A-Deistic

Resource list for Evolution, Creationism, Atheism, and More

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 22:02:00 +0000

Derek Mathias (Underlings) had created an excellent resource list for those debating religionists and evolutionists. His description reads:

“ This is a video introduction to a website containing over 600 (now over 700) excellent videos discussing evolution and creationism, atheism and theism, and more. Use the site to prepare yourself to debate creationists, or--if you're a creationist--to understand the evidence.

Here is the link: http://introducedrat.com/evolution.htm

The list will be updated periodically as new videos appear. ”

Yale - Hebrew Bible course

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 23:05:00 +0000

Illustrated : Yale University course on the Hebrew Bible presented by Professor Christine Hayes (playlist)

Reach for the Sky

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 19:33:00 +0000

I love cathedrals and Allegri Miserere. The videos are better viewed in HD.

1 HD

2 HD

... greatly exaggerated ...

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 22:12:00 +0000

"The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated."

So said Mark Twain upon hearing of the reports of his own demise in the New York Journal.

Those who believe that the first five books of the Bible, the Pentateuch *, were written by Moses must not have noticed the following in Deuteronomy 34:

5 And Moses the servant of the LORD died there in Moab, as the LORD had said. 6 He buried him [b] in Moab, in the valley opposite Beth Peor, but to this day no one knows where his grave is. 7 Moses was a hundred and twenty years old when he died, yet his eyes were not weak nor his strength gone.

And so it goes for another five verses. Are we to assume that, like Mark Twain, Moses would have said that reports of his death and burial (by who?) were greatly exaggerated after he laid down his quill after Deuteronomy 34:12?

12 For no one has ever shown the mighty power or performed the awesome deeds that Moses did in the sight of all Israel.

Rather arrogant of him, if so!

In fact, the consensus amongst unbiased biblical scholars is that the books attributed to Moses actually had 4 sets of authors, J, E, P, and D **. This interpretation of the evidence is know as the Documentary Hypothesis.

The central fact of these sources and editing remains the dominant model among critical scholars, though not among most fundamentalist or orthodox scholars, who remain committed to traditional beliefs.

The phrase "traditional beliefs" is a euphemism for stubbornly ignorant, in my opinion. It is no surprise that fundamentalist and orthodox scholars are in denial of any and all evidence that indicates that the Bible is an internally inconsistent, human invention.

* Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy.

** J and E in the flood story

Buried Secrets

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 19:13:00 +0000

Playlist: NOVA: The Bible’s Buried Secrets

Archaeology and the Hebrew Bible.

More: the PBS website has very interesting additional information on its website. This includes an illustrated timeline that places the program's rather erratic timeline into correct order.

Incredible Human Journey

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 03:16:00 +0000

A BBC documentary: The Incredible Human Journey.

This program shares elements of a program in which an American geneticist, Spenser Wells traces human migrations as revealed by the Y-chromosome.

Related: Innovation Linked to Human Migration Out of Africa ● Massive Genetic Study Supports "Out of Africa" Theory ● Skull Is First Fossil Proof of Human Migration Theory, Study Says (January 12, 2007) ● Massive Genetic Study Supports "Out of Africa" Theory (February 21, 2008) ● Sex-Based Roles Gave Modern Humans an Edge, Study Says (December 7, 2006) ● The Genographic Project & Genographic Atlas ● Humans Migrated Out of Africa, Then Some Went Back, Study Says (December 14, 2006) ●

The Great Escapes

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 01:35:00 +0000

Deconversion:

More playlists about biblical errors and contradictions:
Bart Ehrman - 2007 lecture at Stanford
Misquoting Jesus - Edited Edition
>Transcription Errors in a Total Invention

holysinecure
Search for Truth about the Bible

More videos and playlists about deconversion
Another Great Escape : a series of videos by a Brit.
Dissonant Discomfort : a very good video that examines, within the framework of theoretical psychology, the emotional stages of deconversion.

Pulling the Rug ...

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 04:07:00 +0000

... out from under theistic fallacies of imagination:

Who Invented the Bible?

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 02:39:00 +0000

This playlist includes 11 of 12 parts of a BBC program examining the authorship of the Bible. An academic theologian examines some of the evidence. The revelations are marred only by the fact that apologists are given the opportunity to rationalize the evidence away. Balanced reporting would have permitted atheists to point out the glaring errors in their denials and excuses.

Ah well, at least the program discusses the fact that the Bible is a flawed human invention! Archaeology falsifies the historicity of the OT. Biblical scholars agree that authorship is not as it is presented (except some Pauline letters and James). The program does briefly mention that the Gospels contradict one another.

Much about biblical errors was omitted — accidental and deliberate transcription inaccuracies, widespread contradictions, and additions to the Bible that were made as late as the early 17th century. That is without even mentioning the alternate versions of Christianity that were practically erased from history by the victorious version of biblical fiction.

However, the program only runs less than 2 hours, and a complete exposé of all the problems would probably take weeks.

Another Great Escape

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 21:33:00 +0000

Deconversion - deconverts

More deconversion playlists:
The Great Escapes

Videos about deconversion:
Dissonant Discomfort : a very good video that examines, within the framework of theoretical psychology, the emotional stages of deconversion.

Worse than reported?

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 16:54:00 +0000

I have posted very little on this blog recently because I, along with a great many people, spend time on the atheist-religionist battleground on YouTube.

Numerous studies demonstrate an inverse or negative correlation between religiosity and:
► intelligence
► educational level
► education in science
► liberal moral attitudes
► acceptance of the fact of biological evolution

My observation of discussions between atheists and religionists on YT suggests that the inverse correlation between intelligence and religiosity is considerably more pronounced than is reported*. That is, based on level of performance in discussions, creationists and religionists are collectively much less educated and logical than atheists. This observation could, of course, be skewed by the possibility that those who make religious videos, or who visit atheist and science videos in order to fight for religion and creationism, might not be a representative sample. Intelligent theists could be watching entirely different types of videos, or not bothering to engage in discussion.

* "Of 43 studies carried out since 1927 on the relationship between religious belief and one's intelligence and/or educational level, all but four found an inverse connection. That is, the higher one's intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious or hold "beliefs" of any kind." ~ Bell, Paul. "Would you believe it?" Mensa Magazine, Feb. 2002, pp. 12–13

My recollection could be faulty, but a summary of these studies was once available on the internet. As I recall, most of those studies in Bell's meta-analysis were based on results for American college students. This would confine the results to that section of the population that is already intelligent enough to attend college^. This could blur the distinctions between the two populations, perhaps moreso because such a small percentage of the American population is atheistic. The pertinent question would be what proportion of theists versus atheists actually complete high school and attend college.

Obviously, the results could be skewed in an opposite direction to that reported by Bell — the differences might be less than reported. However, this possibility is confounded by the fact that scientists, particularly eminent scientists, are much more likely to be atheistic than religious.

"In 1998, most members of the National Academy of Sciences rejected the notion of God, with the highest rate of disbelief noted amongst biological scientists." Table. ~ Larson, Edward J.; Larry Witham (1998). "Leading scientists still reject God". Nature 394 (6691): 313. Available at StephenJayGould.org, Stephen Jay Gould archive.

None of this should be taken as denial of the undoubted fact that many theists are intelligent, or that some atheists are unintelligent and/or poorly educated. Instead, the populations overlap in both level of education and native abilities.

Fundamentalist Christian families in the US take pains to ensure that their children are indoctrinated into literalist beliefs. Mainstream Christian families encourage indoctrination into more moderate beliefs. Both sets of "converts" necessarily include intelligent children.

However, intelligent, rational indoctrinees seem to be the more likely to deconvert. My impression is that fundamentalism loses more indoctrinees than mainstream religion, but this might be a false impression that results from the resentment towards religion that many fundamentalist escapees feel. Deconversion can be very painful and protracted for fundamentalists, and can result in alienation from family and friends. Resentment and a desire to help others through deconversion is understandable.

^ For comparision: sometime in the 80s, it was reported that the average IQ of college graduates was 110, whereas the average IQ of graduates of Harvard Medical School was 135.

Fistians and Fuzzy Illogic

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 19:27:00 +0000

Fundamentalist Christians have taken to calling themselves Evangelical Christians because "fundamentalism" excites deservedly negative sentiments. The name may have changed, but the problems remain the same.

I have decided to refer to rigid, right-wing, bigoted, Biblical literalist creationists as Fistians. These are the Christians who give Christianity a bad name because of their unJesusian lack of compassion and their obstinate ignorance in opposition to knowledge. (I considered coining the term Fustians, which does have the advantage of rhyming appropriately with "fusty". I opted to rhyme with Christians and with "fist". I reserve 'fundamentalists' for anti-modernist movements in various religions. Besottism refers to a subset of zealots.)

Fistians and pseudointellectual advocates of intelligent design creationism share the religiosity-motivated credulity that typifies LAME thinking in the Misinformation Explosion Age.

David Colquhoun addresses this problem of intellectual dishonesty and fuzzy illogic in a Guardian Unlimited article entitled the age of endarkenment.

The past 30 years or so have been an age of endarkenment. It has been a period in which truth ceased to matter very much, and dogma and irrationality became once more respectable.

Colquhoun is author of the Improbable Science blog in which he expands upon his exposition of the reasons that we should be concerned about the "New Credulity.":

This matters when people delude themselves into believing that we could be endangered at 45 minutes' notice by non-existent weapons of mass destruction.

It matters when reputable accountants delude themselves into thinking that Enron-style accounting is acceptable. It matters when people are deluded into thinking that they will be rewarded in paradise for killing themselves and others. It matters when bishops attribute floods to a deity whose evident vengefulness and malevolence leave one reeling. And it matters when science teachers start to believe that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago.

In my opinion, the root causes of this problem of fashionable ignorance lies in a number of failures:
● the failure of educational systems to teach critical thinking skills and to instil a love of learning and truth-seeking.
● the failure of the media to make it clear which competing position is valid, rather than boosting ratings by pumping up the volume on issues that supposedly have no clear right side and wrong side.
● the failure of experts to insist that expert knowledge should not be discarded simply because it is opposed by a vociferous, jeering, ignorant rabble of the religiously motivated.
● the failure of those in power – such as Giorgio Dubaya Bush – to eschew endorsement of religiously motivated ignorance.
● the failure of polite liberals to vigorously point out the deluded and deceptive content of creationist pseudoscience, misinformation, and unfounded attacks on scientific knowledge.
● the resultant failure of the lay public to doubt popular bandwagons and to realize that they must be cautious about what or whom to believe in this Misinformation Explosion Age.

And, very difficult or impossible to remedy:
● the failure of religious organizations to ensure that their ministers are well educated and not highly prejudiced (theological colleges are devoted to teaching apologetic deceptiveness).
● the failure of political organizations to ensure that those ministries that are tax exempt are not the religions that preach hatred, lies, and intolerance.
● the failure of search engines, websites providers, and publishers to assess the value of content (for example, search engines can determine whether a site is contaminated by spam and phishing, yet do not provide warning that content is false or unreliable.)

Because peer pressure is not confined to teenagers, the public, as Madison Avenue well knows, will respond to that side of an argument that is presented flashily, passionately, repeatedly, and with the appearance of certainty.

The public, particularly that in America, has been deluged with messages from religion, which is treated with dare-not-criticize protection. As a result, America ranks alongside Iraq in its level of religiosity despite its position as the standard population (IQ=100) against which IQ scores are standardized.

However, the price paid for holding religious belief sacrosanct (if you will excuse the pun) includes the confusion of students, the deterioration of educational standards, and the near demise of critical thinking, knowledge, and rationality.

Most people reduce their efforts to the minimum necessary to meet expectations. So, if we permit continued dumbing down of standards and lowering of educational expectations so as to protect self-esteem, intellectual standards will fall still further. So long as we present the implicit and explicit message that truth does not matter and that every opinion counts, we will maintain the ever decreasing standards.

In nations that value education and intellectuals, politicians who live down to the "average guy" image are not elected to the most powerful executive positions. As the world has recognized with disdain, Giorgio, purchased Ivy League degree or not, would not have appealed to voters. More particularly, he would not have appealed a second time to voters were they able to detect executive deceptions.

...section index...

: Social bookmark this page :
..

Taking the Ricky

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 22:40:00 +0000

Creationism with Ricky Gervais

Creationist Dictionary for Dummies

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 21:54:00 +0000

Excerpts from the definitive Creationist Dictionary for Dummies:

Apologetics: concocting fancy excuses for the reality that there is no evidence for any deities.

Belief: mental state that is equivalent to knowledge if 1. the Bible says it's TRUE, 2. enough fellow believers agree that it is true.

Cognitive Dissonance: an uncomfortable feeling that arises when creationists are faced with facts and logic; a feeling that elicits classic creationist coping strategies.

Coping Strategy (Creationism): see entries for crealogic, creation science, critical thinking, education, evidence, PROOF, theory, or invent your own.

Crealogical: see entry for Logic (Creationism)

Creation science: science fiction for those who literally swallow godidit myths

Critical thinking: negative thoughts about any unwelcome idea

Education: anything regurgiquoted from AiG or a similar website

Educational Qualifications (Creationism): anything that can be purchased online, or claimed to have been attained, without a requirement for learning (similar items can be purchased by online ministers).

Educational Qualifications (Science): something to be approached with derision or incredulity.

Evidence (Creationism): anything taken, or invented, to supports one's favourite belief.

Evidence (Science): something that must be denied, derided, or twisted to creationist purposes.

Faith: creationism must be RIGHT because lots of fools believe in it.

Falsification: 1. declaring ad nauseam that unwelcome facts are WRONG, 2. inventing misinformation for the sake of making an illogical argument against a scientist, evolutionist, or atheist, 3. Lie-orama.

Godidit (also Goddidit): of course He did!

Knowledge: any strongly held belief, regardless of intrinsic truth value.

Lie-Orama: expensive falsifications that depict dinosaurs cavorting with humans.

Logic: 1. quoting cherry-picked scriptures, 2. regurgiquoting misinformation, 3. resorting to fallacies of logic, particularly in emotional arguments.

Logical argument (Creationism): using creationist logic (aka crealogic) and making irrelevant, negative remarks about the holder of any unwelcome idea.

Logical argument (atheism, science): dangerous, faith-testing arguments from generally better-educated evolutionists, scientists, and atheists.

PROOF: declaration that CREATIONISM IS RIGHT and GOD EXISTS.

Refutation of creationism: something that must be ignored, or denied, at all costs.

Theory: the latest desperate creationist invention that is intended to deny reality.

Unpaid Advertisement: see our new apologetics publication Applied Fallacies of Logic, the definitive aid for those occasions when trolling, false flagging, and votebotting are just not enough.

Another Unpaid Advertisement: MacLiar's Guide to Disreputable Colleges and Universities, the definitive guide to unaccredited purveyors of false qualifications or should-not-be-accredited religion-affiliated institutions of lower learning.

Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 19:46:00 +0000

_____________________

There are so many falsehoods in creationism that AronRa speaks very, very quickly. Not a dull moment.

My God, creationists are STUPID

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 06:38:00 +0000

(Blasphemy is a victimless "crime". Besides, I enjoy it!)

I mean it. Creationist are not only ignorant, but they are arrogant about it. I say this because they flaunt their ignorance and crow about their deluded, uninformed beliefs as though this is a cause of pride. To assume that one knows more than the experts is arrogance in my book.

Ooops, I'm forgetting that the Bible is the supreme science textbook. Never mind that its metaphysics has been soundly and repeatedly falsified.

I shall be eternally [joking] grateful to Bishop Ussher for providing a falsifiable date for the biblical "age" of the Earth, and by extension of the universe.

Creationists either lie or propagate falsehoods told by other creationists. They either do not know the facts or they deny them. They are not only illogical, but they often contradict themselves within a few sentences. If their pronouncements are challenged, they invent "information". Again, frequently contradicting what they said prior to the challenge.

They do all of this within the context of poor grammar, and bad spelling. Not to mention CAPS, which make them RIGHT.

Here's a fool ranting about the universe. I particularly enjoyed this one because of the hilarious malapropism. The fool can't even accurately name what he is denying.

"They are starting to piss me off,they earth is not billions or millions of years old.They have no proof that the big band theory is true,but they teach it like it really happened."

(That's fair. Creationists piss me off. Have done for a long time.)

Um, it's the Big Bang, not a mega-orchestra.

Yes, the Earth is about 4.7 billion years old (judging by meteorites). The oldest known rocks are over 4 billion years old.

No, radioactive decay does not lie, and no, geologists do not use radiocarbon dating to determine the age of the Earth. (Our planet is far too old for this method to be applicable.)

Um, scientific hypotheses attempt to best explain observable facts. If hypotheses survive falsification, they graduate to being termed theories. This means that scientific theories follow upon something that actually happened.

What more could one expect from someone who equates the rapid inflation of spacetime to a very large collection of brass, wood, strings, and hot air? Or did he mean a huge collection of guitarists accompanied by drummers and amplified to deafening levels? Hence the bang? Either way, I'm willing to bet that he'd also deny cosmic microwave background radiation, even though he's undoubtedly heard that.

.

Tick Tock

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 03:55:00 +0000

Permit the components of clocks to mutate and undergo natural selection, and what do you get? Experimental refutation of the jumbo-mumbo argument for intelligent design creationism.

YouTube.

Articles : eSkeptic Michael Shermer Not Intelligent, Surely Not Science David Brin The Other Intelligent Design Theories: Intelligent Design is only one of many “alternatives” to Darwinian evolution Robert Camp Can Intelligent Design be considered scientific in the same way that SETI is? Tom McIver Who Designed That? Creationism v. Intelligent Design Bruce Grant Intentional Deception: Intelligent Design Creationism Burt Humburg & Ed Brayton Kitzmiller et al versus Dover Area School District Reading Room Intelligent Design & Creationism

Blogs: Greta Christina The Blind Watchmaker Makes a Watch: A Nifty Video About Evolution : No More Mr. Nice Guy! The watchmaker is blind, and the cretinist emperor is naked : Pharyngula How to evolve a watch : Tangled Up in Blue Guy Debunking the “Watch in a Box” Strawman : BlogCadre How to evolve a watch : cartoon The Watchmaker

Behe Retreats

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 23:23:00 +0000

The sole contribution of intelligent [sick] design creationism advocate, biochemist Michael Behe comprises the scientifically refuted notion that a multicomponent functional system could not have arisen by "Darwinian" evolution.

In essence, Behe argued that because removal of any component would render the system non-functional, such a system could not be produced by continuously improving the initial function (which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system (p.39 of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution).

Behe's books, of course, appeal to those who know very little science and who are passionately committed to belief in special creation, particularly the disguised creationism passed off as "intelligent design theory". In the July 1 New York Times, evolutionist and atheist evangelist Richard Dawkins reviews Michael Behe’s new book, The Edge of Evolution. Dawkins points out that Behe has been forced to retreat from insistence upon "irreducible complexity" to further bad science and inaccuracies. He refers to Jerry Coyne's more detailed critique of the scientific distortions that Behe has resorted to in his desperation.

Michael Behe's illogical arguments for intelligent [sick] design theory are such an embarrassment that Lehigh University has placed a disclaimer on their Department of Biological Sciences website:

"The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."

One can only imagine that if Behe had not already had tenure when he began publishing religious pseudoscience, then the university would have sent him packing to knock on the doors of that infamous junk tank, the misnamed Discovery Institute.

In The New Republic, Professor Jerry Coyne has published a good critique of Behe's retreat from disproven "irreducible complexity" into attributing mutations to God's intervention. The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism is Behe's feeble attempt to conjure up creationist pseudoscience for credulous dummies.

Sites Elsewhere : Panda's Thumb An Open Letter to Dr. Michael Behe, An Open Letter to Dr. Michael Behe (Part 2) ERV Michael Behe, please allow me to introduce myself..., Hello again, Michael Behe! Science After Sunclipse Chu-Carroll on Behe’s The Edge of Evolution

...section index...

Reducible Illogic

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 10:39:00 +0000

The sole contribution of intelligent [sick] design creationism advocate, biochemist Michael Behe consists of the scientifically refuted notion that a multicomponent functional system could not have arisen by "Darwinian" evolution.

In essence, Behe argues that because removal of any component will render the system non-functional, such a system could not be produced by continuously improving the initial function (which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system (p.39 of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution).

Behe targetted several complex systems as purportedly providing support for this flawed proposal: evolution of the eye, clotting cascades and complement system, and the bacterial flagellum.

This fanciful creationist sleight of hand sold popular pseudoscience books to the determinedly ignorant, but there are major problems with Michael Behe's contrived challenge of 'irreducible complexity'.

First, the implicit assumption that the components of currently functional system have 'always and only' performed the function that they currently display. The most obvious illustration of this flaw lies in an examination of Behe's designed-for-the-scientifically-ignorant analogy of a spring-based mouse trap. All the components of a spring-based mouse trap can be found, in modified forms, functioning in a variety of settings. It is only the assemblage of these modified forms within a mouse trap that renders each a necessary component of the trap's function. That is, already existing components have been slightly modified then assembled into a simple mechanism. This is exactly how biological evolution operates – mutations generate modifications and successful mutations are retained, so even Behe's analogy demonstrates that which he sought to refute. (Intelligent design devotees seem incapable of grasping the point that analogies are useful in explanatory descriptions, but that fallacious arguments from analogy are rapidly invalidated as arguments aimed at attacking scientific facts.)

Second, research in medical genetics has uncovered mechanisms that explain 'reducible' complexity.

Third, research has demonstrated that assembly of pre-existing modifications operate in subsequently evolved features. Science provides innumerable examples of similar adaptive employment of mutation-coded-proteins that result from pre-existing gene segments.

Behe's ridiculous make-room-for-design (aka God) was refuted before Behe even concocted it! Even if evolutionary biologists were never able to reconstruct the mutational route to specific biological features, such a failure could not be taken to demonstrate Behe's pull-a-miracle-out-of-the-hat illogical claims. Behe may be a protein biochemist, but he is clearly not a logician because his entire argument placed faulty science on a fallacy of logic – argumentum ad ignorantiam.

1.
Inherited epigenetic variation--revisiting soft inheritance..
Phenotypic variation is traditionally parsed into components that are directed by genetic and environmental variation. The line between these two components is blurred by inherited epigenetic variation, which is potentially sensitive to environmental inputs. Chromatin and DNA methylation-based mechanisms mediate a semi-independent epigenetic inheritance system at the interface between genetic control and the environment. Should the existence of inherited epigenetic variation alter our thinking about evolutionary change?Richards EJ. Inherited epigenetic variation--revisiting soft inheritance. Nat Rev Genet. 2006 May;7(5):395-401.

Insights into the spliceosome suggest new explanations for generating biological complexity. modified, hyperlinks inserted:While politicians debate whether evolution occurs, scientists are busy debating how it occurs. . . .there are more ways than previously thought to achieve the impressive complexity characteristic of humans. Many organisms — including humans — evolve in part by using a complex mechanism by which strands of RNA are spliced together in a two-step process, and delicate balancing of the way this process is executed can generate an enormous number of new gene products, providing a vast reservoir of material for selection during evolution. . . between the “important” coding sections of RNA lie non-coding patches — introns — and as RNA is made it’s the job of a cellular machine called the spliceosome to chop the introns out and splice the rest of the coding sections back together. . . the two steps in this process require the spliceosome to change its shape, flipping back and forth between two distinct conformations. . . Changes in the balance between these two states — referred to as equilibrium — will cause the spliceosome to dwell longer in one conformation at the cost of the other, improving one of the two steps of splicing, to the detriment of the other step. Mutations either in spliceosomal components or in the intron RNA strands can change how the RNA and the spliceosome interact with one another and thus affect the equilibrium. . . there are an abundance of mutated intron splice sites in human DNA, also called alternative splice sites. . . when the equilibrium of the spliceosome is changed — either because the mutated splice sites interact with it differently or because other accessory molecules bind to the spliceosome — they can be recognized and spliced. The utilization of alternative splice sites allows for different combinations of coding RNA sequences to be put together, so that one RNA transcript can make a variety of different products, each with a potentially different function. This explains why, when the human genome was first sequenced, relatively few genes were found. . . This has allowed our genome to develop in complexity.”Molecular Cell 21(4): 543-553 (February 17, 2006)

2.
Lenski et al have demonstrated that complex features can evolve by expanding earlier, simpler functions, and that an intermediate stage is not necessary for this evolution. Thus, they have demonstrated how to reconstruct a complete evolutionary history of a complex genetically encoded function. Their computations vindicate Darwin's idea that the target of natural selection constantly changes, and that the complex feature of today may share very little with the original function. Darwin wrote, "if we look to an organ common to all the members of a large class in order to discover the early transitional grades through which the organ has passed, we should have to look to very ancient ancestral forms, long since become extinct."

The work of Lenski et al and the experiments of Bridgham et al (below) demonstrate that Behe's contrived challenge to Darwinian evolution, namely "irreducible complexity", is not a valid criticism of the mechanisms of evolution. The two groups have demonstrated that complex systems can evolve and lend disproof to the claim that complex systems must have been designed.

The evolutionary origin of complex features.
A long-standing challenge to evolutionary theory has been whether it can explain the origin of complex organismal features. We examined this issue using digital organisms--computer programs that self-replicate, mutate, compete and evolve. Populations of digital organisms often evolved the ability to perform complex logic functions requiring the coordinated execution of many genomic instructions. Complex functions evolved by building on simpler functions that had evolved earlier, provided that these were also selectively favoured. However, no particular intermediate stage was essential for evolving complex functions. The first genotypes able to perform complex functions differed from their non-performing parents by only one or two mutations, but differed from the ancestor by many mutations that were also crucial to the new functions. In some cases, mutations that were deleterious when they appeared served as stepping-stones in the evolution of complex features. These findings show how complex functions can originate by random mutation and natural selection.
Lenski RE, Ofria C, Pennock RT, Adami C. The evolutionary origin of complex features. Nature. 2003 May 8;423(6936):139-44.

Lock before Key: Entrez PubMed: "According to Darwinian theory, complexity evolves by a stepwise process of elaboration and optimization under natural selection. Biological systems composed of tightly integrated parts seem to challenge this view, because it is not obvious how any element's function can be selected for unless the partners with which it interacts are already present. Here we demonstrate how an integrated molecular system-the specific functional interaction between the steroid hormone aldosterone and its partner the mineralocorticoid receptor-evolved by a stepwise Darwinian process. Using ancestral gene resurrection, we show that, long before the hormone evolved, the receptor's affinity for aldosterone was present as a structural by-product of its partnership with chemically similar, more ancient ligands. Introducing two amino acid changes into the ancestral sequence recapitulates the evolution of present-day receptor specificity. Our results indicate that tight interactions can evolve by molecular exploitation-recruitment of an older molecule, previously constrained for a different role, into a new functional complex."

Bridgham JT, Carroll SM, Thornton JW. Evolution of hormone-receptor complexity by molecular exploitation. Science. 2006 Apr 7;312(5770):97-101.Comment in: Science. 2006 Apr 7;312(5770):61-3.

See also : Complexity Reductio, Behe Retreats, and Dawkins refutes Behe.

...section index...

Canadians Can be Stupid Too

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 03:10:00 +0000

It's embarrassing.

Alberta is home to Canada's oil boom, a dinosaur lagerstatte, and Bible Belt Idiots.

In the poky little town of Big Valley, a couple of creationist nincompoops have wasted $300,000 on Canada's answer to Ham's Idiocy.

In ungrammatical, deceitful displays, the museum's co-owners claim to demonstrate that the Flood occurred (misinterpreted glacial erratics) but that evolution did not (the notorious and discredited bacterial flagellum). Copying Ham's propaganda, the museum duplicitously claims that dinosaurs were contemporaneous with humans.

(Sure, if you wish to acknowledge that birds are the modern descendents of therapod dinosaurs. Their "terrible lizard" relatives died out ~65 million years ago.)

Back to the museum. Needless to say, this Canadian example of creationist nonsense is arousing detractors from amongst the intelligentsia. And the merely educated, for that matter.

Every such example of Lies-for-God merely serves to underline the errancy of the Bible.

CBC Archives digital video clip A Canadian home for creationism.

From a creationist who is homeschooling her children (presumably to protect them from knowledge):

"The evidence has been proven against evolution."

It did not surprise me that she does not comprehend that evidence demonstrates something, strictly does not prove anything other than its own existence, and that one does not 'prove evidence'. Other than that, she is completely incorrect. The evidence demonstrates the fact of biological evolution. It happened. The evidence falsifies the metaphysical claims in Genesis.

From an unconvinced university student:

"As a student, as a free-thinker, it's important to be open-minded. And see both sides of the story without actually subscribing to one or the other."

He got the first sentence right. With respect to creationism versus evolution, he flunked in his second sentence. It is actually important for students to learn critical thinking. It is essential to to learn to detect when claims are based on lack of evidence, or on distortion of evidence. It is vital to recognize when scientific theories are supported by empirical data, and are internally consistent within the body of current knowledge. Accepted theories have repeatedly withstood attempts at falsification. Those theories that were falsified become part of the history of science, just as myths that are no longer accepted become part of mythology. Indoctrinated myths that are still widely believed are protected by their undeserved inclusion in theology.

Not only is the Bible not a science text, it is not backed by archaeological evidence, and nor are any of the supposedly historical events independently supported by contemporary writers.

Cartoons attacking Creationism

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 01:56:00 +0000

Creationism is not science, creationism is not logical, creationism does not seek truths about operation of the real world. With the rise of the Religious Wrong, creationism reared its ugly, Biblical literalist head, in an attack on science and science education. Creationism deserves ridicule, and a humorous display of anti-creationism cartoons can be found here. It's well worth a look, though creationists are warned that they are unlikely to see any humor in these lampoons.

atheism cartoons creationism education humor intelligent design religion science

Creationism only flourishes amidst Ignorance

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 19:26:00 +0000

I found the following example of ignorance amongst the comments on an article about the museum-of-delusion constructed by oxymoronically labelled Answers in Genesis. Those who are so ignorant as to believe in creationism are not really interested in answers, but I want to vent!

"To all of those evolutionists out there: Can you tell me ONE instance of an organism that proves that NEW information was ADDED to its DNA? NOT a LOSS of genetic info that leads to an environmental advantage, but an actual ADDITION of NEW information to the DNA?"

First, there can be no proof outside special philosophical syllogisms and mathematics. Only the ignorant or emotionally-uncertain demand proof. However, there is abundant evidence, throughout organisms from prokaryotes to humans of the addition/alteration of segments of DNA. There is so much evidence that one could not list it all. See for yourself – running a PubMed search for "DNA evolution" yielded 53983 hits (5/27/07). Of course, not all of these scientific articles will directly address this creationist challenge, so I Googled "DNA evolution" and got 47,100,000 hits. Some of these will be websites set up by creationists as ignorant as the author of that stupid question, but many will provide an accurate answer.

Creationist are correct in stating that DNA contains information, so any alteration of a DNA sequence, even if it is only a single nucleotide polymorphism (point mutation), comprises evidence of the addition of new information to DNA. To ask for "proof" of the addition of new information to DNA is beyond ridiculous. The most obvious examples of increased information include duplications and other mutations, and the intergenerational persistence of such new alleles and elimination of alleles. Any organism that develops a malignancy does so because of mutational alterations in DNA. Childrens' DNA is not identical to that of either parent because of chromosomal recombination of the DNA inherited from each parent. The diversity of DNA, which is demonstrably currently continuing to evolve, is evidence of addition of information to DNA. No need to go on–there are billions of examples.

"Answers in Genesis' website explains that this is the big obstacle for evolutionary belief. What mechanism could possibly have added all the extra genetic information required to change a one-celled creature into a multicelled organism, then other more "complex" organisms?"

This, of course, is why Answers in Genesis is misnamed. (There are no accurate answers to questions in Genesis, which was, is, and always will be an allegorical creation myth. Nor are there any answers in AiG–merely delusions.)

Again, science has documented abundant evidence regarding mechanisms, which include prokaryotic gene-swapping mechanisms (HGT), serial endosymbiotic transfers, and a variety of internal-mutation mechanisms (duplication, etc.). The very first soft-bodied multicellular organisms died without leaving any fossil trace around 1 billion years ago. It is utterly unreasonable to expect that this step in evolution can ever be exactly replicated. However, the molecular biological mechanisms of cellular adhesion that exist today were likely the same mechanisms that allowed the first co-operative assemblages of specialized cells (the colonial theory providing the likeliest explanation). Serial endosymbiotic transfers rendered this step possible, and the oxygen produced by the first prokaryotes to practice oxygenic photosynthesis both drove and enabled such assemblages.

"Natural selection can’t explain it as natural selection involves getting rid of information."

Natural selection operates to increase the frequency of favourable alleles and reduce unfavourable alleles in populations. The amount of information is much the same following selection for the organisms best equipped to survive and produce viable progeny within a particular environment. Only utterly unfavourable mutations will be removed, while neutral and favourable mutations will persist. Natural selection has never been regarded as a mechanism for the alteration of DNA itself.

"A group of animals might become more adapted to the heat by the elimination of those which carry the genetic information to make thick fur. But that doesn’t explain the origin of the information to make thick or thin fur."

Nor, as above, do any evolutionary biologists claim that natural selection, which can only operate on already existent alleles, is the mechanism for producing the genes.

"As a Biological Sciences major in college . . . "

Now this is truly very sad! This poser-of-stupid-questions is better educated than your average creationist, yet clearly does not comprehend even the basics of molecular or population genetics. This sort of ignorance is the reason that critics decry anti-science, deceptive-pseudoscience displays that merely entrench such ignorance.

"I was also disappointed and angry to discover that several of the big "evidences" for evoution given to us in school were NOT true, and that these are still taught to students today as truth."

Where did this person attend college? Presumably a small southern college and not one of the better universities. The above is a truly ridiculous statement. Evidence is evidence is evidence. Scientific theories are formulated on the basis of evidence, which translates to saying that scientific theories begin with the facts. The evidences for biological evolution are FACTS. Whether or not a particular theory best explains the facts is a different question, and this is the entire point of the scientific method.

"It is time students were taught all the facts about evolution, not just the ones that fit the THEORY best! I pray the AiG museum will open a lot of eyes to the deception carried on by the biologists promoting evolution."

The voluminous facts about biological evolution are conveniently ignored by those who believe in creation, in biblical literacy, and in some non-existent necessary-connection between morality and religious dogmatism. The author of the ridiculous comment that I have quoted is clearly incapable of comprehending the facts. As to manipulating information to fit theories, the AiG museum is a transparent example of the sort of distortion of facts that is necessary in order to support an utterly ridiculous two- thousand-plus-year old theory (YEC). Although they do not admit this explicitly, creationist attacks on science implicitly indicate that they are aware that scientific facts disprove the claims in Genesis–proof may not be possible, but disproof is possible. Genesis IS disproven. Dinosaurs did not coexist with hominids, rather the dinosaurs predated hominids by 60 million years. No number of deceptive lie-orama displays will ever alter that fact.

I'd further suggest to the author of the stupid-question that his or her inability to understand something does not render that thing invalid. It merely means that he or she really ought to obtain some education. Given that an ABC News poll indicates that "60 percent of Americans believe God created the world in six days" (a fallacious argumentum ad numerum argument for creationism, incidentally), then it is clear that far too may Americans exhibit a lamentably low standard of science education.

Debunking apologetics:
Theological Apologetics
å Assailing the Ineffable
å Aristotle's Prime Mover
å Avicenna first mover
å Aquinas' arguments
å Cosmological Arguments
å Kalām cosmological argument
å Leibnizian Principle of Sufficient Reason
å Plato's First Mover
å Teleological Arguments

Emotional Apologetics
å Demands for Proof
å Desperate Measures
å What's Wrong with Religious Apologetics?
å When All Else Fails

History of Religion
å From UPA to Ineffable

More mutterings about the stupidity that is creationism:

IDiocy
å Anthropic Apologetics
å Anti-IDiocy resources
å Behe Retreats
å Complexity Reductio
å Dawkins refutes Behe
å Debunking IDiocy
å If there were a God
å Jones' Kitzmiller vs Dover decision
å Ken Miller on Collapse of Intelligent Design
å Not So-Hidden IDiot Agendas
å Panstupidity and Jumbo-Mumbo
å Reducible Illogic
å Regressive God
å Tick Tock
å Un-designed Intelligences
å Wedge Document
å What's intelligent . . . ?

Creationism / Religiosity
å Agnostic vs Atheist
å Agnosticism is NOT more rational than Atheism
å Anti-Stupidity Quotes
å Battle to Regress
å Besottism
å Canadians Can be Stupid Too
å Complexity Reductio
å Confidence and Ignorance
å Creationism only flourishes amidst Ignorance
å Declaration of Independent Thinking
å Dei Non Existent
å Delusion inversely correlated with FLQ
å Expulsions
å Furor over Stupidity
å From UPA to Ineffable `
å God, what god?
å In God, Distrust
å Inverse Correlations
å Moral Absolutism
å Myths Revered and Myths Exposed
å One Evolution, Many Creationisms
å Pseudoscience Chicanery
å Religionists Behaving Badly
å Rigidity and Religiosity
å Spirituality, Religiosity, and Madness
å Statistics on Ignorance
å Wedge Document
å YEC yack

Elsewhere: Gallup Poll on Evolution, which reveals that the overwhelming majority of religious fundamentalists are ignorant of evolution : comment on Pharyngula : Religion—our maelstrom of ignorance: "Maybe we need to start picketing fundamentalist churches. Maybe it's about time that we recognize religious miseducation as child abuse."

...section index...

Panstupidity and Jumbo-Mumbo

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 04:07:00 +0000

Christopher Hitchens used (coined?) this delightful variant of "mumbo-jumbo" to denigrate Fred Hoyle's ridiculous panspermia argument that abiogenesis by chemical evolution is "as likely as a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and spontaneously assembling a Boeing 747 airplane".

Specifically, Hoyle asked:

A junkyard contains all the bits and pieces of a Boeing 747, dismembered and in disarray. A whirlwind happens to blow through the yard. What is the chance that after its passage a fully assembled 747, ready to fly, will be found standing there?*

Considering the clever twist for which his Jumbo-assembly, junky analogy set his argument up, Hoyle, who sarcastically coined the term "Big Bang", was doubly ridiculous in this irrelevant misrepresentation of the probabilistic realities of chemical evolution of life (biopoiesis).

Of course, chemicals actually self-assembled in accordance with simple, still operational, chemical reactions over an extensive period.

Although Hoyle presented the jumbo-junk argument to promote the notion of panspermia, intelligent-design creationists have eagerly misapplied this jumbo-mumbo as an argument against biological evolution by natural selection. Hoyle's remarks are particularly popular to creationists because they also provide for a fallacious appeal to authority based on Hoyle's reported atheism. The creationist fallacious appeal to authority runs: Hoyle was a brilliant atheist and he said something useful to the cause of creationist delusions.

Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe concocted the panspermia (exogenesis) theory to counter theories of chemical evolution of life (abiogenesis), and were responsible for another idiotic statement much loved by creationists:

"No matter how large an environment considers, life cannot have had a random beginning. Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on typewriters could not produce the words of Shakespeare, for the practical reason that the whole observable universe is not large enough to contain the necessary monkey hordes, the necessary typewriters, and certainly the waste paper baskets required for the deposition of wrong attempts. The same is true for living material."

Hitchen's response to the jumbo-junk argument:

"We know the answer in all cases: these were painstaking inventions (also by trial and error) of mankind, and were the the work of many hands, and are still "evolving." This is what makes piffle out of the ignorant creationist sneer, which compares evolution to a whirlwind blowing through a junkyard of parts and coming up with a mumbo jet. For a start, there are no "parts" lying around waiting to be assembled. For another thing, the process of acquisition and discarding of "parts" (most especially wings) is as far from a whirlwind as could conceivably be. The time involved is more like that of a glacier than a storm. For still another thing, jumbo jets are not riddled with nonworking or superfluous "parts" lamely inherited from less successful aircraft. Why have we agreed so easily to call this exploded old nontheory by its cunningly chosen new disguise of "intelligent design"? There is nothing at all "intelligent" about it. It is the same old mumbo-jumbo (or in this instance, jumbo-mumbo)." ¬ Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, McClelland & Stewart, Toronto (2007), pp 85-87.

* F. Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York (1983), p. 18.

For a video of a thought experiment that demonstrates that clock components could indeed self-assemble into clocks, provided only that they could mutate and undergo natural selection, see Tick Tock.

Elsewhere: Are IDiots Creationists?

Atheist Genius...DEBUNKED!

...section index...

atheism, biological evolution, creationism, fallacies of logic, intelligent design, natural selection, panspermia, Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickramasinghe,

More Food for Unthought

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 20:42:00 +0000

The creationists have something else to deny – Darwinius masillae.

Ida is a beautifully preserved, 47 million yr-old, almost complete, transitional primate fossil from the Eocene.

Undoubtedly, this will prove upsetting to those who resort to challenging taunts of "give me proof", but who, in their eternal love affair with argumentum ad ignorantiam, deny all evidence presented.

Having thus exhibited their profound self-obsessed bias toward obdurate ignorance, creationists will almost certainly proceed on to whining that we atheists are "mean" to them for noting that they are more often less "bright" than atheists.

Why are they?

We are almost all raised within one religious tradition or another. Those who think rationally about the utter lack of evidence are more likely to deconvert than are those who do not think critically.

The IQ discrepancy would be even greater were it not for the fact that some individuals adopt atheistic attitudes for purely emotional reasons.

Since creationists repeatedly, publically demonstrate their poverty of logic, lack of education, or blatant intellectual dishonesty, they have no reasonable grounds for accusations of unfair labelling as being less intellectual than most atheists. End of story.

I make no apologies for the fact that I do not respect ill-founded, prejudiced, opinions that reflect an obsession with personal salvation, but which are typically accompanied by hypocritically anti-social attitudes.

People are entitled to their own opinions only in so far as it is impossible to alter the opinions of a person who is immune to evidence and logic. That is, the reality is that we are stuck with religiously-motivated ignorance. This does not mean that we must afford unwarranted respect to stubborn manifestations of a cognitive disorder. In fact, I think that we should not even feign respect for ignorant, biased opinions. Society can no longer afford to mollycoddle stupid ideas.

This is not to say that believers should be personally disrespected. It is to say that their uninformed notions should be refuted. Even though creationists almost never admit, let alone see, that they have been refuted, bystanders might benefit from having light shone on someone else's cognitive errors.

Ida: official website . Darwinius masillae . Poor, poor Ida, Or: "Overselling an Adapid" . Darwinius masillae - The Panda's Thumb . Introducing Darwinius masillae . wiki .

Franzen JL, Gingerich PD, Habersetzer J, Hurum JH, von Koenigswald W, Smith BH (2009) Complete Primate Skeleton from the Middle Eocene of Messel in Germany: Morphology and Paleobiology.

PLoS ONE 4(5): e5723. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005723. abstract .

Furor over Stupidity

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 07:08:00 +0000

It's high time that scientists and the educated organize against attempts by the dogmatically ignorant to undermine education in America. AiG's deceptive junk-tank monument to stupidity, aka the Creation Museum, has squandered $27 million in order to promote their LIES against scientific fact.

YECs appear not to be a particularly bright group, so it seems unlikely that many budding geniuses are being misled into ignorance. However, this is no reason not to decry the damage done to average children by causing deliberate confusion about science and reality.

The Founding Fathers were wise to separate Religion and the State, though not necessarily for prescient reasons. Whether or not they foresaw the likelihood that organized stupidity would attempt to undermine education, the Constitution should be used to protect education from superstition and ignorance. The mere fact of "scientists'" having signed a document against Darwinism demonstrates the desecration of science, critical thinking, and logic wrought by religious dogmatists. Polls indicate that far too high a percentage of Americans are so ignorant of the facts on which scientific theories are based that they hold a strict creationist view of origins.

Modern politicians, concerned more for their political ambitions than for truth, are all too aware of the vocal agitators who sway religious dogmatists on voting day, so they abrogate their responsibility to uphold the Constitution. To make matters worse, the most stupid president ever not-to-actually-be-elected resorts to claims of communication with God. It's intriguing to ponder how America came to be a nation that largely reviles knowledge while protecting organized stupidity. America has not come very far since 1925!

Statement of Concern
"We, the undersigned scientists at universities and colleges in Kentucky, Ohio, and Indiana, are concerned about scientifically inaccurate materials at the Answers in Genesis museum. Students who accept this material as scientifically valid are unlikely to succeed in science courses at the college level. These students will need remedial instruction in the nature of science, as well as in the specific areas of science misrepresented by Answers in Genesis."

National Center for Science Education petition: http://www.sciohost.org/states

"One of the petitions, started by the Campaign to Defend the Constitution, a Washington, D.C., group that focuses on church and state issues, says the museum is part of a "campaign by the religious right to inject creationist teachings into science education."'

Campaign to Defend the Constitution: http://www.defconamerica.org/

Elsewhere: Gallup Poll on Evolution, which reveals that the overwhelming majority of religious fundamentalists are ignorant of the fact of biological evolution : comment on Pharyngula : Religion—our maelstrom of ignorance: "Maybe we need to start picketing fundamentalist churches. Maybe it's about time that we recognize religious miseducation as child abuse."

...section index...