda (here and here); and you can go to Stötter’s website to see more of his stunning work.

From Bored Panda:

Johannes Stötter, an incredibly talented bodypaint artist from Italy, has created a video to show us exactly how his amazing illusory body art “unfolds,” showing us the full transition from the chameleon we think we see in his art to the two painted women that actually compose the image.

It took Stötter 4 hours to design the piece and 6 to actually paint it, with the help of an assistant. He has an incredible talent when it comes to transforming or hiding the human body (we’ve written about his work before here and here). Depending on the subject, he either skillfully hides his models’ lines and curves or uses them to emphasize or supplement the forms he’s trying to create.

Here is the two-woman chameleon:

And a video showing it “walking,” and how the bodies are arranged to create the illusion:

A five-woman frog we’ve seen before:

And how the frog was made and posed:

Can you spot the cryptic human? (The leaves on her body are, of course, painted):

Melonhead!

Readers’ wildlife photographs

April 7, 2015 • 7:00 am

Reader Charles sent some hummers from California:

The hummingbirds have returned to my neck of the woods in northern California. Here are a few photos from this week. I have only identified two species thus far: Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna) and Rufous Hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus ). The male Anna’s has the bright magenta throat and the male Rufous has the bright orange throat. Although close to the feeder, the cats just ignore them.

Female rufous hummingbird:

How many hummingbirds are in the group photo? (Note the bee):

Male Anna’s hummingbird:

Moar male Anna’s:

Male rufous:

Finally, a ring-necked pheasant (Phiasianus colchicus) from Stephen Barnard in Idaho, who notes, “These aren’t native. They’re raised and released for hunting.” [JAC: they were introduced to the U.S. from their native Asia in the 1880s.]

Tuesday: Hili dialogue

April 7, 2015 • 5:30 am

It’s Tuesday: another gray and chilly day in Boston. I must Skype to Singapore this morning, as there’s an evolution class there that has read my book (English is the national language of that country) and wishes to talk to the author. Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili is again fixated on noms, though I seriously doubt that a cat can eat a bird egg. Does anyone know if a cat can even open an egg without batting it against a wall to crack it?

Hili: Do you hear birds chirping?
A: I do.
Hili: There will be fresh eggs.

In Polish:

Hili: Słyszysz jak ptaki śpiewają?
Ja: Słyszę.
Hili: Będą świeże jaja.

	Debi on Jesse Singal on the ridiculous…
	Mark Sturtevant on Bill Maher on gender apartheid
	Mike on Bill Maher on gender apartheid
	Laingholm on Jesse Singal on the ridiculous…
	Emily on Bill Maher on gender apartheid