#55842: — 01/01  at  01:49 AM
happy fucking christ-begotten new year folks.
and may I just say that I feel like a touch of a loser for dropping the first post for the year here on pharygula but at least it lacks capitalization and it mocks the baby jesus.

#55843: — 01/01  at  02:12 AM
Last night, 8-year-old son was watching the flash animations at the science site for kids, Brainpop.com, and I was surprised to hear the Flying Spaghetti Monster alluded to in the lesson on "Dark Matter".

"Flying Spaghetti what?" young son asked, echoing the animation.

I took him to the website and showed him.

"What is it?!"

I explained.

"I want us to make our own Flying Spaghetti Monster!" he said, having grand fun looking through Flying Spaghetti Monster pics.

I said I would not be knitting or crocheting one so he drew a Flying Spaghetti Monster that is literally on the sauce.

Thought some visitors might be amused.

#55846: Neil — 01/01  at  02:38 AM
Happy 2006 to you all from Sydney. In contrast to your tales of ice and snow, my desktop weather applet showed this today:



and bushfires are raging to the north and south. Just your typical Aussie new year! 45 °C (113 F for you non-celsius people) is pretty exceptional - I'll be watching the climate change blogs this year for sure.

#55848: — 01/01  at  02:59 AM
I wish you all a year filled with (non-supernatural) blessings! Especially P.Z., whose blog is a blessing I enjoy daily.

To arms! Stand renewed, ready for the next battle with the advocates of ignorance!

#55849: — 01/01  at  03:07 AM
45C? Bloody hell! I'll take our -11 any day of the week.

Go ahead, Neil, say it. You know you want to: 'but it's a dry heat'.

#55850: — 01/01  at  03:21 AM
A joyful new year, and a celebration of my might in calling for open threads. Fear me, and admire my country's nascent wingnuttiness:

This is the letter that appeared in my paper a couple of days ago. It's more than a little confused about what it wants to get across, but I'd like to nip this in the bud before we get our own Discovery Institute knockoff.

Theory is not fact

Leading research scientists are extremely naïve and gullible. They, and the team around South Korean cloning “expert” Dr Hwang Woo-suk, merely believed his claims of advances in stem-cell research.
It turned out his claims were fake. Didn’t eminent scientists check them out?
The theory of evolution is rife but it was only a Charles Darwin theory. Theory is not fact.
Creation and intelligent design are around for all to see, the pinnacle being the incredible human being. Paul writes in his letter to the Romans, chapter 1, that “From the creation of the world, (God’s) invisible qualities, such as his eternal power and divine nature, have been made visible and have been understood through His handiwork. So they (people) are without excuse”.
Therefore, let’s make it our New Year’s resolution to carry out honest, in-depth and open-minded research into the theory of evolution versus the intelligent design of the creator.
Recommended reading: the Bible.

Bridget Steyn

Heh indeedy. I do like the straight conflation of ID and creationism. Sure, it's got legal precedent now, but it's still nice to have it laid right out by someone arguing for it. There's too much here to really answer properly (what the hell is 'a Charles Darwin theory' anyway), but thus follows my attempt to hit what I think is the main point.

Bridget Steyn has declared herself unfit to comment on issues of science and knowledge. By attempting to tar evolutionary biology through the actions of one scientist, she has confused the user with the tool. Science is not the people who do it, but a process that has been extraordinarily successful at explaining the world around us.
The old saw of ‘only a theory’ shows that Steyn has no knowledge of this process. A theory is not the opposite of a fact. Scientific theories are developed, challenged, tested, and altered as the evidence dictates. To say otherwise does a grave disservice to hardworking scientists and the real controversies that fill the debate.
Furthermore, by using such a thoroughly debunked assertion, Steyn reveals she is not interested in honest debate, and only wants to inflame and make noise. She asks us to “carry out honest, in-depth and open-minded research” into intelligent design. That, scientists would gladly do, except ID provides no testable hypotheses, makes no falsifiable predictions, and is flat out not science.
Go ahead and read the Bible, because science is not atheistic. Those who choose to incorporate their faith with the evidence of the material world might come away with a more amazing creator than that in which Steyn believes.
My New Year’s resolution will be not to suffer fools lightly.

To be honest, I couldn't care less about whether science is or isn't atheistic, and neither would most other people in New Zealand. But this woman seems to think so, and there are others around as well.

I'll be firing this off come morning, so if anyone has suggestions (or just zingers), I'd love to hear them. It's my first attempt, too, so let me know if I (a mere humanities major) am somehow playing into their hands.

#55851: — 01/01  at  03:32 AM
Idyllopus, I think the FSM was intended from the get-go to be child friendly ("on top of spaghetti, all covered with cheese, I lost my poor meatball when somebody sneezed"). I do see some similarities to the work of Joan Miro.

#55852: Spoony Quine — 01/01  at  03:58 AM
` Ah, yes, Flying Spaghetti Monster! I have been touched by his noodly appendage!
` However, for my New Year's resolution, I swore I'd worship the Invisible Pink Unicorn! (Blessed be her hooves!)

#55853: — 01/01  at  04:20 AM
<Reuben inc> IMO, your response it far too complex for the readers of a newspaper. you will lose your audience immediately. try to dumb it down without losing the content!

For example:

Bridget Steyn has declared herself unfit to comment on issues of science and knowledge. By attempting to tar evolutionary biology through the actions of one scientist, she has confused the user with the tool. Science is not the people who do it, but a process that has been extraordinarily successful at explaining the world around us.

try:
Without question Dr. Hwang appears to have committed a vile act of fraud. But note: the fraud was uncovered by OTHER SCIENTISTS. Science is self-correcting.

Somehow, however, Ms. Steyn then makes the baffling "logical" leap that since Hwang committed a fraud, therefore Evolution is a lie.

Hwang's actions have NO RELATIONSHIP to the theory of evolution.

The old saw of ‘only a theory’ shows that Steyn has no knowledge of this process. A theory is not the opposite of a fact. Scientific theories are developed, challenged, tested, and altered as the evidence dictates. To say otherwise does a grave disservice to hardworking scientists and the real controversies that fill the debate.

Try:
Steyn clearly does understand not what "theory" means in scientific usage. In common usage, a "theory" is a half-baked speculation: "My theory is that the butler did it." In scientific usage, a "theory" is a set of proposed mechanisms which successfully explain observed facts.

To qualify as a "theory" (or even as "science") there must be a way to show that the "theory" is wrong. Evolution fits this standard: for example, if someone were to find a mammal fossil in an undisturbed Cambrian deposit, Evolution would be out the window (and the discoverer would win a Nobel Prize).

A speculation only becomes a theory after intense scrutiny and empirical testing shows it to be correct beyond reasonable doubt.

Furthermore, by using such a thoroughly debunked assertion, Steyn reveals she is not interested in honest debate, and only wants to inflame and make noise. She asks us to “carry out honest, in-depth and open-minded research” into intelligent design. That, scientists would gladly do, except ID provides no testable hypotheses, makes no falsifiable predictions, and is flat out not science.

try:
The requirement that an idea should be testable eliminates ID as a "theory". If ID were to make testable predictions, scientists might take it seriously. But it does not, and so we do not.

.....
You may also want to point out the implicit false dichotomy: "either evolution or creation", and the phlosophically untenable position (esposed by Dembski) that therefore evidence against one is therefore evidence for the other. SIR Fred Hoyle (who is in my opinion an idiot) proposed that life is simply a characterstic of the universe, like black holes and radiation.

#55854: — 01/01  at  04:52 AM
Happy New Year to all of you

even to the ignorants ID prophets; their propositions are sometimes very full of bitterness, maybe a little happiness would convince them to keep their beliefs and let science be.

And maybe as good resolution we could woe to remain tolerant in front of such blindness. For example I don't know Sir Fred Hoyle, but his proposition of life being part of the universe process does not sound so heretic to me.

Afterall the structure of the universe is compatible with life and as the Universe is vast enough, every possibility (even if very improbable) occurs. Hence life might have been "doomed" to occur given the starting conditions.

This idea is not incompatible with evolution.

Why life? is not an uninteresting question nor an easily answered one.

Still, thank you djlactin and reuben for the nice argumentation.

#55858: Tom Morris — 01/01  at  06:59 AM
I have nothing more to say than my last post of 2005.

#55859: — 01/01  at  07:08 AM
Godt Nytår! (or to people who don't speak civilized languages: Happy New Year!)

#55861: charlie wagner — 01/01  at  08:02 AM
My Favorite Quotes From "Moby Dick"

"Who ain't a slave. Tell me that." (pg 5)

"Ignorance is the parent of fear."(pg 30)

"How is it that we still refuse to be comforted for those who we nevertheless maintain are dwelling in unspeakable bliss;" (pg 52)

"for there is no quality in this world that is not what it is merely by contrast. Nothing exists in itself." (pg 76)

"It is not down on any map. True places never are." (pg 79)

"It's better to sail with a moody good captain than a laughing bad one." (pg 116)

"Know ye now Bulkington? Glimpses do ye seem to see of that mortally intolerable truth: that all deep, earnest thinking is but the intrepid effort of the soul to keep the open independence of her sea;" (pg 153)

"Think not is my eleventh commandment: and sleep when you can is my twelfth-" (pg 184)

"the chick that's in him pecks the shell. T'will soon be out." (pg231)

"He tasks me;" (pg 236)

"There is one God that is Lord over the earth, and one captain that is lord over the Pequod.- On deck!" (pg 682)

"She was Rachel, weeping for her children, because they were not." (pg 762)

"From beneath his slouched hat Ahab dropped a tear into the sea; nor did all the Pacific contain such wealth as that one wee drop." (pg 775)

"from Hell's heart I stab at thee; for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee." (pg 820)

"Now small fowls flew screaming over the yet yawning gulf; a sullen white surf beat against its steep sides; then all collapsed, and the great shroud of the sea rolled on as it rolled five thousand years ago." (pg 822)

"It was the devious-cruising Rachel, that in her retracing search after her missing children, only found another orphan." (epilogue)

#55869: — 01/01  at  10:34 AM
The Australian article on 'the battle between faith and reason'

In Australia now, it is hard to find religious believers who defend the idea that the world is no older than 40,000 years, and that God made it all in six days. In a lifetime's association with the devout, I have never met a single person who has openly told me this is what they believe..

that may be because your most flagrant Creationists have moved to the U.S. (e.g. Ken Ham)

#55870: — 01/01  at  10:45 AM
My favorite Moby Dick quote:
"And what are you, reader, but a Loose-Fish and a Fast-Fish, too?"

#55871: — 01/01  at  11:04 AM
Here in south Louisiana it's about 27C, which results in heavy fog. The weather definitely seems to be warming up.

#55873: charlie wagner — 01/01  at  11:40 AM
Zilch wrote:
""And what are you, reader, but a Loose-Fish and a Fast-Fish, too?"

"What are the Rights of Man and the Liberties of the World but Loose-Fish? What all men's minds and opinions but Loose-Fish? What is the principle of religious belief in them but a Loose-Fish? What to the ostentatious smuggling verbalists are the thoughts of thinkers but Loose-Fish? What is the great globe itself but a Loose-Fish?"

Yes that's a good one!

#55874: ekzept — 01/01  at  11:41 AM
changing emphasis a tad, i wonder if hominids other than humans suffer from emotional depression. i know it's difficult to tell, because it's not like they can be asked, but it interested me whether and if the same changes which added our cognitive capabilities and abilities to abstract were somehow connected with this scourge. it seems that to the extent depression has physical effects or blood chemistry effects, if not brain chemistry effects. there are some behaviors which are apparently identified as depression, at least in young gorillas.

i have also recently heard that in some animals, such as household pets, cats and dogs, for instance, "learn" stress from their human owners, stresses which they might not have in the wild. that might be just a thought experiment and unrealistic, since i don't know how well modern canines and felines do as ferals.

finally, if there is evidence that depression comes, say, with being a hominid, i wonder what it might be a side effect from? perfectionism? does it have a benefit? is it merely a fluke?

#55875: — 01/01  at  11:55 AM
This came from a mathematician friend:

"Breaking News: Mathematicians solve evolution debate
In the ongoing confrontation between science and religion over evolution there has been little progress until today, said leading mathematicians. At the crux of the debate is whether, as the scientists put it, the earth is 4.5 billion years old and life today evolved from primitive forms; or, as the Christian conservatives say, the earth and all beings on it were created six thousand years ago by God. In recent years the struggle has focused on the teachings of our origins in public schools and religious conservatives have put forward the "intelligent design" hypothesis as an alternative to evolution, demanding that it be taught along side Darwin's theory.

Now, in a brilliant synthesis, hailed as a breakthrough on both sides, mathematicians have stepped into the fray with a unifying hypothesis. They first note that both sides agree that the earth and its inhabitants are very complex. Then, drawing upon the well-established theory of complex-valued functions, they propose an earth model that brings both viewpoints into a complete theory. Since complex-valued functions (like complex numbers) have both real and imaginary parts, mathematicians suggest that it is the real part of the earth that is 4.5 billion years old while the imaginary part was created just six thousand years ago.

In other news ... "

#55879: Raven — 01/01  at  12:47 PM
Hi, ekzept--although as you note we can't ask the animals themselves, behaviors which we identify as depressive or depressed go much further up the phylogenetic tree than just primates. The behavior of captive wild animals provides a lot of opportunity for observation of such behaviors, and as a result, keepers at any decent zoo try to provide enrichment activities for the animals to prevent (what we would call in humans) boredom and depression.

My vert endo teacher had an interesting hypothesis--short-term stress, and the stress hormones activated by it, actually have a positive effect. It's the transformation from situations that provide short-term stress (tiger!) to long-term stress (our modern societies) that transform a positive short-term physical effect into a long-term negative effect. If he is correct, then at least some kinds of depression are primarily a side-effect of long-term exposure to stress hormones. So under this rationale, a reason zoo animals may act depressed is that they have long-term exposure to cortisol under conditions of captivity that they would not have in the wild.

Of course, there are depressions tied to other hormones--low melatonin in seasonal affective disorders sufferers, for example--but as far as I have studied it (which isn't that far, to be sure), depression is a side-effect of when various kinds of positive hormones are not in appropriate balance.

My particular interest as a comp anatomy informaticist is the change in structure over phylogenetic time--what are full-fledged corticomedullary organs in humans (the adrenal glands, which produce cortisol) are a network of dispersed cells in birds, for example. So, although a network of cells is very different from a discrete organ, the anatomical underpinnings of the hormones that contribute to depression in humans under long-term stress go back at least as far as birds (maybe further; I only know it as far back as birds).

#55881: — 01/01  at  01:00 PM
Finally got around to seeing Narnia last night. We liked it, and PZ is a cynical old curmudgeon .

I tried to watch it as the 7yo boy (of an agnostic family, and blissfully unaware of any religious allegory) who fell in love with the Narnia cycle 40 years ago, and at that level it works quite well. It's a kids' movie from a kids' book; if you expect more from it than that, you will be disappointed.

Notwithstanding some scenes that were clunkers (eg. the fight at the ice-fall), it was pretty good. Even the Stone Table scene does not clobber the viewer with Christian overtones. The Dying and Rising God meme has been around since before Jesus; I could easily watch the scene as a pagan sacrifice (of course, Lewis' theology was in many ways informed by the older traditions). IMHO, Gresham did a good job.

#55882: PZ Myers — 01/01  at  01:10 PM
Hey, now. My criticism of the movie had nothing to do with anything religious. I thought it was a clunker because of the lack of any kind of genuine drama or struggle -- the kids just got everything handed to them, and rolled easily to a pat conclusion. Aslan's "sacrifice" just fell flat because he got out of it on a rules technicality, and he knew it.

#55883: — 01/01  at  01:13 PM
Bonne année 2006 to all the good members, readers and contributors of Pharyngula - keep up the good work !

#55888: Babbler — 01/01  at  02:24 PM
Christmas Eve: Aunt "Ann" expresses some of her political beliefs. While I always knew that she was religious, her statements where still a shock to me.

"I believe in Intelligent Design, not Monkey Design." But wait for it...

"I support Bush because he invaded Iraq, to make it a democracy and convert them to Christianity." (paraphrase)

Scary words...

#55890: coturnix — 01/01  at  02:28 PM
Actually, people are inducing depression in fruit-flies in order to study the genetics of the disorder...talk about deep phylogeny!

BTW, SAD is triggered by long nights, thus long duration of melatonin release as a proportion of the 24h cycle. However, lotsa melatonin is not directly implicated in SAD, as in some people it appears in summer, not winter.