Why is it that all questions about atheism and evolution by the True Believers rest on false premises? Answer that one for me, ma’am.

Donald Trump staged a hostile takeover of the US’s 250th anniversary celebration to enrich political allies, harvest voter data and promote Christian nationalist ideology, according to a congressional investigation released on Thursday.

The interim report, “From Vanity to Insanity: How the White House Cheated the American People Out of Their 250th Birthday”, outlines a web of alleged corruption, wire fraud and pay-to-play schemes orchestrated through a shadow corporation embedded within the National Park Foundation (NPF).

The document was produced by Democratic staff of the House of Representatives’ natural resources committee’s oversight and investigations subcommittee. It has not been officially adopted by the committee.

“Under President Donald Trump, this anniversary has been hijacked and perverted into a hotbed of corruption and self-enrichment,” it states, contending that the machinery built for a national commemoration was converted “into an apparatus for raising and spending money in service of the President’s ego, political ideology, and pet projects.”

I remember the 200th anniversary celebration. You may recall that Gerald Ford was the president then, but he didn’t issue bicentennial coins with his face on them, or hire a religious organization to lead the event, or appear prominently in any of the celebrations that were going on — it was generally non-partisan. It was also a weird political era, since we’d just chased Nixon out of office in 1974 for his criminal chicanery. May I suggest that we do something similar to celebrate the semiquincentennial? That would be a lovely tradition to continue.

As we’ve come to expect from the Trump crime family, it was all about the money, funneling it into their personal pockets. This is an outrageous level of corruption.

The investigation also outlines how Freedom 250 effectively put a price tag on presidential access, circulating sponsorship packages starting at $500,000 and climbing above $10m for tiered recognition, culminating in a “historic photo opportunity” with Trump.

The report also points to perhaps the most clear example on 14 June when the White House hosted a massive Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) event on the South Lawn to celebrate the president’s 80th birthday. The event was heavily sponsored by corporations facing impending federal regulation and used vast government resources for “Super Bowl-level security” marshalled by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

There is one phrase you hear repeated over and over again, from TPUSA and PragerU and the White House: our rights are not given to us by the government, but by God. I always thought those rights were derived from the people, but that slogan is being pushed everywhere in the Freedom250 propaganda train.

The report also focuses on the ideological overhaul of the semiquincentennial. Freedom 250 replaced America250’s civic engagement focus with overt Christian nationalist programming, operating in tandem with the Religious Liberty Commission, which recently recommended repealing the Johnson amendment to allow churches to engage in partisan politics.

A central feature of this effort was “Freedom Trucks” – a federally funded fleet of mobile museums dispatched to schoolchildren across the nation. Supplied with content from the conservative PragerU [the Prager University Foundation] and Hillsdale College, these exhibits recast the founding of the US as an exclusively Christian project, embracing demonstrable falsehoods.

Exhibits include an AI-generated George Washington claiming that “our rights are a gift from God”, a statement the first president is not documented as having made, alongside antisemitic tropes suggesting that Jewish merchants financed the Revolutionary cause while omitting they also fought and died for it.

For a thorough breakdown of all the ways Freedom250 is lying to us, and in particular an analysis of the “Freedom Trucks” that PragerU was paid $14 million to deliver, I recommend the following video. That $14 million was stolen from public libraries and museums. It’s 45 minutes long, well worth it for the righteous anger and disgust it will generate.

It ends with a call to action: visit the American Library Association for things you can do to save our libraries and the propagation of a truer history.

Also, fuck Dennis Prager, Erica Kirk, and every member of the Trump family.

Your date has bright green teeth, and there’s a bug caught in them. What do you do?

Well, sort of. Researchers in the College of Biological Sciences on the Twin Cities campus have created a synthetic cell from scratch that has many of the properties of evolved cells, but they also have significant limitations. Kate Adamala and Aaron Engelhart have combined 7 plasmids in a lipid bubble, that they’ve called a spudcell, that can do many of the cool things that natural cells can do.

This is likely the most exciting project I’ve ever worked on,” said Adamala. “We’ve replicated in chemistry what only used to be possible in biology: the complete set of behaviors of a cell. It proves that the most fundamental functions of life, like growth and replication, do not need a mysterious magical spark.

You can almost hear the mad cackle. So what can it do?

Among the characteristics of SpudCell:

• Replicates a biological cell’s life cycle: SpudCell is capable of selection, genome replication, growth, resource acquisition via feeding, and genetically encoded division.
• Cell division without a cytoskeleton: Natural cells divide using internal scaffolding called a cytoskeleton, which has been a bottleneck in synthetic cell research. SpudCell sidesteps the need for a cytoskeleton with proteins that crowd together on the membrane surface until the mechanical stress makes the membrane split.
• Selection and competition: Researchers introduced a genetic change that increased production of the fusion protein, resulting in cells that grew faster and produced more offspring. After five generations, the faster-growing variant had outcompeted the original. Under nutrient scarcity, the advantage increased, demonstrating selection and competition operating in a fully synthetic chemical system.

It’s basically a minimal, defined biochemical system in a liposome, with a tiny genome. It doesn’t have any organelles (other than ribosomes), and is a uniform soup of enzymes, which is why I think they called it a SpudCell, because it’s got all the character of a potato. You can read a preprint which gives all the details.

The system contains 36 purified enzymes, a 90,000 base pair genome spread across nine separate DNA molecules, and a lipid membrane. SpudCell is able to grow, replicate its genome, divide, and undergo selection and competition across multiple generations.

The preprint also discusses some of the major limitations of this system. It’s not going to compete with natural cells, and it will die out within a few generations if released. It needs to be fed specially prepared liposomes filled with nutrients that can spontaneously fuse with the cells, which is kind of cheating. But also…

• Building ribosomes from genetic instructions. SpudCell currently uses ribosomes from E. coli bacteria. Without the capability to remake ribosomes, SpudCell runs for 5-10 generations before the machinery degrades. Building ribosomes from scratch means synthesising dozens of proteins and RNA molecules, then getting them to assemble in the right order.
• Improving genome distribution. After five generations, about 30% of daughter cells have the complete set of seven DNA plasmids. Natural cells solve this with cytoskeletal machinery that pulls chromosomes apart during division. SpudCell does not have that yet, and better genome inheritance will need more sophisticated division mechanisms.
• Reducing dependence on external feeding. Nutrient-carrying liposomes have to be added regularly, and division requires streptavidin and molecular linker proteins from outside. Making the system more autonomous will require building metabolic pathways that can synthesize components from simpler starting materials.

It’s not sophisticated enough to assemble its own ribosomes, which is a major limitation. It’s going to need at least an order of magnitude more complexity to do that.

I’m more interested in the lack of a cytoskeleton. You’ve got 23 pairs of chromosomes in your cells, and the cytoskeletal machinery in mitosis works to guarantee that each daughter cell inherits the same 23 pairs; there are cells that don’t have that cytoskeleton, and they can do just fine with a single strand of circular DNA, but these SpudCells have at least 7 separate plasmids that have to be sorted. They rely on chance distribution of the plasmids to daughter cells, so they have to point out that after 5 generations 70% are nonviable.

What it’s good for is that it’s greatly reduced, bare-bones cell where every component is precisely known so you can track every molecule for at least a few generations. There are toy cells, but good educational toys.

Of course, you have to remember that it’s probably got the texture of a spongecake, and those long arms are there to collect marine snow, so don’t invite her on a dinner date and don’t expect intimacy, unless you like limp noodles. She’s all show.

On the same day, the Court unanimously ruled against transgender rights. You can pretty much be certain that it will rule against principles of democracy and inclusion whenever it gets the opportunity.

The only optimistic news I’ve seen is that Mitch McConnell, one of the architects of the conservative dominance of the Supreme Court, may be dying.

Several reputable news media outlets reported that the 84-year-old — who is among the oldest sitting senators in government, as of this writing — was admitted to a hospital on June 14. At the time of publication, his condition was unknown, leading to rumors about whether or not he was alive.

People online claimed the senator was either dead or close to death and that his staff were hiding it from the public. One post stated: “Is there a law that requires the Senate to disclose the death of a Senator within a certain number of days? #WhereIsMitch”

So maybe a slow, miserable death…but not too painful, since his mind is probably mostly gone. We’ve got time to get some champagne and caviar before his demise! The most generous thing I can say is that I wish he’d retired to the happy bosom of his family and a life of relaxation a decade or two ago. As it is, he overstayed his tenure, and to what end? The poisoning of his beloved Republican party.

I visited a dermatologist last week for a routine yearly examination. This is a ritual debasement in which I have to strip down and a doctor scans every inch of my pasty flesh, looking for anomalies. Like she usually does, she scanned me and said I was boring, nothing exciting at all (this is the comment I always get from women.) Then she noticed something…

“What’s this circular brown spot on your abdomen?”

“Oh, it’s nothing — I got spattered by some hot liquid in the kitchen…”

“OK, nothing to worry about then,” as she turned to fill in some forms.

“…a couple of years ago.”

She perked right up at that. Something interesting at last! It hasn’t healed up at all well over the last few years, so something is going on there.

She quickly whipped out a hypodermic and numbed the skin, and then did a shave biopsy, which was not fun. It wasn’t particularly painful, but now I’ve got this small wound I have to wash and bandage every day, and it hurts. Nothing at all debilitating, more annoying than anything.

I got the results from the lab yesterday. It’s a benign squamous cell carcinoma in situ.

Gross Exam:
Received in 10% NBF is a shave biopsy that measures 6 x 5 mm. The specimen is divided into 2
sections. All of the tissue is submitted for processing.

Microscopic Exam:
There is hyperkeratosis and acanthosis, but no significant dysplastic changes within the
epidermis. The dermis contains a mild, nonspecific inflammatory cell infiltrate.

Fortunately, I have taught cancer biology for years, so I know all the lingo. There’s nothing to panic over.

To be on the safe side, though, I have been scheduled for in-patient surgery for mid-August, after the biopsy damage has healed. They’re going to scrape off a big patch of skin, about a centimeter across, to scour out all the nasty little cancerous cells. That’s the part I dread: if this little biopsy slice is hurting right now, that bigger extirpation is going to hurt even more.

Boy, this summer sucks.

Donald Trump and his allies have seized control of the bipartisan 250th anniversary celebration and substituted it with a Trumpified series of events, at the public’s expense. Our analysis of federal contracts and corporate sponsorship deals related to the 250th anniversary reveals that:

• The Trump administration has awarded nearly $103 million in federal contracts and grants for the 250th anniversary celebrations to a network of politicized entities under the control of Trump administration officials and political allies.
• The recipients include entities controlled or influenced by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, as well as Chris LaCivita (Trump’s former campaign manager) and Meredith O’Rourke, Trump’s former presidential campaign finance director.
• These grants represent the vast majority (about 80%) of the nearly $126 million in federal contracts awarded since October 2025 to fund this summer’s 250th-anniversary celebrations, which have devolved into a celebration of Trump himself.
• Private funding has also flooded the anniversary celebration, often from corporations with regulatory issues before the Trump administration. As of June 11, 20 corporate sponsors are funding the Trump administration’s preferred anniversary organization, Freedom 250, compared with the 62 sponsoring the original, bipartisan celebration, dubbed America 250 (12 companies sponsor both).

For example, take a closer look at Trump’s Arch, sitting in the middle of an empty grassy field. It looks cheap. It’s badly assembled. It’s fate after this affair is to be chopped up and burned in a landfill (foreshadowing the fate of our country.)

I’m confident that Trump initiated this abomination with the goal of being “classy”…but he has such poor taste and lacks focus and is so incompetent at the execution that all we get is this embarrassing shitshow to join the reflecting pool debacle, the defeat in an Iran war that shouldn’t have happened, and all the corruption surrounding this presidency.

Some theridiidae have taken this to an extreme: Propostira, the ballista spider, has reinforced the gumfoot line to such a degree that it snaps prey up into it’s tangle web.

Propostira sp. (Theridiidae) was found on trees close to the foraging trails of O. smaragdina, a locally abundant, arboreal, highly aggressive and territorial species5. On trees occupied by these ants, the ballista spider took refuge during the day on the underside of leaves and ventured out from their refuge 30 minutes after sunset. Upon leaving its refuge, the spider began an exploratory phase during which it descended on a silk line to substrates up to 50 cm away. When it landed on a suitable substrate, it laid down an anchor point and returned to the core web by laying a tension line. Repetition of this process resulted in a fan shaped array of 15–60 tension lines that were bundled close to the substrate (Figure 1B and Video 1 at https://bit.ly/4cKtVGT) where the lines were laid out in a scaffold in the shape of a small cone. In the final phase, the cone scaffold was densely wrapped with a thinner type of silk . The spider then retreated to a position several centimeters above the cone. Very soon after the cone was wrapped (5–55 seconds; n = 12), O. smaragdina ants were attracted to it. Within milliseconds after probing the cone with its antennae, the ant displayed aggressive behavior, elevated its gaster, and bit the silk cone. The ant’s aggressive behavior is similar to that exhibited towards non-nestmates. The biting destabilized the cone and detached it from the substrate within 42.12 ± 16.09 ms (n = 5), leading to a rapid contraction of the tension lines. While still holding the cone with its mandibles, the ant was pulled off the substrate and propelled into the core web, reaching distances of up to 28.19 cm from the substrate (mean ± s.d. = 13.37 ± 8.57 cm, n = 5), with peak accelerations of 1367 m/s2 (mean ± s.d. = 1108.96 ± 166.14 m/s2; n = 5) and maximum velocities of 4.36 m/s (mean ± s.d. = 3.83 ± 0.68 m/s, n = 5, Video 3 at https://bit.ly/4cKtVGT). The spider moved only after the ant had been hauled up and was no longer in contact with the substrate. The spider then moved upwards on the web and waited until the ant was fully entangled before approaching to wrap it in silk. In one of 12 instances, the ant triggered the snare but was not hauled up; without the added mass of the ant, the snare accelerated at 4732.89 m/s2 and reached a maximal velocity of 13.47 m/s.

That’s amazing.

But you know what else is amazing? This is plainly an evolutionary adaptation, an extension of known, familiar behavior of related species that you don’t have to live in Sri Lanka or the Cape York peninsula to witness; black widows and false widows do the same thing, with less extraordinary power. But that power is a product of combining more strands to amplify the force. It’s analogous to an actual ballista, where multiple strands of fiber are twisted to make great tension that can propel boulders, rather than ants, great distances with great force.

It’s a real evolutionary success story, in that we can see a continuum of small variations that accumulate to produce this one remarkable innovation. The ballista spider is a product of its evolutionary history.

So why is Ken Ham trumpeting this story?

But spiders spinning intricate webs to snag other insects for dinner and ants blasting formic acid at their enemies brings up a question, “Why is God’s creation filled with creatures who look designed to kill or avoid being killed?” Genesis gives us the answer!

God graciously provided for his creation, giving them what they would need to survive and thrive in a world broken because of sin.
God’s original creation was “very good” (Genesis 1:31), and humans and animals were created to be vegetarian (Genesis 1:30), though it’s unclear if insects fall into the animal category. (See this article on nephesh life and whether insects were on the menu prior to the fall. Interestingly, there’s even a vegetarian spider in today’s fallen world!) But when Adam and Eve sinned, creation fell, and now all of creation groans from the effects of sin. Some animals now eat other animals, and everything tries to avoid being eaten, and even insects are now a source of pain, difficulty, and even death for humans. It’s not the way it was designed to be—slingshot spiders and aggressive ants remind us that it’s a fallen world. God graciously provided for his creation, giving animals and even insects what they would need to survive and thrive in a world broken because of sin.

Genesis gives us no answer. He claims his god arbitrarily conjured this spider ability in response to an ape eating fruit in his garden, which is no explanation at all, while biologists see this as a consequence of natural evolutionary processes that don’t require extraordinary magical events. Ham is simply stealing scientific explanations to paper over the superstitious nonsense he peddles.

It was mostly harmless, I think — the theme was just to have fun while under the umbrella of the church. That’s all. I guess the church has gotten more aggressive nowadays.

In a bizarre, disturbing scene that’s gone viral on TikTok, a church appeared to stage a fake execution of a man—involving realistic-looking guns and military uniforms—during Vacation Bible School. As the man is being murdered, the children are cheering in unison, “Take him out! Blow him up!” The military men then take the body outside (and out of view), where it’s suggested by the pastor they’re going to “blow him up.”

It’s disturbing that children were not only watching this scene, they were encouraged to cheer on the players machine-gunning the victim. Is this where a faith centered on the public execution of a disruptor of the status quo leads us?

The preacher at that church rationalizes the scene by saying that murdered man represented sin or satan, so it was OK to kill them. I’m sure Jesus would agree that children should be taught to kill sinners. They deserve death, after all.

I wonder if this church teaches that LGBTQ+ people are sinners?

My favorite quote/concept of all time is this one:

Everything is the way it is because it got that way.

D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson
(allegedly)

It affects everything I look at, and it’s the perfect sentiment for a developmental biologist/evolutionary biologist. It’s what I do for a living: see something, ask how it got that way (because that is the most important question), and try to track down the causal events that led to this outcome. It’s also the fundamental flaw in creationism, because they look at things and don’t care about the how or the process or the mechanism, it’s always explained by “god did it” with no interest in how their god did it.

But the quote always bugged me, too, because it’s not in On Growth and Form, Thompson’s awesome summary of his perspective. It’s a perfect expression of Thompson’s vision, so I continue to use it and think it, but it sure would be nice to know where it came from.

Fortunately, Glenn Branch tracked it down over a decade ago.

As far as I can tell, the line is actually due to Kenneth E. Boulding (1910–1993), whose obituary in The New York Times described him as “a much-honored but unorthodox economist, philosopher[,] and poet … renowned less for a single contribution to economics than for a large number of interesting intellectual and moral insights that both charmed and challenged his fellow social scientists.” In his 1953 “Toward a General Theory of Growth,” Boulding referred to “the D’Arcy Thomson [sic] principle … that at any moment the form of any object, organism, or organization is a result of its laws of growth up to that moment” (emphasis in original), citing On Growth and Form. (Boulding was a prolific writer, so there may be earlier statements of the principle that I missed.) By 1968, if not earlier, Boulding was using the familiar vernacular formulation, although he always credited the insight, if not the words, to Thompson.

It’s not hugely important — I’m not into hero-worship, although Thompson comes close to being a hero — but it’s nice to tidy up the record.

I’ve always wanted to visit France, I guess I’m getting a taste of it today. I went for my morning walk — big mistake. It’s cloudy and gray, but temperatures are climbing into the mid-30°C range, and humidity is sky high. I walked into a coffeeshop with AC, and the windows were opaque sheets of condensation. The mosquitos realized I was loose in nature and attacked me in swarms on the way home.

Dinner tonight will be served cold: iced smoothies. That will be our reward for finally hooking up the window AC unit in our bedroom.

Cool. As a certifiable nerd, this semi-obscure (to most people) reference provokes a lot of memories.

SMBC

I’ve used the Golgi staining technique. It’s a silver stain that precipitates black deposits in a subset of neurons, producing a sample of stained cells and allowing you to visualize neuronal architecture. It is a somewhat mysterious procedure — I was treating slabs of brain tissue in an arcane series of reactions over days to get the effect, and it was so exciting when my first prep actually worked. It produces these gorgeous black-on-red-gold images, and there was a time when I’d spend hours on a microscope measuring synaptic bouton density. It’s weird to see it in a joke, though. How many people will get it?

And then, Weinersmith brings up Lucifer Yellow in the red button panel:

I’ve also used Lucifer Yellow a lot! It’s a small fluorescent probe that glows very brightly, and I’ve injected it into many neurons to visualize their arbors and also assess connectivity — it diffuses freely through gap junctions.

Again, I have to ask who this joke for? Neurobiologists and histologists and historians who recognize this guy.

You’re never going to tap into that Garfield money at this rate, Zach.

Previous Thread

Here’s Tetragnatha with the mangled corpse of some kind of fly:

A meadowhawk was standing on some horrible, unrecognizable mass.

There are still plenty of flies available for feasting!

Don’t be fooled by my title. There was no cannibalism in this movie.

Oh look, a transcript below the fold.

I know what you’re thinking — Myers hates movies, now he’s going to crap on another recent movie showing at his local theater. I am aware that I have a reputation. But I’m going to surprise you a little bit, I’m going to give the new Supergirl movie my qualified approval.

How could this be? I pulled a trick on myself. Before going to the theater, I watched the 1984 Supergirl movie, which I’d almost forgotten, and it was so godawful bad that the new movie was a masterpiece in comparison. Actually, I wasn’t able to watch the whole 1984 thing, and I gave up about a third of the way through.

If you’ve managed to erase the movie from your memory, this is the one where Supergirl is a naive klutz who manages to blow a hole in the dome protecting her kryptonian city, loses a magical orb that powers the city, steals a space ship, and flies to Earth, where the orb has fallen. It has been picked up by a witch, a real magical witch, played by Faye Dunaway, and Supergirl has to fumble her way to recovering it. I don’t know if she did, because I bailed out early.

There were little things that annoyed me: The actor playing Supergirl was a graceless klutz, who couldn’t even pull off the fake flying we expect of Super-movies, and she was a wide-eyed naive Stupidgirl through the first part of the movie. On the plus side, though…Faye Dunaway’s cheekbones.

OK, so the 1984 movie primed me to be more tolerant. Another factor, though, is that I don’t consider comic book superhero movies to be science fiction at all, especially if they don’t bother to try and insert sciencey nonsense in their stories.

What they are is mythology, which puts them in a whole ‘nother category. Comic book superheroes belong in a pantheon of gods and demigods, they aren’t limited by earthly material constraints. They act like squabbling mortals, but they have a diverse set of powers that make them different from humans, but still, they can act in morality plays and strive with one another and be interesting. Watch them to see a demonstration of human values under extraordinary circumstances, and don’t get hung up on the details of how their powers work. They just are.

Supergirl does that. She flies off to alien planets, but there’s nothing about how faster-than-light travel works — it just does, and we don’t worry about it to keep the story moving along. Similarly, we’re told she gets her power from the rays of the yellow sun, and it’s just a given property. We don’t get bogged down in invented details, like that Kryptonian cells contain kitrinoplasts (from the Greek for “yellow”) that absorb yellow wavelengths to generate extra power — that would be stupid and add nothing to the story.

If some screenwriter steals “kitrinoplast” and puts it in a DC movie, I will simultaneously hate you and hunt you down for royalties.

In case you’re concerned that a notorious atheist is giving a pass to pagan, polytheistic religions, don’t worry, I still detest the Abrahamic religions, which have erased the narrative richness of the old gods and replaced it with this abstraction lacking all personality and being nothing but an absolute living in a universe with nobody to talk to. Those gods are just boring. Also, I kind of like that the king of the pantheon in DC movies is Superman, whose defining personality trait is kindness. He is far better than Jahweh.

That’s one of the things I liked about Supergirl. She’s got personality, and she’s not a saccharine dweeb like the 1984 Supergirl. She’s got issues. She does stupid things, and she is sometimes self-destructive and angry. But the driving conflict in the movie is that a bad guy poisoned her dog, and she’s going to do everything she can to get the antidote. I liked that. She’s a person with a relatable personality I want to learn more about.

Another feature I appreciated is that the big bad villain of the movie (not played by Faye Dunawaye) was simply a brutal killer, not, as so often happens in these kinds of movies, a cosmic threat who was going to destroy Earth, or the Galaxy. Rather than an over-hyped nemesis, the bad guy in this movie was a dog-poisoning thug who kidnapped women and carried them off to his homeworld as breeding stock. He was more of an Andrew Tate than a universe-scale threat. That’s good. That’s relatable. I appreciate a movie in which a woman kicks an Andrew Tate down.

Now I said I liked the movie, but had some reservations, and this is a big one — a failing of the entire genre. In comic-book-superhero movies, no matter how grand or how petty the villain is, the problem will be resolved with a fist-fight. The writers seem incapable of coming up with a satisfying resolution that is anything other than a knock-down drag out brawl between the protagonist and antagonist. Every time, the movie ends with the bad guy defeated by punching.

This is a major factor in my own personal superhero fatigue. You know how it will end: no matter how intricate the threat and no matter how powerful the enemy, it will end in a personal confrontation in which the hero will finish off the problem with a knockout punch. It is an expected feature of every one of these movies, an inclusion of lots of fight choreography.

Supergirl has multiple extensive brawls with large mobs of bad people/aliens. They’re well done, and if you like watching boxing or UFC, you will be entertained. But do they advance the story? Not so much.

So, overall, the movie has all the failings of the superhero genre, but it also has hints of something better: A central character with some depth and complexity, who shows some growth over the course of the plot, with a relatable conflict, and there’s a promise of further development, if the box office is big enough. We’ll have to wait and see. It’s not a great movie, and it’s entertaining enough, but it does star a woman, and I can already see the misogyny rising in response.

Until next week! I am scheduled to run the projector for the new Minions movie. I am pleased to see children being introduced to cosmic horror, nihilism, and the awareness of the futility of their pitiful, meaningless lives. It also features Cthulhu!

The Great American State Fair in Washington DC has no such problem.

Photos and video of the small crowds, a lack of seating and near empty food booths were widely mocked on social media, while the Daily Beast called the event “virtually deserted” and The Atlantic noted in a headline: “The Great American State Fair isn’t very great.”

Maybe I should go? Except I don’t think there’s much to see.

The Great American State Fair is underway at the National Mall to mark the United States’ 250th birthday. But not everything is off to such a great start.

The event has quickly faced problems including power outages, melting ice cream – and a lack of representation from states that declined to send delegations.

While organizers assured visitors all parts of the nation would be represented, at least 10 states and territories refused to participate, with many citing the price tag to send staff to the 16-day event as their reason for opting out.

As usual, everything Trump touches turns to shit.

OK, I dug into it a little bit. It’s a crank hypothesis promoted by a tiny number of people; it reminds me of Vortex theory and Lifecode, a couple of comprehensive theories of development proposed by obsessive individuals on the basis of biased interpretations of poor or even bogus observations. Coincidentally, my criticisms of those ideas led to serious threats of lawsuits, which is another strike against them (scientific hypotheses are not defended by lawsuits), and makes me wonder if I’m going to get sued again. No worries, those were not credible threats.

So what is it? There is a web page titled “Axial Twist Theory Explained”, and a Wikipedia page. They’re both terribly written, difficult to wade through, and I suspect both were written by the same person. The theory attempts to explain a phenomenon that doesn’t exist and doesn’t need explanation.

In short, the theory claims that the face and rostral nervous system were rotated during embryonic development and evolution, which they propose to explain the existence of decussations, like the way eyes project to contralateral regions of the central nervous system.

Schema of the proposed development of the axial twist. Developmental phases are (from top to bottom): (1) the embryo turns on its left side; (2) the anterior head grows in the same direction, but the rest of the body grows oppositely into a twist. So that ultimately (3) external bilateral symmetry is regained. Note that there is no evolutionary pressure for internal symmetry so the heart (and other organs) remain asymmetric.

We have no need of this hypothesis, and they have no evidence to support it. It’s that simple.

I’m pretty familiar with the concept of decussations in the nervous system. That’s what I studied in a previous life: my graduate work was on how the spinal cord gets wired up, and there are crossing fibers all up and down the cord. The lab I was in was focused on hindbrain neurons that crossed the midline to innervate contralateral motor outputs. If we needed to twist the whole axis to get them to cross, the whole nervous system would have to be twisted like the rubber band in a model airplane. It makes no sense.

As a post-doc I studied the development of commissural neurons in the grasshopper embryo. Axial Twist Theory confines itself to vertebrate development, so one might argue that grasshoppers are irrelevant, except that insects contain lots of crossing fibers that don’t require whole body twists to explain. It’s simply a functional consequence of needing to integrate both sides of the animal, and the mechanisms for generating it is straightforward molecular signaling that has existed since the last common ancestor of vertebrates and invertebrates.

But to be fair, let’s look at the research literature. Next problem: it’s negligible. Pubmed turns up one article: Opposite asymmetries of face and trunk and of kissing and hugging, as predicted by the axial twist hypothesis by Marc H.E. de Lussanet​. It’s incredibly silly. For instance, bilateral symmetry is imperfect, so they interpret biases as the product of incomplete rotation of the face relative to the back of the head.

Exaggerated schema of the aurofacial asymmetry as predicted by the axial twist theory. During embryology and development, the face elements (red) are predicted to move toward the center from the left, with respect to the mid-plane between the ears.

It gets sillier. Part of the data in that paper was an analysis of photographs on the internet, and an experiment in which people were photographed hugging dolls and were observed in airports. Did I say silly? This is getting creepy.

Examples of left kissing (A) and right hugging (B).
The two schemas show a top view of the opposite behavioral asymmetries.

Apparently, the asymmetry during kissing is different than the asymmetry during hugging, which suggests that there is a twist between face and body. But even that is an ambiguous mess!

The kissing results also confirm the hypothesis and reproduces the findings of airport observations, experiments with dolls, as well as with couples and questionnaires. Earlier studies have revealed clear regional cultural influences: for example in some French cities, as well as in native Palestinian and Jewish Israelis, the kissing bias is reversed, whereas in a conservative muslim country (Bangladesh) the kissing bias is as in the other studies. Also, the bias in kissing and hugging behavior is strongly reduced by emotional contexts. For example, no bias was found in a public kiss between strangers. Thirdly, the kissing bias can be influenced by a lateral head tilt. For example, when kissing a doll head that is either 5° tilted to the right or 15° to the left resulted in a bias of almost 100% to the left and right side of the face respectively. Finally, both the kissing and hugging bias seem to be reduced in left handers

How do you draw conclusions about an embryonic transition that had to have occurred in the Precambrian from a wildly variable behavior in modern humans? The author treats this noise as a solid demonstration of the Axial Twist Hypothesis.

We thus showed that humans also behave as twisted creatures, as predicted by the ATH. Asking people why they kiss or hug this way, or to try it the other way leads to responses such as “it somehow feels better, more natural like this.” We thus tend to kiss as if the ventral side of the face has not quite arrived in the centre, but is still located to the left. Correspondingly, we tend to hug as if the ventral trunk is located to the right of the sagittal plane.

The final strike for me is their gross misinterpretation of zebrafish development. They claim that there is a rotation of the two eyes that fits their model, and they show a single short timelapse.

I spent years staring in a microscope at early, developing zebrafish embryos. No, the eyes don’t rotate around the body axis. In that video, they’re showing a slightly askew perspective on the head and drawing red and blue overlays on the eyes to emphasize an asymmetry inherent in the angle.

I don’t have to explain the Axial Twist Theory because it’s an imaginary phenomenon with no good evidence for it, used to explain poor observations that don’t need a deep evolutionary/embryological foundation.

It was still a little bit entertaining to dive into some bad science.

That doesn’t mean I won’t complain about it, though!

Tom the Dancing Bug

Come on, what about whales?

We have a fenced backyard that would probably be judged criminal, because it’s covered with ‘weeds’ that are a foot or two tall. It’s also full of berry plants. We’re all about feeding the pollinators and birds. This past fall we managed to avoid raking up most of the leaves — leaf litter is an important habitat for overwintering invertebrates.

This video expresses sentiments I share.

You do realize that a thriving population of invertebrates is a necessary prerequisite for vigorous and diverse population of spiders, right? Spiders don’t flourish on endless beds of turf grass.

Stop laughing.

The Post did their research and found a former Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications Program advisor and CIA-funded researcher and quantum physicist to back them up. Unfortunately, their source Hal Puthoff. Puthoff is an electrical engineer (synonymous with quantum physicist, apparently) and Scientologist who is best known for the infamous Puthoff & Targ “research” on Uri Geller at the Stanford Research Institute. He has since moved on to promote remote viewing and zero point energy. He’s a notorious kook, so it’s not surprising that he’d happily vouch for those goofy aliens.

There may also be some real advantages to imprisoning the Trump administration in a lame duck presidency for a few more years.

We might have a vision of what comes after in New York: the Democratic Socialists swept the primaries, led by Mamdani’s endorsements.

The mayor-turned-kingmaker had said it was a question of electing “better Democrats” who would “put working people back at the heart of politics”. All three victors are expected to win their safely blue districts, which would send three Mamdani allies into Congress next January.

The outcome was also a recognition of some wider trends in US politics: socialism is no longer a dirty word, criticism of Israel is no longer taboo and dissatisfaction with Democratic leaders in the Donald Trump era runs deep. Voters are thirsty for energy, fight and fresh ideas.

They ask: if Republicans can draw up a Project 2025 and pursue it ruthlessly, why can’t Democrats come up with a Project 2029 that promises universal healthcare, supreme court reform, massive climate investments, a war on the oligarchs and a clear-eyed approach to the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu?

That’s a vision I could support. Much better than prayer.

Did you know you can join the DSA right now? I predict there is going to be an enrollment surge.

Unfortunately, it all makes sense. Our economy seems to be dedicated to pumping up the fortunes of about a dozen people, and I’m not one of them.