#13485: coturnix — 01/17  at  10:50 AM
You are welcome! I grabbed it off of a website (pointed to me by Will Kimler). Don't we all need this every now and then?

#13517: — 01/17  at  03:24 PM
Awww, come now! Aren't Neanderthals supposed to be on a different phylogenetic branch than H. Sapiens?

#13518: paperwight — 01/17  at  03:26 PM
Aren’t Neanderthals supposed to be on a different phylogenetic branch than H. Sapiens?

I think the jury is out on that -- at least according to some of the information released for the layperson.

#13529: Jay Manifold — 01/17  at  04:37 PM
I use caffeine, myself. Does the same thing.

BTW, this cartoon originally appeared in one of the SF 'zines back around '85. Don't recall which one, but it must have been either Analog, Asimov's, or F&SF.

#13568: — 01/17  at  08:28 PM
Send it to Larry Summers.

#13586: Jan Theodore Galkowski — 01/18  at  01:32 AM
More relief ! Creationism doesn't matter.

Suppose there was a deistic initial creation, or God-sponsored Noachide culling (or a mass extinction). What's true about evolution remains true, whether or not an initial population was placed deistically or sprang forth from a primordial slime. Creationism has no such power or purpose. It is useless scientifically, unless they additionally assume God intervenes with each and every birth and death. Then, of course, its use means science is pointless, for God might as well be Zeus, dispatching beings at his whim, comparable to scratching his crotch.

This insight came from reading the delightful Evolutionary Games and Population Dynamics by Josef Hofbauer and Karl Sigmund. In particular, consider:

If we repeated Noah's experiment -- starting our a new ecosystem with one couple of each species -- we would certainly not expect a restoration of the old regime. Numbers matter. The fate of a population depends upon the frequencies of other populations.

Hence, if evolution is needed to explain biological processes even in the presence of a first deistic creation, without direct theistic revelation to the contrary, there is no reason to suppose it ever occurred, since evolutionary processes which continue can be extended back beyond and through any putative point of first creation.

Creationism or ID, for that matter, are entirely irrelevant positions.

#13594: — 01/18  at  08:59 AM
Jan said,

[Creationism] is useless scientifically, unless they additionally assume God intervenes with each and every birth and death.

And, this is one of the primary reasons why science is looked at as anti-theistic.

Scientists (materialists, physicalists) will say that the Universe is causally closed. Why? Because without causal closure, there is no science. Even if we happen to fully understand the extra-universal causal agent, what are we to believe is the relevance of this causal agent's intrinsic state?

See what horrible people we scientists are? We want to say that physical laws can apply, without the guiding hand of God!

Of course, our original goal wasn't (necessarily) to completely write God out of the picture. There is still some room for causality draining all the way down to a Designer - although, it's presence would be "disappointingly" epiphenomenal.

But let the Creationists think what they want to think. "My God had nothing to do with that EVIL-ution, or any such related natural process..."

Apparently, God is just making it all up as he goes along. Or should I say, as he scratches his crotch.

It must be reassuring that one's life is under control of a puppet.

#13628: — 01/18  at  02:12 PM
I dunno, I'd consider myself more mentally primitive than most Republicans. It's not that I'm really stupid (though I am of slightly below average innate intelligence, but my upbringing has largely compensated for this), it's just that my mental universe isn't very elaborate. Many Republicans (though certainly not all) have elaborate, metaphysical struggles between good and evil going on in their heads, undetectable, supernatural causal agents, natural orders of hierarchy and structure even when people don't naturally fall into such roles and structures, etc. Not only do many of them have elaborate mental constructs which I'm too simple too really understand or get into, but they try to live their lives according to morally unintuitive principles and find that many things which seem obviously good (enjoying good food, sex, schlocky fantasy novels, etc) are morally untenable. Mind you, just because so many Republicans have such principles doesn't mean they always stick to them, but it shows the elaborate byzantine nature of their morality that they think it's an effort worth making.

But, though I may be mentally primitive... if the evo-lotion fixes that by making my mental and moral universe complex with weird principles and undetectable supernatural forces... I'll stick with Dove soap.

#13641: — 01/18  at  03:23 PM
RE: "Awww, come now! Aren’t Neanderthals supposed to be on a different phylogenetic branch than H. Sapiens?"

You are correct. Neandertals and Homo Sapiens lived concurrently for millennia.

#13643: — 01/18  at  03:49 PM

If the evo-lotion makes my mental and moral universe complex with weird principles and undetectable supernatural forces.. I’ll stick with Dove soap.

Unfortunately, there will be many, many weird principles.

And, yes - a few undetectable forces.

But, don't worry. None of these will be of the supernatural flavor...

...and, there will be plenty of casual sex!

#13656: — 01/18  at  05:29 PM
Would an open bottle of Evo-Lotion give off cheese/beer stink lines?

#13657: ajmilne — 01/18  at  05:57 PM

…and, there will be plenty of casual sex!

I haven't noticed this... and given the odour of this stuff, I find it unlikely. But perhaps I'll try a second application anyway...

(Heads to medicine cabinet)

#13658: — 01/18  at  06:11 PM
PZ: What gives? I've used three jars now and there's no change.

#13659: PZ Myers — 01/18  at  06:15 PM
That's the dosage for Neandertals. You're a bit farther gone.

Try the super-economy industrial-strength stuff, by the barrel.

#13661: — 01/18  at  06:52 PM
Presumably, the lotion acts locally, and at the level of individual nucleotides.

So, I would have to guess that the primary ingredient is some sort of mutagen.

Thus, I am not quite sure exactly what type of odor it will give off.

However, whatever molecular aroma does eminate from the bottle, will itself be Emergent organizations of processes of quantum stink-lines.

By the way, after only three applications, I myself have evolved into a Cheese-Beer God.

What, didn't you read that the lotion is actually a suppository?