Scientists and Poets

 
Scientists and poets are very different. Yes, it's true that some scientists are poets but when it comes to real scientific debates poetry is a poor excuse for science.

Unless, of course, you're an evolutionary psychologist. Evolutionary psychologists seem to be quite incapable of recognizing real scientific problems with their just-so stories. Instead, they fall back on a tactic that's much more common in modern humanities departments. They attack presumed motives and misconceptions.¹

Jesse Marczyk of Pop Psychology is a defender of evolutionary psychology. He posted a poem on the thread: Boobies, Blue-footed And Otherwise. Instead of actually dealing with the science behind the study he assumes that all criticism of evolutionary psychology comes from people who don't understand the difference between "is" and "ought" and who don't understand that genes can influence behavior.

Unfortunately, this sort of response is all too typical of the mindset of evolutionary psychologists. Isn't there a single evolutionary psychologist who can behave like a scientist instead of like Rudyard Kipling?

When silly critics of evolutionary psych
Tell the world these studies are like
Excuses for misogyny
And evil behavior apology
Threatening to bring back Third Reich,

Those critics will proclaim,
“Those who rape and maim
Will turn to our field
For a convenient shield
In order to avoid any blame”

When the topic under discussion gets heated
The misunderstandings are always repeated
“Genes don’t determine behavior”
Is always their savior
Despite this point long being defeated

Their sense of self-satisfaction
Persists without any retraction,
Admission of fallibility,
Lack of civility,
Or awareness of any infraction

It would seem their moral outrage
Has left them biased and unable to gauge
Accurately the research they hope to dismiss
Leaving them only to curse and to hiss
In a manner unbefitting a sage.

These critiques are quite the bore,
and we’ve all heard this shit before.
We’re left only to shake our fist,
As they seem persist
Not unlike an academic cold sore.

---

1. The term "post-modernism" is much abused but that's what I'm thinking

The Internal Brand of the Scarlet W

The Internal Brand of the Scarlet W by Stephen Jay Gould was first published as an essay in Natural History. It's reprinted in the anthology, The Lying Stones of the Marrakech. You can find it online here.

This is one of my all-time favorite Gould essays. The theme is genetic determinism and evolutionary psychology. The hook is a discussion of Charles Davenport's claim that some people have a wanderlust gene (W) that makes them undesirable as immigrants to the United States.

Of course, no one would now defend Davenport's extreme view of single genes determining nearly every complex human behavior. Most colleagues eventually rejected Davenport's theory; he lived into the 1940s, long past the early flush of Mendelian enthusiasm and well into the modern era of understanding that complex traits usually record the operation of many genes, each with a small and cumulative effect (not to mention a strong, and often predominant, influence from nongenetic environmental contexts of growth and expression). A single gene for anger, conviviality, contemplation, or wanderlust now seems as absurd as a claim that one assassin's bullet, and nothing else, caused World War I, or that Darwin discovered evolution all by himself, and we would still be creationists if he had never been born.

Nonetheless, in our modern age of renewed propensity for genetic explanations (a valid and genuine enthusiasm when properly pursued), Davenport's general style of error resurfaces on an almost daily basis, albeit in much more subtle form, but with all the vigor of his putative old gene - yes, he did propose one - for stubbornly persistent behavior.

We are not questioning whether genes influence behavior; of course they do. We are not arguing that genetic explanations should be resisted because they have negative political, social, or ethical connotations - a charge that must be rejected for two primary reasons. First, nature's facts stand neutral before our ethical usages. We have, to be sure, often made dubious, even tragic, decisions based on false genetic claims. But, in other contexts, valid arguments about the innate and hereditary basis of human attributes can be profoundly liberating.

Consider only the burden lifted from loving parents who raise beautiful and promising children for twenty years and then "lose" them to the growing ravages of schizophrenia - almost surely a genetically based disease of the mind, just as many congenital diseases of bodily organs also appear in the third decade of life, or even later. Generations of psychologists had subtly blamed parents for unintentionally inducing such a condition, then viewed as entirely environmental in origin. What could be more cruel than a false weight of blame added to such an ultimate tragedy? Second, we will never get very far, either in our moral deliberations or our scientific inquiries, if we disregard genuine facts because we dislike their implications. In the most obvious case, I cannot think of a more unpleasant fact than the inevitable physical death of each human body, but a society built on the premise that King Prospero will reign in his personal flesh forever will not flourish for long.

Take this lesson to heart. You should never oppose a valid evolutionary argument just because you don't like the ethical implications.

On the other hand, you should rigorously oppose silly evolutionary arguments no matter what the ethical implications.

---

Boobies and Evolutionary Psychologists

 

Robert Kurzban is a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania. He writes for a blog called Evolutionary Psychology. It is associated with an "open-access peer-reviewed journal" of the same name. Kurzban's article is about me: Boobies, Blue-footed And Otherwise.

As you might imagine, Robert Kurzban is heavily into evolutionary psychology. Here's what he says on his website.

Research, Philosophy, and Motto. Evolution gave rise to mechanisms designed to solve the bewildering array of problems that humans faced, from problems of survival to navigating the intricate strategic dynamics of the social world. Was there an adaptive problem faced by our ancestors for a substantial period of human history? If so, then, yeah, there's an adaptation for that.

Research in the lab is currently being conducted on morality, cooperation, friendship, mate choice, supernatural beliefs, modularity, self-control, and other topics.

Robert Kurzban was upset by my critique of science journalism and evolutionary psychology [Evolutionary Psychology Crap in New Scientist]. You might recall that my criticism is based on many common features of evolutionary psychology but the most important are the unwarranted assumptions that: (1) a particular specific behavior has a strong genetic component. (2) that the behavior is adaptive, and (3) that we know how our ancestors behaved.

The particular example I discussed is domestic violence and whether there has been selection in the past for alleles promoting violent behavior of men toward their wives. I discussed this in terms of the possible genetics of violence-toward-women in order to make the point that even if there was such an allele, it's adaptive value is highly questionable.

Robert Kurzban got a real bee in his bonnet over this comparison. He claims that the violence-toward-women that was adaptive was restricted to special circumstances. According to him, it's not just general violence toward women that was being selected it was violence only under special circumstances. In other words, the specific allele that Kurzban is proposing is one that cause males to only attack their mates some of the time—like when they suspect infidelity. That's correct, that's what the paper discusses even though the distinction isn't clear in the article in New Scientist.

Like it makes a difference. All that Kurzban is doing is making the genetics and the evolution more difficult by restricting the behavior to special circumstances. What he is saying is that there is an allele (or a combination of alleles) that makes men respect women most of the time but, under special circumstances, they attack their mates violently. Since these special circumstances are, presumably, rare, it becomes even more difficult to imagine what kinds of genes/alleles might be involved and how such alleles could become fixed in the population. (Especially if most males never encountered those special circumstances.)¹

This is supposed to make evolutionary psychology much more acceptable?

Here's what Kurzban says,

Now suppose our hypothetical author said that because this trait, predicted to occur only in certain circumstances was not, in fact, seen all the time, then,well, there is something “seriously wrong” with the field from which the paper is drawn.

Let me try and be clear about what I said using Kurzban's terminology. What he is saying is that violent behavior toward women under certain circumstances was adaptive in our ancient ancestors. Therefore the alleles (or combination of alleles) for this behavior became fixed in the population. Therefore all modern men have this genetic tendency to act violently toward women under particular circumstances.

Most modern men do not act violently toward women under those particular circumstances even though they presumably carry the adaptive allele (or combination of alleles). It's reasonable to ask how such a behavior could be possibly adaptive enough to have been fixed in the population. It hard enough to believe this just-so story but it becomes even harder if the penetrance of the genotype is low.

Robert Kurzban seems to think that my simplified version was a serious mistake that calls into question the critique of evolutionary psychology. I think that his scenario does not rescue the field—in fact it makes it look even more ridiculous.

Kurzan also tries another defense of evolutionary psychology.

Now, finally, because the topic at hand is something with moral overtones, let’s say the author punctuated the critique with a pious remark about how siblicide is bad, bad, bad, and that the boobies who engage in it are “assholes,” and added that, hey, we can all overcome our bad, bad traits.

What kind of person would thoroughly botch an argument about a paper, condemn an entire discipline on the basis of the incorrect analysis, and then brandish their moralistic piety by condemning the behavior in question? I don’t know…some kind of Moran?

I know damn well that there's a difference between genetics/evolution and ethical behavior and anyone who reads my blog knows this. We've discussed the naturalistic fallacy and the is-ought problem many times on this blog and I've said repeatedly that I'm a big fan of Gould's position on those issues. [See The Internal Brand of the Scarlet W.]

What pisses me off is the way evolutionary psychologists turn those arguments upside down. They postulate—often without any scientific evidence—that bad behavior has a strong genetic component and that such behavior was beneficial in our ancestors. According to them, we are stuck with these alleles today even though we don't like the consequences. We all understand that possibility.

Just because it's a possibility doesn't mean it's correct. According to many evolutionary psychologists, anyone who criticizes the science must be doing so because they don't like the behavior and not because the science is bad.

It's a convenient way to avoid dealing with the real problems in evolutionary psychology.

---

1. Wouldn't it be nice if evolutionary psychologists could actually do some research to establish the existence of these amazing alleles and show where they map in the human genome? Heck, I'd settle for just a decent speculation on what kinds of alleles could possibly be involved.

Take this particular case as an example. There must have been a combination of alleles in our ancestors that caused men to be nice to their wives all the time. Then, 50,000 years ago, a mutation (or several mutations) arose that caused men to start beating their wives under special circumstances but to be nice to them most of the time. We have 20,000 genes. Which ones control that kind of behavior?

And if all those subtle behaviors were so strongly adaptive then how come evolution didn't fix some more serious problems like impacted wisdom teeth, hernias, susceptibility to breast cancer, and stupidity?

Steve Watson on the Sandwalk

 

Larry Moran
PZ Myers
John Wilkins
Ryan Gregory
The God Delusion
Cody
John Hawks
Michael Barton
Seanna Watson

---

Seanna Watson on the Sandwalk

 

Larry Moran
PZ Myers
John Wilkins
Ryan Gregory
The God Delusion
Cody
John Hawks
Michael Barton

---

Evolutionary Psychology Crap in New Scientist

 

Here are the opening paragraphs of an article published in the most recent issue of New Scientist [Domestic violence gets evolutionary explanation].

What can evolution tell us about domestic violence? Two researchers in the US suggest such violence has ancient origins and that establishing evolution's role could help to better identify those at risk. Others argue that the research makes simplistic assumptions, and warn that some people will interpret the research as an excuse for violence.

Each year more than 500,000 women in the US alone report to the police violent attacks by current or former male partners. There is a reason why domestic violence is so widespread, says David Buss, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Texas in Austin: it carries a selective advantage, tied with reproductive success. In other words, men who are violent are trying to make sure that their partner has his child and not another man's.

Let's think about this for a minute.

In order for violence against women to have a selective advantage there has to be an important genetic component. Let's imagine a time back in hunter-gather days when there were two groups of men who differed in their violence-against-women alleles. One group was kind and considerate toward their female companions. They treated them with respect. The other group treated women as property and often beat them in order to prevent imagined infidelity. Somehow the violent group managed to mate more frequently and/or have more children than the kind group so the allele for kindness and respect was eliminated from the population.

Lots of things had to happen in order for this scenario to play out as the evolutionary psychologists imagine. For example, women had to prefer to have children with men who would beat them. (Or maybe they were forced to mate with the violent men.). Furthermore, there had to be no consequences for the men who beat their mates. The other members of the group had to tolerate that behavior even if they found it repulsive.

If the scenario is correct then most men—including you and I—have to carry the violence-against-women allele since it was selected in the past. This seems very strange since most men don't beat their wives.¹ I guess we have learned to suppress the genetic urge. But why would we do that if it's a selective advantage to engage in domestic violence?

There's something seriously wrong with evolutionary psychology. And there's something seriously wrong with respectable science magazines who promote this crap.

There's also something seriously wrong with men who engage in domestic violence. They are assholes who deserve very little sympathy from the rest of society. I suspect they got no sympathy in ancient hunter-gather societies either. There is no gene that makes you act like an asshole. That's all due to nurture and it can be changed if we put our minds to it.

---

1. At least I think this is true. When was the last time you beat your wife or girlfriend?

Young Earth Creationism in the 21st Century

 

We discussed Young Earth Creationism in our last class. As most of you know, the Young Earth Creationist believes that the universe was created about 10,000 years ago and that all modern species (or kinds) were created simultaneously at that time. This view is compatible with the Genesis story in the Bible.

How is it possible for someone in the 21st century to ignore all the scientific evidence supporting an Earth that has been around for 4.5 billions years and an universe that is even older? We tried to come up with the most common ways that Young Earth Creationists can rationalize the obvious conflict.

The most obvious explanation is that they are completely unaware of the massive amount of scientific evidence that conflicts with their belief. In other words, they simply don't see a conflict between science and their religion because they have never been taught proper science. I suspect this is true of the vast majority of Young Earth Creationists.

But there's a subset of them who know the science. They have to come up with some sort of explanation that makes their position compatible with the findings of science. We identified two sorts of explanation that seem to apply.

1. Reject the scientific evidence as unreliable and try to discredit scientists. This path gives rise to talking points about the errors in carbon-14 dating and the fact that atheist scientists are blinded by their "religion."

2. Rely on faith and revelation as superior paths to knowledge. This means that the scientific "evidence" must be wrong even though the flaws aren't obvious. It must be wrong because it conflicts with God's word and there's no more reliable indicator of truth than the word of God.

(Sometimes the superiority of faith leads to the conclusion that God must have deliberately created an Earth with the illusion of age. It's not clear why God did this but we are not in a position to question God's wisdom in this matter.)

The BioLogos Foundation has, until recently, promoted theistic evolution. This worldview tends to accept scientific evidence as much as possible. Theistic Evolutionists, for example, are perfectly happy with a 4.5 billion year old Earth.

This emphasis on Theistic Evolution seems to be changing as Jerry Coyne points out in a recent article on his blog website: Templeton-Funded BioLogos cleans house, promotes young-earth creationist, begins slide into irrelevance. BioLogos now has a video promoting a Young Earth Creationist named Aaron Daly [A Young Earth Creationist Perspective].

Watch the video and see if you can figure out how a seemingly rational person can believe in something that is totally discredited by science.

---

Michael Barton on the Sandwalk

Michael Barton blogs at The Dispersal of Darwin.

Larry Moran
PZ Myers
John Wilkins
Ryan Gregory
The God Delusion
Cody
John Hawks

---

John Hawks on the Sandwalk

 
I post pictures of anyone on the Sandwalk. Technically speaking, John Hawks isn't exactly "on" the Sandwalk but I assume he went for a stroll shortly after this picture was taken.

Larry Moran
PZ Myers
John Wilkins
Ryan Gregory
The God Delusion
Cody

---

Is WiFi Harmful to Children?

 

There are many things that are harmful to children—poverty and war come to mind. There's also superstition and ignorance.

Believe it or not, there are many parents who think that electromagnetic radiation from WiFi transmitters is harming their children. They want it removed from schools because their children are becoming sick when they are at school.

Steve Thoms at Skeptic North has a post on this issue [Why, Wifi? Why?]. He explains why some people believe stupid things and how they go about defending those beliefs in a scientific society. He also raises questions about the "evidence" of illness caused by WiFi.

Worth reading—especially for the students in my course.

---

Should Creationism Be Banned?

 
A bunch of British scholars have issued a Joint statement on creationism and evolution in schools. The list of signatories include all the usual suspects: Richard Dawkins, David Attenborough, Steve Jones, Michael Reiss, Steven Rose, John Sulston, Lewis Wolpert, etc.

Creationism and "intelligent design" are not scientific theories, but they are portrayed as scientific theories by some religious fundamentalists who attempt to have their views promoted in publicly-funded schools. There should be enforceable statutory guidance that they may not be presented as scientific theories in any publicly-funded school of whatever type.

But this is not enough. An understanding of evolution is central to understanding all aspects of biology. The teaching of evolution should be included at both primary and secondary levels in the National Curriculum and in all schools.

Nobody can argue with the second part of the statement; of course evolution should be taught.

I want to challenge the first part of the statement. Should the British government pass a law banning the teaching of creationism and/or Intelligent Design Creationism as science?

The first thing that troubles me is the idea of a legal ban on teaching anything at all. I don't think this is a good idea even for ridiculous ideas such as homeopathy or astrology. Do we really want lawyers and legislators making decisions about what should be taught as science and what shouldn't? Neither of those groups are competent to make such decisions.

Besides, enforcing a legal prohibition against teaching Intelligent Design Creationism as science only plays into the hands of the creationists. What are we afraid of? Are we worried that the creationist challenge is so strong that science may not be able to withstand the assault without protection from the courts?

There's another issue that's even more troubling. We could read between the lines of the joint statement and come up with the following logic ...

We the undersigned have adopted a particular version of what science is and we have adopted a particular definition of intelligent design. We agree on a particular (unstated) definition of "scientific theory." According to these views and definitions, intelligent design is not science and should not be taught as science in our schools.

Problem is, there are many different definitions of science and why should we believe this group of signatories over another? There are also many different ways of defining intelligent design and some of the definitions fit my view of what science is. It may be horrible science but it can't just be dismissed as non-science.

On this blog we often discuss books by Intelligent Design Creationists. Most of what's in The Myth of Junk DNA or The Edge of Evolution, for example, is pure science by any definition. It turns out to be bad science—or a very misleading version of science—but on the surface it seems to apply rational thought, evidence, and skepticism to the problem of evolution.

I'm very uncomfortable with the idea that those books should be banned from science classes.

There's another reason why banning bad science is wrong. Study after study has shown that in order to correct student misconceptions you need to address those misconceptions directly. For example, if a student comes into a classroom thinking that creationism is correct, they will not be swayed by simply presenting the evidence for evolution. That's necessary but not sufficient. You also have to show them why their creationist views are wrong and that means bringing up those incorrect views in science class.

Take irreducible complexity as an example. If students think that irreducible complexity refutes evolution then you aren't ever going to change their minds by ignoring irreducible complexity in class. What you have to do is explain the concept and demonstrate why it's bad science (or non-science if you prefer). You can't do this if you are legally prohibited from mentioning intelligent design in a science class.

We need to teach students what science is and what science isn't. The appropriate place to do this is in science class. You can't teach this concept without giving some examples of non-science or pseudoscience and that's a good thing because it directly addresses any misconceptions students might have.

Similarly, if Intelligent Design Creationism is mostly bad science (instead of non-science) then the best way to teach the difference between good science and bad science is to use examples and Intelligent Design Creationism is an excellent example because so many students think it's good science. Banning it from the science classroom is just bad pedagogy.

It's also counter-productive. By protecting it from direct critical analysis in a science class you are actually giving a free pass to the anti-science forces outside the classroom.

---

The Protein Engineer

 
Two former undergraduate students of mine have started a blog called The Protein Engineer.

A blog started by two graduate students, 11000 kilometres apart, on a quest to discover, or otherwise invent, the holy grail of bioengineering: rational protein design.

Our blog consists of weekly reviews of important papers within the cutting edge field that is an amalgam of theoretical and experimental biology, fused with a heavy dose of computational engineering. At the same time, our posts are accessible to even the keen undergraduate in science or engineering.

In nature, new proteins are created by means of mutations and recombination in the DNA, a process that can take thousands of years, and only then, whose purpose serves only strengthen the fitness of the host organism, a purpose often ill-suited for industry or medicine. Protein engineering aspires to create new proteins within a year or less, using powerful computational and experimental techniques such as simulation and directed evolution to create custom-tailored proteins designed especially for industry or medicine.

But more importantly, we hope to fascinate our readers with the immense possibilities of protein engineering. So that perhaps one day, you too, will become a proteneer.

---

Countries That Execute Their Own Citizens

 
Most civilized, democratic countries have abolished capital punishment. This is especially true of those countries with a Christian tradition.

The last execution in Canada took place in 1962 and the last one in Mexico was in 1961. Here's a short list of other countries with the last year of execution: Australia (1967), Israel (1962), Brazil (1876), Argentina (1916), United Kingdom (1964), France (1977), and Italy (1947).

[Blue: capital punishment abolished for all crimes; Green: abolished for all crimes expect some committed in exceptional circumstances; Brown: abolished in practice; Red: legal form of punishment]

The United States differs from its geographical and cultural neighbors. Why does the United States still carry out executions in 2011 when the practice has ceased in all those countries with a similar cultural and religious background?

---

When Will They Ever Learn?

 

In my class on Scientific Misconceptions and Controversies we discuss the ways in which scientific reasoning is used and misused in debates and discussions.

As a general rule, you can divide scientific debates into two main categories: (1) genuine scientific controversy that hasn't been resolved, or (2) misconceptions or misunderstandings of the science by one or more of the sides. The third category is genuine fraud.

Sometimes it's really hard to decide when a misconception turns into lying (fraud). This is particularly true in the evolution/creation debate where some of the most outlandish claims by the creationists have been refuted again and again but continue to be used. Are those creationists so stupid that they just don't understand why they are wrong or is it more likely that they know they are wrong but are just taking advantage of the ignorance of their audience to promote a good-sounding talking point?

Here's an example from Denyse O'Leary, one of the leading IDiots based right here in Toronto [Darwin lobby: We have the bumper sticker. We win.].

In August we noted that National Center for Science Education was running a bumper sticker contest

They may have declared their winner. Folk have been seeing this bumper sticker around town:

We have the fossils. We win.
That would be good news for Darwin, who didn’t think the fossil record supported him, but hoped it would, one day.

The trouble is, that has been the trade secret of paleontology (Stephen Jay Gould) that it doesn’t support him. It supports sudden, rapid emergence, which almost certainly means a non-Darwinian origin for change in life forms.

The issue is whether the fossil record, taken as a whole, supports the transformation of one type of organism into another. The answer is overwhelmingly "yes." There are dozens of excellent examples including our own species.

These examples have been described in detail in an attempt to educate the creationists but all this to no avail. They continue to repeat the myth that the fossil record does not support evolution in spite of the enormous efforts made by evolution supporters to correct their ignorance.

At some point we need to stop attributing this behavior to mere stupidity and ignorance and start recognizing it for what it is—a lie. Denyse knows the truth but continues to repeat a false claim.

---

Lab Times Screws Up the Discussion of Junk DNA

 

Lab Times is a magazine that reports on news for life scientists in Europe. Their current issue (Sept. 14, 2011) has an "analysis" called Past, present and future Everything you ever wanted to know about the non-coding stretches of DNA. The author is Frederick Gruber who appears to be a science writer drawing on information supplied by various researchers.

You know the article is going to be misleading as soon as you read the opening paragraph.

When the first draft of the human genome finally became available, there were many surprises, one of them being the ridiculously large amount of DNA that did not code for proteins – or anything at all. It seemed like the genome was just a huge chaotic mess sprinkled with tiny nuggets!

The reason this is misleading is because it totally misrepresents the history of the human genome. It's been four decades since we first became aware of the fact that only 1-2% of the human genome encoded proteins. This was hardly a surprise—in fact it was one of the principle arguments against sequencing the human genome. (What was the point of wasting all that money on DNA sequences that were mostly junk?)

One of the unfortunate characteristics of the junk DNA deniers is that they are completely unaware of the historical arguments in favor of junk DNA (e.g. False History and the Number of Genes, Genetic Load, Neutral Theory, and Junk DNA). Everyone who understood the problem was quite happy to find verification when the first draft of the human genome was published. It's exactly what the knowledgeable experts predicted.

The article raises the standard question that seems to have only recently occurred to some researchers; namely, what is all that DNA doing? It's mostly junk—at least that's the conclusion reached by many scientists back in the 1970s and most of what we've discovered since then has supported that view.

Transposon Insertions in the Human Genome

Transposons are mobile genetic elements that jump around in our genome (and the genomes of every species). They are known by various names such as "jumping genes" or mobile genetic elements.

Our genome has several different types of transposons [Transposons: Part I, Transposons: Part II, Retrotransposons/Endogenous Retroviruses]. Most of them are defective in one way or another so they can no longer "jump" to another location but some subfamilies have remained functional and these will spread to new locations. About 44% of our genome consists of active transposons and (mostly) defective transposons [What's in Your Genome?]. Most of these sequences have no function—they are junk DNA.

The development of new, cheap, sequencing technologies and the availability of an annotated standard human genome reference sequence has made it possible to look for new transposon insertions in a large number of individuals. The results can help confirm or refute the idea that most of our genome is junk.

A recently published article in PLoS Genetics describes the results of such an analysis (Stewart et al. 2011). It's part of the 1000 Genomes Project.

They detected a total of 7,310 insertions that were present in only a subset of the 179 genomes that were analyzed. About 85% of these were Alu elements, 12% were L1 LINES, and 3% were SVA's. This is consistent with earlier work that catalogued the number of active transposons in the human genome. As expected, very few of these insertions occurred in exons (39) and only 3 occurred in coding regions. This strongly suggests that there is strong selection against disruptions of coding regions. It implies that most of the detectable insertions occur in regions where disruption of the sequence has no effect on the viability of the the individual. In other words, insertions occur predominantly in junk DNA.

The authors examined the sequences of two families in order to assess the frequency of new transposon insertions. Earlier data indicated that a new insertion arises only once in every twenty births so it's not a surprise to find that the offspring in these two families showed no new insertions relative to their parents.

A data set of this size allows for an assessment of the rate of fixation of various new mobile element insertion (MEI) alleles in the population. The authors conclude,

MEI alleles propagate within population groups much like other predominantly neutral polymorphisms. MEI allele frequency spectra from the low coverage samples are in general agreement with expectations from the standard neutral model for allele drift in a population.

What this means is that most (perhaps all) of the insertion alleles are segregating as though they have no effect on the fitness of the individuals that carry them. This is further support for the idea that large parts of the genome are junk.

---

Stewart, C., Kural, D., Strömberg, M.P., Walker, J.A., Konkel, M.K., Stütz, A.M., Urban, A.E., Grubert, F., Lam, H.Y., Lee, W.P., Busby, M., Indap, A.R., Garrison, E., Huff, C., Xing, J., Snyder, M.P., Jorde, L.B., Batzer, M.A., Korbel, J.O., Marth, G.T. (2011) A comprehensive map of mobile element insertion polymorphisms in humans. PLoS Genet. 2011 Aug;7(8):e1002236. Epub 2011 Aug 18. [doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1002236]

Steampunk Genetics

 

I recently learned a lot about steampunk by attending Polaris 25 last July. I'm thinking I should put together an outfit that I can wear around campus. I haven't seen a fashion statement that's as cool as steampunk since the 1960's.

John Hawks is obviously a fan as well. He's posted an article entitled Steampunk Genetics where he describes how predictions based on Victorian genetics are still more accurate than those based on genome sequences. The important point is that some heritable traits are still too complex to be attributed to specific alleles.

---

Jetcat

 

Gordon Moran (my son) and his friend Kevin Forbes are building a game (app) for mobile devices. You can follow their progress on: Omnisaurus Games.

Check out the September build. They actually have a version you can play! It even has sound.

---

Christian vs Christian

The Discovery Institute is the leading proponent of Intelligent Design Creationism—a form of creationism that concentrates on proving evolution is wrong and therefore the history of life must be explained by the intervention of an intelligent designer (i.e. god).

The BioLogus Foundation was founded by Francis Collins and it brings together a group of theistic evolutionists. Theistic Evolution is a form of creationism that accepts much of evolutionary biology but still postulates the the history of life requires the intervention of a creator.

Recently a Theistic Evolution-type creationist attacked Stephen Meyer, an Intelligent Design Creationist at the Discovery Institute [On Deciphering the Signature]. You can read a brief history of what happened in a guest post on Jerry Coyne's blog website: Guest post: the conflicted relationship between Intelligent Design and BioLogos.

---

A New Moderation Policy: Doug Dobney Is Banned on Sandwalk

Up until now I have been proud of the fact that nobody is banned on Sandwalk. I delete all spam that consist entirely of threats and incoherent ranting (e.g. Dennis Markuze). I also delete spam that advertises products and/or commercial websites. But even the weirdest kooks are allowed to post comments as long as they don't post spam.

But there's one thing I won't tolerate and that's when people start threatening other bloggers and commenters by contacting their families or their employers. That's where I draw the line.

Doug Dobney has posted hundreds of comments on Sandwalk under "anonymous." He is apparently opposed to evolution and won't listen to reason from those who have tried to set him straight on the facts. That's fine with me. If others want to have fun with him here, then it's up to them. I've been ignoring him and so has almost everyone else.

Recently another commenter revealed that "anonymous" was, in fact, Doug Dobney, a well-known kook from Peterborough, Ontario, Canada. That made Doug very upset in spite of the fact that it was trivially easy to identify him based on his internet record where he has already admitted to his identity. (He also posts as "Socrates.")

That's fine too. What happened next is not fine. Doug Dobney sent letters to the Chair of my department and the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine complaining about me. Here's a copy of his letter.

Dear Dr. Whiteside:

I need to bring to your attention a serious problem that relates to the Department of Biochemistry.

Please see the emails below.

Not only has the problem not been addressed, but I have not even been given a response to my emails documenting this dangerous situation.

To give you some insight into this problem, here are three, of many, instances from Dr. Moran’s blog:

“Josef Gladstone said...

I don't even understand why Doug Dobney would even want to toil in anonytimity when he is doing such groundbreaking work on organism development, especially in the new field of pterosaur to bird development. He is truly one of the great minds of the 21st century.

Doug Dobney will eventually be viewed in the same light as Darwin by the time the history of organism development is written.

And of course, to quote the great Mr. Dobney, this is certainly not worth arguing about! (both his wonderful wife Angela and myself get a great chuckle out of this whenever he says it, which is quite often!)

“AND

Ddobney@moffathouse.ca said...

Hey Doug Dobney, do guests at the Moffat House know you're insane?

AND if your stomach is up to it, there is this link on the blog:

http://socratesisdougdobney.blogspot.com/

I would appreciate your attention to this serious problem.

Yours sincerely,

Douglas Dobney

That's something I will not tolerate. Doug Dobney has earned the distinction of being the very first person to be banned on Sandwalk

---

My Dean is a very busy person but I'm sure she enjoys a little chuckle now and then when these kook emails turn up in her mailbox. I'll have to ask her if she remembers Doug Dobney next time I see her in the line for coffee downstairs.

Conspiracy Theories

 

There are kooks everywhere. Some people believe they have been abducted by UFOs and others believe that the moon landings never happened. There are many who believe that the 9/11 tragedy was a conspiracy of the United states government.

One thing that all kooks have in common is their ability to completely detach themselves from reality. Wanna see a good example?

David Klinghoffer posts on the Intelligent Design Creationist website Evolution News & Views. His latest display of kookdom is to try and link evolutionary biology with 9/11 truthers [Darwinism and 9/11 Conspiracy Theories: The Parallels].

I hope the Discovery Institute has a full-time psychologist on their staff.

With the approaching 9/11 anniversary, Slate has been running a series tracing the rise and ongoing evolution of 9/11 Truth theories that try to show how the attacks 10 years ago were really an inside job. According to this thinking, 9/11 was no attack by Islamic terrorists. Rather, the towers were detonated by an expertly covered-up collusion among Zionists and U.S. government operatives. You might have expected these notions would, if entertained at all, be dispelled by the exhaustive debunking job that Popular Mechanics did with its 5,500-word article on the subject back in 2005. Not so, as those who take an interest in conspiracy culture know well.

What I found striking about the first installment in the Slate series, by Jeremy Stahl, is the parallels with what we know about the thought and writings of Evolution Truth activists: our ever-loving friends in the Darwin Lobby. You may recall the news of a few months back that Glenn Branch, deputy director of the Darwin-lobbying National Center for Science Education, had collaborated with 9/11 Truth conspiracist James H. Fetzer in editing a special number of the journal Synthese on "Evolution and Its Rivals." That issue of the journal became so notorious for the incivility of its contributions that a whole fracas broke out and made the pages of the New York Times.

It may have seemed just a delicious coincidence at the time to find Branch and Fetzer teaming up so comfortably. Yet consider the features of 9/11-style paranoid thinking and some similarities to its evolutionary counterpart ...

---

Keep the Faith—but not in Our Schools

Coalition Calls for Defunding of Catholic Boards, End to Discrimination Against Gays in Publicly Funded Schools
KEEP THE FAITH—BUT NOT IN OUR SCHOOLS

The Canadian Secular Alliance and its allies are hosting a rally in front of the Legislature at Queen's Park on Sunday, September 18 from 1:30-3:30 p.m. to demand:

• The end of the over $500 million taxpayer subsidization for the promotion of the Roman Catholic religion. Public funding for the expensive duplicate school system must be eliminated to provide one secular publicly funded school system.

• The protection of equality rights for all students—including gay students—by ending the constitutional privilege afforded Roman Catholics to overrule legislation and the courts in favour of religious dogma.

"Equality for all students means ending privileged access to public schools for favoured religious services," says CSA President Greg Oliver.

Speakers represent a cross section of the religious and non-religious.

More information: Canadian Secular Alliance

---

Carnival of Evolution #39

This month's Carnival of Evolution (39th version) is hosted by Cromercrox, a "Celebrity Nutritionist" who lives in Cromer, Norfolk, England (United Kingdom). It blogs at The End Of The Pier Show: Carnival of Evolution #39.

The main subject headings are:

• The Books! The Books!
• The Birds! The Birds!
• Tempo, Mode and the Tangled Bank
• Genes and Jumpers
• One Species Or Two?
• The Brain! The Brain!

Next month's Carnival of Evolution will be hosted by Kevin Zelnio on EvoEcoLab. You can submit your postings at Carnival of Evolution.

---

Canadian National Vimy Memorial

We're in Brussels babysitting my granddaughter Zoë while her parents are house hunting in Los Angeles.

Yesterday we went to see the Canadian National Vimy Memorial on Vimy Ridge, the site of an important battle in April 1917. Thousands of Canadians died in the battle.

Zoë liked climbing on the steps and statues.

There are 11,000 names engraved on the memorial. They represent Canadian soldiers who died in France during World War I and whose remains were never recovered. One of the names is Lance Corporal Robert Alexander Hood (1895 - 1917), a distant cousin of Ms. Sandwalk. He died on April 12, in 1917 during the final days of the battle of Vimy Ridge.

We found his name.

---

Praise for Canadian Blood Services

Last week I criticized the Canadian Blood Services for a stupid website called "What's Your Type?" The website associated certain personality traits and diet preferences with your blood type and also gave out false information about the origin of the various blood types [Shame on Canadian Blood Services].

Many people wrote letters to the Canadian Blood Services complaining about the obvious woo. They usually received a form letter saying that the site was not meant to be serious. It was for amusement only and whenever donors showed up for typing they would be told the real science behind blood types. In response to those form letters I wrote to explain that the actual science on the website was wrong—how were they going to explain that as a form of entertainment?

I'm pleased to report that the website is gone [What's Your Type?]. Now you just get a message explaining why you should know your blood type.

I never received a replay from Canadian Blood Services but PZ Myers posts a copy of a letter that some have received.

Dr. Sher has asked me to respond to your recent e-mail regarding our What's Your Type? new donor recruitment program. I understand that you have also sent an e-mail communicating your concerns to www.whatsyourtype@blood.ca and that others from our organization have provided you with specific details in response. I can confirm that the content you object to has been removed from our web site. The marketing materials for this program are being revised.

Thanks again for sharing your views with us.

Ian Mumford
Chief Operating Officer
Canadian Blood Services

Congratulations, Canadian Blood Services. You did the right thing.

---

Revisiting the Central Dogma in the 21st Century

James A. Shapiro is an interesting character. He claims that he is opposed to both neo-Dawinism and Creationism (upper case "C") and he claims to offer a "Third Way." That "third way" appears to be indistinguishable from Intelligent Design Creationism although Shapiro never admits to being an advocate of intelligent design. Instead, he prefers to let his "science" do the talking and points out that it's science that leads us to the conclusion that life is designed.

Shapiro has published scientific articles with Richard Sternberg who advocates a similar position but who has become one of the poster boys of the Discovery Institute and one of the stars of the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Like Sternberg, Shapiro is admired by IDiots [Non-supernatural ID?: University of Chicago microbiologist James Shapiro works with ID guys, dismisses Darwinism, offers third way].

One of the characteristics Shapiro shares with the IDiots is attacking evolution. In this post I want to review a paper he published in 2009 on "Revisiting the Central Dogma in the 21st Century" (Shapiro, 2009).

The correct version of the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology is:

... once (sequential) information has passed into protein it cannot get out again (F.H.C. Crick, 1958)

The central dogma of molecular biology deals with the detailed residue-by-residue transfer of sequential information. It states that such information cannot be transferred from protein to either protein or nucleic acid. (F.H.C. Crick, 1970)

In other words, the flow of information is from nucleic acid to protein and never from protein to nucleic acid.

The incorrect version of the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology is what Crick referred to as the "Sequence Hypothesis" and what we now know as a simplified version of the standard pathway for information flow from genes that specify a protein product. The incorrect version is often presented in textbooks as the real Central Dogma although that's slowly changing [The Central Dogma Strawman].

None of this should be a problem for someone who is writing a scholarly article for the scientific literature since we expect such a person to have read the relevant references (Crick, 1958; Crick, 1970). They should get it right. Let's see how Shapiro does when he says ...

The concept was that information basically flows from DNA to RNA to protein, which determines the cellular and organismal phenotype. While it was considered a theoretical possibility that RNA could transfer information to DNA, information transfer from proteins to DNA, RNA, of other proteins was considered outside the dogma and "would shake the whole intellectual basis of molecular biology [Crick, 1970].

That sounds pretty good but the first part is a little troubling. Which version does Shapiro actually believe he's "revisiting"?

Chris Talks to God

Chris DiCarlo tries to teach God about philosophy. He doesn't do so well.

Chris is coming to Toronto (from Guelph) on Sept. 9th to talk about his book, "How to Become a Really Good Pain in the Ass" [Centre for Inquiry]. He'll also be visiting/has visited Vancouver, Kelowna, Kamloops, Calgary, Edmonton, Saskatoon, Ottawa, and Montreal.

---

Junk & Jonathan: Part 11—Chapter 8

This is part 11 of my review of The Myth of Junk DNA. For a list of other postings on this topic see the links in Genomes & Junk DNA in the "theme box" below or in the sidebar under "Themes."

---

The title of Chapter 8 is "Some Recent Defenders of Junk DNA." It is Wells' attempt to deal with a very small percentage of the criticisms of his claim.

He begins with a reference to a 2003 paper that reported on transcription of a pseudogene and proposed a function for that transcript. He then references a 2006 paper that refutes the earlier study showing that the pseudogene transcript has no function. Good for Wells. That means he is aware of the fact that some of the work he references has not been reproduced. It's bizarre that Wells devotes three paragraphs to the discredited reference in Junk & Jonathan: Part 7—Chapter 4 and only mentions in passing that the result has been challenged.

He returns to this result in Chapter 8 and all but admits that the original result—so prominently presented in Chapter 3—is no longer valid. However, Wells can't leave it at that. The 2006 paper by Gray et al. went on to point out that some creationist literature had written up the earlier incorrect result and claimed that this was support for functional "junk DNA" and support for intelligent design creationism. The authors conclude their paper with ...

Furthermore, because Mkrn1-p1 is a nonfunctional pseudogene and does not trans-regulate its source Mkrn1 gene as claimed (6–9), our work reestablishes the evolutionary paradigm supported by overwhelming evidence that mammalian pseudogenes are indeed inactive gene relics.

Darwinian Theory in a Nut

GilDodgen (remember him?) lets us know what a typical IDiot thinks of "Darwinian Theory" [Darwinian Theory in a Nutshell: Random Events Can Produce the Antithesis of Randomness]. Thanks Gil.

Boiled down to its essentials, Darwinian theory is a bizarre cult-like belief that random events can produce the antithesis of randomness.

In no other area of science would such obvious nonsense be accepted without scrutiny or dissent.

One can learn the essentials of Darwinian theory and its claims in a few hours. It’s really just that shallow.

Those of us who are involved in real science — in which rigor is demanded, and in which fantastic, evidentially and rationally unsupported stories like those proposed by Darwinists are laughed at — recognize this shallowness and the transparently absurd claims made on behalf of the theory.

BTW, some of you might have forgotten that Gil Dodgen is involved in real science. Here's a reminder: Gil Dodgen Explains the Salem Conjecture.

---

What He Said

Believe it or not, I often try not to make fun of Americans people in other countries. I'm not always successful.

Richard Dawkins has an article on the Washington Post website where he can't help himself. I agree with everything he says [Attention Governor Perry: Evolution is a fact].

There is nothing unusual about Governor Rick Perry. Uneducated fools can be found in every country and every period of history, and they are not unknown in high office. What is unusual about today’s Republican party (I disavow the ridiculous ‘GOP’ nickname, because the party of Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt has lately forfeited all claim to be considered ‘grand’) is this: In any other party and in any other country, an individual may occasionally rise to the top in spite of being an uneducated ignoramus. In today’s Republican Party ‘in spite of’ is not the phrase we need. Ignorance and lack of education are positive qualifications, bordering on obligatory. Intellect, knowledge and linguistic mastery are mistrusted by Republican voters, who, when choosing a president, would apparently prefer someone like themselves over someone actually qualified for the job.

There's lots more. Enjoy, no matter what country you live in.

---

The Oldest Cells

I was going to write about the discovery of the oldest fossil cells but Jerry Coyne beat me to the punch [Newly found: the world’s oldest fossils!]. The new fossil bacteria are thought to be 3.4 billion years old and they were discovered in Australia only a few kilometers from the site where the so-called "cyanobacteria" fossils were discovered almost twenty years ago. Those fossils were reported to be even older (3.5 billion years) but the discovery has been completely discredited. The "fossils" aren't fossils [Did Life Arise 3.5 Billion Years Ago?]. That makes this discovery the oldest known cells (Wacey, 2011).

Interestingly, the senior author on this paper is Martin Brasier and he was one of the scientists who challenged the earlier result of William Schopf. Read all about it on Jerry Coyne's blog website.

The fossils are associated with a sulfur-rich mineral called pyrite. This mineral is produced by modern sulfate-reducing bacteria and it's reasonable to assume that the primitive bacteria detected in these ancient rocks also carried out sulfate reduction. That's not surprising since there wasn't much oxygen in the deep ocean 3.5 billion years ago.

Junk & Jonathan: Part 10—Chapter 7

This is part 10 of my review of The Myth of Junk DNA. For a list of other postings on this topic see the links below. For other postings on junk DNA check out the links in Genomes & Junk DNA in the "theme box" below or in the sidebar under "Themes."

What Ever Happened to Freya?

Freya was one of the important Norse gods.

In Norse mythology, Freya is a goddess of love and fertility, and the most beautiful and propitious of the goddesses. She is the patron goddess of crops and birth, the symbol of sensuality and was called upon in matters of love. She loves music, spring and flowers, and is particularly fond of the elves (fairies). Freya is one of the foremost goddesses of the Vanir.

How can you not love a god who is fond of eleves?

Where has Freya gone now that nobody believes in her any more? Did she die? Is she buried somewhere?

These are important questions because there are hundreds of extinct gods and we don't know what's happened to them. Jerry Coyne tries to come up with an answer [Where are all the dead gods?] but I fear that his knowledge of religion isn't sufficient for such a complex topic.

Maybe we should ask one of those sophisticated Christians that we hear so much about?

Do you remember William Lane Craig? [Why Reasonable People Should Not Debate William Lane Craig] He tried to educate Jerry Coyne about science and religion. Listen to his broadcast and see how Jerry responds at: William Lane Craig goes after me for ignorance of religion and science.



Don't you just love it when those sophisticated Christians teach us about sophisticated science? Perhaps he would do better if he got another degree. So far he only has a Ph.D. (Philosophy) and a Doctor of Theology (Th.D.). Poor old Jerry Coyne only has a single Ph.D. (under Richard Lewontin). Jerry is completely outclassed in the sophisticated department but I bet he wears better boots!

---

Be a Proud Atheist

We Are Atheism Campaign from the Richard Dawkins Foundation.

This is your chance to finally be heard. This is our chance to stand up, speak out, and be counted. We want to provide a platform for atheists around the globe to see that they are not alone. Atheists come in all shapes, sizes, ages, and backgrounds. The only thing that we all have in common is that we don’t see any credible evidence to believe in a god. It’s ok to be an atheist, and we want the world to know.

• Provide an outlet for atheists to feel comfortable to come out of the closet.


• Always let visitors know there are other people out there that are non-believers.


• Help people find other atheists like them in their state, city, and even neighborhood.


• Give access to local, national, and international organization to become involved in the secular community.


• Empower people to start their own organization in areas that does not already have one.

We are not just here to let you watch movies; these are real people living real lives as atheists. We want the world to know we exist and we will not be ignored. We will stand up, speak out, and be counted.

---

Despicable Rhett S. Daniels

EpiRen is the pseudonym of a blogger who about public health issues, including vaccinations and various forms of quackery. He works for a state public health department in the United States. At some point EpiPen crossed paths with Rhett S. Daniels and Daniels didn't like what he heard.

So what did Daniels do? He had EpiPen investigated and "outed" him to his employers. The employers told EpiPen to stop blogging about these issues or be fired. EpiPen complied—as we all would under such circumstances. Read all about it at: The consequences of blogging under one's own name] [A Public Servant, Blogging and Tweeting Under His Own Name, Has Been Silenced By His Employers].

Rhett Daniels showed up in the comments section on the second blog and started issuing more threats.

i am mr. x; first, i am not anti-vax; second, i didn't want epiren to stop posting, but rather to take down the defamatory blog; third, i am not done going after every individual who defames me.

you think you are safe, but all i have to do is file a john doe - or hire a cyber investigator. these courses of action cost less than $10,000 each; which means every person who is afraid of the light can be exposed.

i will not tolerate harassment, defamation, or any such action by any of you. i am very aware of all of you, and have the capital and the will to go after each and every one of you ONLY IF you defame or slander me.

i am self employed if you count owning 11 pharmaceutical companies with cum gross sales over 1/2 billion.

....

actuall, to save me $9,000 i will offer $1,000 for identify info that leads to an address where i can serve anarchic teapot (legally serve as in sheriff delivers court papers).

Who is this despicable person? It's a little tricky to find out since he's in the process of erasing his blog, his twitter account, and several other internet references. His YouTube videos on folate have been made inaccessible and the websites of some of his companies seem to be undergoing routine maintenance. But there are still traces of him on the internet as PZ Myers discovered: Rhett S. Daniels, litigious bully.

I'm doing my bit to create an internet presence for Rhett Daniels—I'm sure he'll thank me when he gets a chance. Let me make it clear that I am not slandering Rhett Daniels. I'm merely stating what the evidence strongly suggests; namely, that he is a despicable, cowardly, bully who will use his money to legally harass anyone who dares to criticize his treatments.

Bits and pieces of his blog are still accessible on Google cache: cigaRHETT - Toxicological Insight. From there you can link to his Blogger profile where you discover that his favorite movie was Top Gun and one of his two favorite books is the Bible. (Why are we not surprised that such a despicable man would like the Bible?) He lives in Fort Myers, Florida, United States.

Here's more,

Activist, philanthropist and entrepreneur. Highly skilled executive who excels at taking small struggling companies from low to high revenues in short periods. Boast an impressive record of the most pharmaceutical drug products ever developed by one person (over 400) in the history of pharma - surpassing my idol, Robert Stockstad from Lederle Pharma (he developed folic acid in 1947). One of the most successful non-lawyer ProSe litigants in history. As of July 18, 2011, total product sales since July 18, 2006, are: $590,635,984 (and 22,728,724 units sold!). politics: www.linkedin.com/in/RhettSDaniels ViaDiem Holdings (Founder): www.viadiem.com Captiva Pharma (CEO): www.CaptivaRx.com Goals: (1) To lead a small pharma company from less than $20 million/yr to over $1 billion/yr in revenues; (2) To feed 82 million Africans with my new unique ingredients that purifies water while provided demographic and staple-deficient based vitamins to provide min RDA based on regional disparities;

You get to ride the big roller coaster three times in a row. What will keep your dad from taking a bite out of your candy apple?

Doing the Good versus doing the Right. Somethings can be Right that are not Good; and there are many things that are Good that are not Right. Right means legally, and Good means natural law.

Rhett Daniels seems to have forgotten that there are some things that are both wrong and evil.

There are several things wrong here. Daniels behaved badly by taking the disagreement to EpiPen's employer. The employer behaved badly by threatening EpiPen if he didn't stop blogging. We should aim for a society where neither of those behaviors are acceptable and everyone can speak freely without fear of retaliation. This is not a good time to criticize the employers but we can make sure Rhett Daniels appreciates the consequences of his behavior. Judging by his defensive reactions on the internet, I think he might be learning a lesson ....

UPDATE: Read the "warning letter" that Liz Ditz received from Rhett Daniels. If this weren't so sad it would be funny.

Here's a list of posts on Keeping Up with #EpiGate. Lots of people are trying to help Rhett S. Daniels have a visible presence on the internet. He will be very grateful.

---

Chitty Chitty Bang Bang Bang Bang

We recently learned that Prager University was instrumental in converting GilDodgen from obnoxious atheist to obnoxious theist [How to Convince an Atheist to Become an IDiot]. GilDodgen liked to two "courses" in particular. One was a "course" on "The Most Important Verse in the Bible." All five minutes of the course were taught by Dennis Prager.

The other "course" is taught by Frank Pastore, a former atheist and a former baseball player. He's now the host of a Christian talk show in Los Angeles. Pastore is a high school graduate. (Pastore was "converted" by some other Cincinnati Reds baseball players.)

You need to watch this video. Here's how it's described in the Prager University calendar.

Who takes the greater leap of faith -- the atheist or the believer? Best selling author and award-winning radio talk show host, Frank Pastore, poses this question in this compelling Prager University video course.

WARNING: Parts of this video may be harmful to the rational mind. Viewer discretion is advised.

---