#26977: — 06/02  at  11:08 PM
Perhaps it's already been posted about here, but the New Yorker has a story on ID, and I was wondering what others thought about it (or if I could be directed to the prior thread).

I thought it was a pretty good bitch-slap against the IDers. I was relieved that it wasn't overly respectful of its bullshit artists.

#26981: Burt Humburg — 06/03  at  12:10 AM
According to PBS central, your local PBS station can possibly show Privileged Planet anytime within the next three years.

Write or call your local station and let them know your feelings.

BCH

#26982: — 06/03  at  12:12 AM
Wow, here's an exciting paper on evolution, that's also getting mainstream coverage in the NYTimes and the Economist.

Love your site by the way.

#26984: BioGeek — 06/03  at  12:24 AM
Several interesting articles in the Science section of the New York Times today:

*)From the same scientists that reported about the Tyrannosaurus rex with soft tissues, they discovered that the animal has also yielded unusual bone tissue that shows that she was an ovulating female. T. Rex Fossil's Surprise: She Was Ovulating

*)"We have shown that a single gene in the fruit fly is sufficient to determine all aspects of the flies' sexual orientation and behavior," say researchers in For Fruit Flies, Gene Shift Tilts Sex Orientation

#26986: — 06/03  at  12:41 AM
Ultra-conservative British columnist Peter Hitchens (brother of the far better-known Christopher) has just come out as an ID supporter, which I find strangely encouraging - if only on the grounds that since I normally disagree with everything he writes, one more bone of contention isn't going to do any harm.

In the course of this onstage chat with his brother (the first time they've been in the same room for years, as they hate each other), he said:

He (i.e.Christopher) has several faiths. He has the faith I think of Darwinism, which is just like Christianity an unproven and unprovable theory, which you can believe in if you want because you prefer that arrangement of the universe. I happen to think the arrangement of the universe based on the belief in intelligent design is more tolerable both morally and aesthetically, but he prefers another. I dislike only the attitude of the atheist that his is not a faith, cause it is. I have absolutely no disgust or anger at anybody who disagrees with me about that. I'm much more worried by people who are indifferent to the question.

And a couple of days later, in a letter to the paper that ran the transcript, he "clarified" his position:

I'd like to make a small point about your account of the Hitchens and Hitchens reunion (G2, May 30). I'm sure Christopher and I agree on the existence of intelligent life - it's intelligent design that I believe in and he doesn't.

And here's another reader's reaction:

Thoroughly enjoyed the Hitchens piece (G2 at Hay, May 31), but disappointed that it destroyed a long held belief of mine: that Peter doesn't exist and is in fact a situationist prank of Christopher's. Never mind.

I had a similar theory, but unfortunately Peter has rather too high a media profile (including radio and TV) for this to stand up!

#26990: Raven — 06/03  at  01:30 AM
Hey, Wetherby--

I had a similar theory [Peter doesn't exist and is in fact a situationist prank of Christopher's], but unfortunately Peter has rather too high a media profile (including radio and TV) for this to stand up!

Perhaps you had the right idea, just slightly displaced--ever notice how you never see Pat and Bay Buchanan appear together on the same stage? "Sister" indeed.

#26995: Alon Levy — 06/03  at  02:10 AM
Maybe it's off-topic here, but could you please make the Notify me of follow-up comments checkbox unchecked by default, for the benefit of those who don't want email notifications to flood their mailboxes?

#26996: — 06/03  at  02:22 AM
One interesting news item I ran across was that the president of the new iDesign Club at UCI is a cherry-picking loon, and that Intelligent design is agnostic about who the designer is, and that, "However, I think that it is still okay to label the naturalistic explanation as Darwinism, because most people use these terms interchangeably." So we can rest assured that calling everything under the sun that is not "magic poofyness" Darwinism has nothing to do with the fact that the name of "Darwin" has been demonized among a bunch of loonies.

#26998: — 06/03  at  03:19 AM
Alon, it is unchecked by default.

#27000: Alon Levy — 06/03  at  04:09 AM
Really? To me it's checked by default. Are you a registered member, doc? I am, so if you're not it could be that.

#27006: — 06/03  at  04:42 AM
It's unchecked when I comment without logging in (at work), but it's checked at home where I'm registered.

#27011: — 06/03  at  05:47 AM
It's unchecked for me.

I personally can't wait until the loonies at AIG get a hold of the recent T-rex paper (mentioned earlier above). I honestly have to wonder how they will try to twist the obvious use (from an evolutionary point of view) and meaning behind this. Probably they'll just revert back to "Oh no, it's the interpretation! Millions of years. BLAH BLAH GOOBLE GOOBLE. GOO TO YOU!!!!11oneone".

#27015: Henrik Aasted Sorensen — 06/03  at  06:47 AM
Interesting tale of a The Weirdest Book I Ever Got.

Contains some beautiful pictures of Noah's ark being attacked by dinosaurs.

#27021: — 06/03  at  07:43 AM
This is cool and would make a great post from someone into evo-devo Adulthood Triggered by Maturity Gene. It's about flies actually.

#27023: — 06/03  at  07:52 AM
Bumper sticker recommendation for thinking Kansans:

"We're not in Canaan anymore."

#27025: charlie wagner — 06/03  at  08:06 AM
Since this is an open thread, my recommendation is that everyone stop talking for a few minutes and listen to some music. It's much more rewarding, for sure.

http://www.charliewagner.net/radio.mp3

#27027: charlie wagner — 06/03  at  08:09 AM
There will be a prize for the first person who can identify the:

a) title of the song
b) group singing the song

extra credit for:

a) name of lead singer
b) record label

#27031: — 06/03  at  08:23 AM
Has the EPA checked the drinking water in Kansas lately?

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/11788524.htm

TOPEKA, Kan. - A state senator who once said women's voting was a sign that American society didn't value families enough now wants to be Kansas' top elections official.

Kay O'Connor announced Wednesday that she is seeking the Republican nomination for secretary of state next year...

Shouldn't she be home baking cookies?

#27033: Aaron M — 06/03  at  08:33 AM
Charlie: No idea, but it's fantastic. Thanks!

#27036: Virge — 06/03  at  09:08 AM
On Your Radio
Tempo Tones
Richard Lanham
Acme Records

#27038: judgeMC — 06/03  at  09:14 AM
did anybody watch that show on National Geographic about aliens species on different planets? One on the scientists being interviewed made a comment I found highly interesting.

I don't have the exact quote but it went something like "Darwinism and Natural Selection are the only things we can safely assume to be occuring on other planets."

#27043: Joseph ODonnell — 06/03  at  09:45 AM

Shouldn't she be home baking cookies?

You see that's her devious plot. She gets into the position first and then makes sure that she gets someone to make it law that she can't be there, and must make cookies.

It's genius I tell you!

#27046: charlie wagner — 06/03  at  09:55 AM
Virge wrote:

On Your Radio
Tempo Tones
Richard Lanham
Acme Records

Very good!
You earned *my* respect, that's for sure!
If you want your prize, just tell me where to send it!
(I'll find something good from my collection that you'll like.)
If you go to my weblog at:
http://enigma.charliewagner.com
you'll find a list of 11 of my all time favorites with links to listen.
Now wasn't that better than all that other horsepooky people are writing?

#27052: Virge — 06/03  at  10:16 AM
charlie wagner wrote:

Very good!
You earned *my* respect, that's for sure!
If you want your prize, just tell me where to send it!
(I'll find something good from my collection that you'll like.)

Forget special prizes. 'Twas fun for a small diversion.

#27054: Tlatzolteotl — 06/03  at  10:23 AM
Also of interest, and something I would love to hear an evolutionary biologist's take on, was the story in today's NYT regarding a purported link between certain genetic diseases and intelligence in Ashkenazi Jews.

There is also a story out on AP regarding a paper from Washington State University, published in Science, that shows permanent heritable effects of endocrine-disrupting toxins (fungicide, pesticide) in mice (I think it was mice they were using). Can someone explain the "epigenetic" thing to me? I'm not sure I understand why, if there is methylated DNA or some other DNA adduct that is passed onto offspring, why this is not considered a mutation (as the news article I read seemed to imply). Also, I'm wondering how such a chemical change to the DNA would be replicated - I thought the enzymes involved in DNA replication were able to weed out a lot of these kinds of errors. Is there a difference because these are germ cells, and not somatic cells?