A believer writes in

January 22, 2014 • 1:20 pm

Maybe one reason I get so angry at people like Damon Linker and Terry Eagleton—who maintain that New Atheists attack simplistic and unsophisticated versions of religion that nobody really  believes (i.e., seeing God as an anthropomorphic being)—is because I see examples of “literalist” belief virtually every day.  As more readers come to this site, it also gets infested with the religious, and a quotidian task is purging the new (and therefore held-up) comments by believers who have nothing to contribute beyond faith-soaked ranting.  If you think that most people see God as a “ground of being”, you should have a look at this site’s inbox.

Here are  two comments by one “Walt,” for example, that appeared within a few minutes of each other yesterday afternoon.

Walt commented on Bill Nye talks about his upcoming debate with Ken Ham  

But yet you accept the probability of the Big Bang event though it is astronomically improbable mathamatically that it is possible. Also you accept the ” theory” of evolution when science has no proof of even a one called organism being mutated into a completely different organism. I promise you one day God will get you by your tail and you ” ain’t” gonna like it.

Oh man, I hope God doesn’t get me by the tail! And another:

Walt commented on Bill Nye talks about his upcoming debate with Ken Ham  

Don’t you ever wonder why everything in this universe has a mathematical equation tied to it? Do you really believe an explosion of particles could lead to a creation that can be solved mathematically isn’t of a divine nature? Take the time to study the Bible the way you have studied your secular books and you too will know God. There is still time to make amends. Just because you don’t have the brainpower to fathom eternity doesn’t mean you aren’t going to be miserable there.

Needless to say, you won’t see Walt’s posts on the site.  I put them up here not because they’re unusual, but because they’re common. Do you suppose that people like Walt see God as an ineffable essence beyond space and time, or, as Damon Linker said,

On the contrary, according to the classical metaphysical traditions of both the East and West, God is the unconditioned cause of reality — of absolutely everything that is — from the beginning to the end of time. Understood in this way, one can’t even say that God “exists” in the sense that my car or Mount Everest or electrons exist. God is what grounds the existence of every contingent thing, making it possible, sustaining it through time, unifying it, giving it actuality. God is the condition of the possibility of anything existing at all.

Now I don’t know “Walt,” but I suspect he wouldn’t recognize that paragraph as having anything to do with his religion. Hell, I don’t even recognize that paragraph as intelligible prose! The fact is that most believers don’t sing that line of jaw-music, and there’s no reason why we should give someone like Terry Eagleton extra credibility for truly homing in on the nature of God.  How does he know?

One day I’d love to see a fairly eloquent semi-literalist debate a Ground-of-Being-ist, e.g. Ray Comfort or Al Mohler vs. Terry Eagleton. Let the believers fight it out and thereby settle for once and for all the nature of God!

Nye-Ham debate to be live-streamed FREE; Glenn Beck compares Nye to the Catholic Church’s silencing of Galileo

January 22, 2014 • 12:19 pm

Reader Trey called my attention to the announcement, by Answers in Genesis, that the upcoming debate on evolution between Bill “The Science Guy” Nye and Ken “The Lyin’ Guy” Ham will be livestreamed, so you can all see it for free here. It is, of course, at the Creation Museum in Kentucky.

Date and time:  Tuesday, February 4 at 7 pm EST (US). Mark your calendars, as I expect that many of us will watch it (I will), and we can discuss our reactions.

In the meantime, Glenn Beck, in this very short excerpt from his television show (source: Right Wing Watch), compares Bill Nye and his sympathizers, who want to keep creationism out of schools, to the Catholic Church when it tried to censor Galileo. What the hell is he on about? Galileo was right and creationism is wrong.

The slur on Nye starts at 48 seconds in:

Jesus ‘n’ Mo and the Tweet of Death

January 22, 2014 • 9:31 am

Here’s today’s Jesus and Mo:

2014-01-22

And you probably know the backstory:  Liberal Deocratic candidate for Parliament, Maajid Nawaz, tweeted a picture of Jesus and Mo.  The results were predictable, not just from Muslims but from non-Muslim politicians who are scared of Muslim backlash. As the Torygraph reports:

Muslim politician Maajid Nawaz tweeted a picture of a t-shirt with a crudely-drawn cartoon entitled ‘Jesus and Mo’ which he describes as an “innocuous” and inoffensive.

However the image has caused fury among some members of the Islamic community who believe images of the prophet Muhammed are forbidden.

More than 7,000 people have now signed a petition calling for the Liberal Democrats to suspend Mr Nawaz.

Some have even suggested a fatwa should be placed on him while others have threatened they would be “glad to cut your neck off”.

Even the controversial MP George Galloway has waded into the row, tweeting: “No Muslim will ever vote for the Liberal Democrats anywhere ever unless they ditch the provocateur Majid Nawaz, cuckold of the EDL.”

Mr Nawaz, who is set to stand for Hampstead and Kilburn in next year’s general election, posted his controversial tweet on Sunday morning after two audience members wore the shirt for the taping of BBC’s The Big Questions.

The t-shirt, featuring a print of controversial comic strip Jesus and Mo, was at the centre of a similar scandal last year, when the London School of Economics banned two students for wearing it.

Mr Nawaz, who heads up the anti-extremist Quilliam Foundation, tweeted an image of the t-shirt along with the words: “This is not offensive and I’m sure God is greater than to feel threatened by it.”

But it sparked an immediate backlash, with Twitter user Sahara7865 writing: “Maajid Nawaz set on joining ranks with Rushdie on the fatwa-scale.”

Another tweeted: “Have spoken to someone in Pakistan. They will have a surprise for him on his next visit. He is used to surprises in Pak.”

And one user added: “I would be glad to cut your neck off, so your kufr [unbeliever] friends won’t be amused by your humour. In sha Allah [if Allah is willing] may my dua [act of worship] get accepted.”

The offending tweet? It’s this one, the same picture that caused a kerfuffle at the London School of Economics, where students wearing and selling the shirts bearing the picture were censored:

Maajid+Nawaz+pic2Oh man, is that offensive!

Now before you say that it was unwise for a Muslim candidate to tweet this picture, there’s more to the story. As both the Torygraph and Tongue Tied reports, the tweet followed January 12th’s “Big Questions” discussion on the BBC (in which Nawaz participated) about whether the image was offensive. Tellingly, the BBC didn’t show the image (cowards!), and Nawaz responded by Twitter:

The fact that the BBC chose to censor a T-shirt depicting this cartoon rather upset Muslim Maajid Nawaz, who was a guest on the show. He proceeded to tweet out the image to his followers with the message: “This is not offensive & I’m sure God is greater than to feel threatened by it.” Mr Nawaz is a former member of the Islamist revolutionary group Hizb ut-Tahrir, and became director of the anti-extremist think-tank the Quilliam Foundation. He is now the Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate for Hampstead and Kilburn. Mohammed is his prophet, and Islam is his faith. But he understands perfectly that some people view Islam is a vile ideology and, for many, Mohammed is no kind of prophet at all. And depicting Mohammed saying “Hey” to Jesus does not offend him in the slightest.

What Nawaz was really unwise about was in not anticipating the degree to which Muslims, even in Britain, have intimidated everyone from criticizing their “religion of peace,” which mandates death to critics. The penalty for tweeting a cartoon? Having your neck cut off and being the recipient of a fatwa. Oh, and having non-Muslims accuse your supporters of “Islamophobia.”

Their ludicrous display of offense, which has cowed liberal non-Islamic politicians, may have killed Nawaz’s career. And can it really be “Islamophobia” when it comes from a Muslim? If “Islamophobia” means “fear of Islam,” then is it really that far off the mark in this case? Shouldn’t we fear a religion whose adherents not only try to suppress your criticisms of it, but threaten to kill you in retribution?

Polar vortex boots

January 22, 2014 • 7:46 am

The slush and salt have finally abated enough that I can wear boots without fear of ruining them. But I wear tough pairs: no gator or other delicate hides.

These are by R. J. Foley, one of the few East-coast bootmakers, who made some really nice boots in Maine, but appears to have gone out of business. I have been unable to find anything about Foley or his business online. I did discover, by Googling, that Foley boots were the choice of Boston gangster Whitey Bulger, a mob boss and murderer who was recently apprehended.

Guess the hide, which is the same one on vamps and shafts (rare):

Boots

Sea anemones live in Antarctic ice! And upside down!

January 22, 2014 • 6:26 am

There are lots of weird and interesting species left to discover, and two of the richest sites will be the deep sea and Antarctica, both difficult of access. Last week the University of Lincoln, Nebraska news site released some cool findings of the ANDRILL team (Antarctic Drilling Program), which is headquartered on their campus. And they couldn’t be weirder: groups of sea anemones (animals in the phylum Cnidaria along with corals, jellyfish, and other groups) living upside down on the Ross Ice Shelf of Antarctica!

The discovery was actually published last December in PLOS ONE (reference and free download below). The scientists found the species by accident, using a 4.5-foot (1.4 m) robotic vehicle moving underneath the ice shelf at the location shown below, with the blue dots showing where they found the hanging anemones. They were just exploring and didn’t expect to see any new animals.

anemone site
Figure 1 (from paper). Known localities of Edwardsiella andrillae, n. sp.

As the paper reports, the robot-mounted camera found two groups of anemones living about 6 km apart. The anemones have most of their bodies inside the ice, with the tentacles hanging below. They were described as a new species, Edardsiella andrillae (after the project).  It’s one of only two species in the genus found in the southern hemisphere; the rest are in the north. And it’s the only species of sea anemone known to actually live in ice. Further, individuals hang upside down, which as far as I know is not done by any other anemone.

Here’s what they look like hanging from the ice. Imagine the surprise of the investigators when they saw this!:

anemones
Figure 2. External anatomy and habitus of Edwardsiella andrillae n. sp.
(From Fig. 2 of paper): A. Close up of specimens in situ. Image captured by SCINI. B. “Field” of Edwardsiella andrillae n. sp. in situ. Image captured by SCINI. Red dots are 10 cm apart.

Specimens were collected and preserved, and the paper describes their appearance and anatomy, but I won’t bore you with the details (the picture above is sufficient).  They did see some other stuff, as reported in the news blurb (my emphasis):

“They had found a whole new ecosystem that no one had ever seen before,” Rack [Frank Rank, an author] said. “What started out as a engineering test of the remotely operated vehicle during its first deployment through a thick ice shelf turned into a significant and exciting biological discovery.”

In addition to the anemones, the scientists saw fish that routinely swam upside down, the ice shelf serving as the floor of their undersea world. They also saw polychaete worms, amphipods and a creature they dubbed “the eggroll,” a 4-inch-long, 1-inch-diameter, neutrally buoyant cylinder that seemed to swim using appendages at both ends of its body. It was observed bumping along the field of sea anemones under the ice and hanging on to them at times.

The anemones measured less than an inch long in their contracted state — though they get three to four times longer in their relaxed state, Daly said. Each features 20 to 24 tentacles, an inner ring of eight longer tentacles and an outer ring of 12 to 16 tentacles.

After using hot water to stun the creatures, the team used an improvised suction device to retrieve them from their burrows. They were then transported to McMurdo Station for preservation and further study.

Because the team wasn’t hunting for biological specimens, they were not equipped with the proper supplies to preserve them for DNA/RNA analyses, Rack said. The anemones were placed in ethanol at the drilling site and some were later preserved in formalin at McMurdo Station.

I’m curious as hell what “the eggroll” is. Any guesses?

This finding of the anemones, of course, raises a lot of questions:

1. How the hell do these things dig themselves into the ice? As the paper puts it more politely, “The means by which these animals burrow into the ice shelf is unclear, as are the physiological mechanisms that enable them to live in ice. Burrowing by sea anemones has been described as a process of serial expansion and deflation of the pedal disc or digging with the tentacles; neither of these strategies would seem possible in solid ice.”

2. What do they do when the shelf melts? It’s likely that some of these animals inhabit parts of the shelf that melt during the Antarctic summer. What do they do then?

3.  How do they survive the bitter cold?  The authors didn’t find any morphological features that suggested evolution for cold tolerance, but of course most of the adaptations would be biochemical and physiological.

4  What do they eat? The news release suggests plankton, which is logical, but we don’t yet know.

5. How do they reproduce? The authors are puzzeld about “the means by which Edwardsiella andreillae achieves it [sic] relatively large numbers.” Related species reproduce asexually by splitting transversely. The authors note that this could be tested genetically, for it predicts groups or clusters of genetically identical organisms. In contrast, sexual reproduction (also occurring in anemones), followed by migration of larvae and then colonization of the ice would create populations that are more genetically diverse.

I’m sure the authors (who are funded by the National Science Foundation) will get money to pursue these questions. And other scientists, as I’ve reported before, have found weird and undescribed species in Antarctica.  At least on that continent—and in the neotropics—we’re in no danger of exhausting the supply of new species. But we are in danger of destroying them before they’re described, and that goes for both polar and neotropical groups.

h/t: Robert

___________

Daly, M., F. Rack and R. Zook.  20013. Edwardsiella andrillae: a new species of sea anemone from Antarctic Ice. PLOS ONE, Published: December 11, 2013; DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0083476

Wednesday: Hili dialogue

January 22, 2014 • 3:39 am
I sent my friends in Poland a picture I took of Andrzej with Hili’s bête noire, the upstairs cat Fitness. They made the mistake of showing the photo to Hili:
Hili: What is that?
A: A picture Jerry has sent from Chicago.
Hili: When did he take it?
A: One day when you were in the garden.
Hili: Thou shalt have no other cats before me.
1601088_10202580227734226_773316340_n
In Poliah:
Hili: Co to jest?
Ja: Zdjęcie, które Jerry przysłał z Chicago.
Hili: Kiedy on to zrobił?
Ja: Któregoś dnia jak byłaś w ogrodzie.
Hili: Nie będziesz miał cudzych kotów przede mną.
Hili is a jealous goddess.

My book in a strange tongue

January 21, 2014 • 3:13 pm

Last Friday I received a copy of WEIT that had been translated into a foreign tongue. I didn’t recognize it at all, and couldn’t remember all the languages into which it’s been translated (there are fifteen now).

Basque

Pretty weird cover, eh?

Opening up the book, I found pages that looked like the one below.  Well, it wasn’t Finnish, because I have that edition.

I finally to identified the language by looking up the publisher on the front page and then going back to my list of commissioned translations.

But without that information, can you recognize this language?

Now give it the old college try: look at it and try to figure it out before you go to the comments. Maybe most people will recognize it, and I’m just bad at this stuff, but it baffled me. I’d never seen anything like it:

Basque 2

Well, I’m glad they translated this into ******, but I wonder if there are enough native speakers to make its publication worthwhile.

Funny “New Scientist” headline generator

January 21, 2014 • 1:56 pm

Whoever writes the “Endless Forms . . ” website has made a deliberate tour de force: he/she created a Twitter account that automatically generates the type of gee-whiz headlines characteristic of the popular-science mag New Scientist.

In the website post on this, the author avers that he/she likes New Scientist (I don’t: I deplore its sensationalism and the wonky evolution views of its editor Roger Highfield), and created the account just as a joke. Nevertheless, it’s not just a joke, but sarcasm—and thereby even funnier.

The Twi**er site is “Not New Scientist” and it already has 252 followers. The latest batch of “headlines” is below.

Note that the site’s logo is the infamous “Darwin was wrong” cover of New Scientist, which was egregious and misleading (see my post here), for the “wrong” part referred to Darwin’s assumption of bifurcating (or trifurcating or whatever) species trees; the editor claimed this was wrong because of horizontal gene exchange.  Well, such gene exchange is common in bacteria, but not so common in eukaryotes, and certainly not common enough to efface the genalogical relationships between species. Darwin was NOT wrong, and they screwed up badly on that one.

But I digress: to the tw**ts:

Screen shot 2014-01-21 at 12.29.02 PM Screen shot 2014-01-21 at 12.29.46 PMCats: It’s time to rewrite the textbooks!

And I bet I could write an article for New Scientist about “Why Gregor Mendel was wrong”. For example, he didn’t deal with linkage, transposable elements, epigenetics, etc. etc. etc. Time to throw the outmoded paradigm of Mendel out the window.