Defining Evolution

 
PZ Myers has started a thread on the definition of evolution [An exercise for the readers]. Here is PZ's choice ...

Evolution is a well-confirmed process of biological change that produces diversity and coherent functionality by a variety of natural mechanisms.

And here's what I posted in the comments on his blog.

The minimal definition of evolution is ..

Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations. [What Is Evolution?]

The truly shocking thing is how many believers in evolution get it wrong. Unfortunately, that includes you PZ. Two of the absolutely essential features of any definition of evolution are: (1) it requires permanent genetic changes and (2) it is populations, not individuals, that evolve. Both of these restrictions are missing from your definition.

What this means is that there are lots of things covered by your definition that do not fit into the scientific definition of evolution. I'll leave it to your readers to come up with a list of such changes.

This is always an interesting discussion and the comments on Pharyngula make some good points. What do Sandwalk readers think of my definition?

---

THE SECULAR CONSCIENCE: Why Belief Belongs in Public Life

 
The Centre for Inquiry Ontario is sponsoring a talk by Austin Dacey (photo below) on Friday night March 7th at the Beverley St. location [THE SECULAR CONSCIENCE: Why Belief Belongs in Public Life]. The talk starts at 7:30 pm and there's a reception for Friends of the Centre at 6pm.

I don't like the sound of this. It could be an interesting night.

Austin Dacey, Center for Inquiry's representative to the United Nations will speak in Toronto as one of the first stops on his book release tour.

Secularism has lost its soul. From Washington to the Vatican to Tehran, religion is a public matter as never before, and secular values-personal autonomy, toleration, separation of religion and state, and freedom of conscience-are attacked on all sides and defended by few. The godly claim a monopoly on the language of morality in public debate, while secular liberals stand accused of standing for nothing. Secular liberals have undone themselves. For generations, too many have insisted that questions of conscience-religion, ethics, and values-are "private matters" that have no place in public debate. Ironically, this ideology prevents them from subjecting religion to due scrutiny when it encroaches on individual rights, and from unabashedly advocating their own moral vision in politics for fear of "imposing" their beliefs on others.

In this incisive book, philosopher Austin Dacey calls for a bold rethinking of the nature of conscience and its role in public life. Inspired by an earlier liberal tradition he traces to Spinoza and John Stuart Mill, Dacey urges liberals to lift their self-imposed gag order and
defend a renewed secularism based on the objective moral value of conscience. He likens conscience to the free press in an open society: it is protected from coercion and control, not because it is private, but because it has a vital role in the public sphere. Conscience is free, but not liberated from shared standards of truth and right.

The Secular Conscience will be published by Prometheus Books in March 2008. In spring 2008, the author will bring his timely message directly to secularists, humanists, and skeptics. One of his first stops will be at the Centre for Inquiry Ontario in Toronto.

Austin Dacey, Ph.D., is a philosopher with the Center for Inquiry in New York City, where he serves as United Nations representative and a contributing editor at Skeptical Inquirer and Free Inquiry magazines. He teaches philosophy, ethics, and science education at Polytechnic University and State University of New York. He is the author of articles in numerous publications including the New York Times. His website is www.austindacey.com.

---

[Photo Credit: austindacey.com]

Why the Right People Hate IDiots

 
Jonathan Wells (see photo) is one of the leading intelligent design creationists. (As we'll see, that says a lot about the intellectual vacuum that characterizes that cult.)

Wells is best known as the author of Icons of Evolution, a book that makes a virtue out of lying for Jesus (and for Reverend Sun Myung Moon). Almost everything that Wells writes about is demonstrably wrong but that never seems to stop him. He should be an embarrassment to the intelligent design creationist cult except that the members of that cult are all incapable of separating fact from fiction when it comes to science. I've posted previously about two of Well's most egregious falsehoods in Icons because we dissected them in a course I taught last semester [Peppered Moths and the Confused IDiots; Fossil Horses and Directed Evolution].

Recently (Feb. 29) Wells posted an article about the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria and claimed that the authors (Maurice et al. 2008) did not make use of evolution in their study [The Irrelevance of Darwinian Evolution to Antibiotic Resistance]. Here's what Wells said about the work from Dardel's lab.

Third, Dardel and his colleagues made their discovery using protein crystallography. They were not guided by Darwinian evolutionary theory; in fact, they had no need of that hypothesis.

When I first saw the Wells article I seriously wondered whether Jonathan Wells was mentally stable. It looks like he has become completely unhinged since the point of his article is so far from the truth that even a kindergarten student can recognize the lies. (Not surprisingly, the other intelligent design creationists were completely sucked into the lie.)

Ian Musgrave was the first one to hold his nose and post a rebuttal of the Wells article [How stupid do they think we are?]. Somebody had to do it—thanks Ian for doing the research. Your title says it all.

Now, here's the best part. The senior author of the study, Frederic Dardel, posted a comment on The Panda's Thumb website [Frederic Dardel comment]. Here's what Dardel said ...

As principal investigator of the study under discussion, I’d like to strongly support the view advocated this page. In fact, I was completely amazed to see how our work has been misrepresented by M. Wells.

Actually, we did indeed use darwinian evolution within this work (something unusual in structural biology). In order to obtain an enzyme with increased stability (a critical point for structural studies), we used selective pressure to obtain mutants of the enzyme. We selected for bateria with increased aminiglycoside resistance, by plating them on antibiotic containing medium. It turned out that some bacteria evolved such stabler enzymes variants which made this whole study possible !

Finally, I would not consider myself as a chemist, I got my PhD in molecular microbiology. It seems that M. Wells finds it easier to portray us as non-biologists, and hence implicitly as non-evolutionists.

Delicious. PZ Myers picked up on this and posted an article with the title Wells says something stupid again. Of course he did, that's why we call them IDiots.

Now, in light of this you might expect Jonathan Wells to apologize and admit he was wrong. Hands up all those who think he'll do the honorable thing.

WRONG! You guys just don't understand the creationist mentality. Here's how it works, quoting today's posting on Evolution News & Views [Being Hated by the Right People].

As Johnny Cash reputedly once said, “It’s good to know who hates you, and it’s good to be hated by the right people.”

Darwinist bloggers P. Z. Myers and Ian Musgrave hate me. In fact, Myers writes, “My animus for Jonathan Wells knows no bounds.” Well, at least he (unlike Musgrave) spells my name right.

The most recent outbursts by Myers and Musgrave were provoked by my February 29 blog on Evolution News & Views, in which I predicted that Darwinists would try to take credit for a recent French discovery regarding antibiotic resistance. And indeed they did.

In the course of claiming credit for Darwinism, Musgrave claims that I completely misrepresent evolution, molecular biology, genetics and history. Wow. At least I get points for comprehensiveness. As proof of my misrepresentations, Musgrave cites Wikipedia, which everyone involved in this controversy knows is about as balanced and reliable on this issue as P.Z. Myers’s Pharyngula or The National Center for Science Miseducation’s Panda’s Thumb.

....

The principal researcher in the French study disagrees, and wrote to Musgrave’s blog that "we did indeed use Darwinian evolution within this work (something unusual in structural biology). In order to obtain an enzyme with increased stability (a critical point for structural studies), we used selective pressure to obtain mutants of the enzyme."

So the researchers used artificial selection to good advantage. But artificial selection is not Darwinism. People were using artificial selection for centuries before Darwin came along, and they didn’t need Darwin to explain it to them. Darwin argued that an analogous process also operates in natural populations – and so it does. But he and his devoted followers went much further and claimed that it also explains the origin of new species, organs and body plans, which it doesn’t.

You just can't make this stuff up. Wells is an IDiot. I intensely dislike Wells and the lying tactics he uses to promote his cult of intelligent design creationism. I hope that puts me among the "right people."

---

[Photo Credit: Evolution News & Views]

Maurice, F., Broutin, I., Podglajen, I., Benas, P., Collatz, E. and Dardel, F. (2008) Enzyme structural plasticity and the emergence of broad-spectrum antibiotic resistance. EMBO Rep. 2008 Feb 22 [Epub ahead of print] [PubMed]

Mendel's Garden #24

 
The 24th edition of Mendel's Garden has just been posted on Bayblab [Mendel's Garden #24 - March 2008].

March has roared in like a lion; the freezing rain here may not be great for venturing outdoors, but it's perfect for a virtual walk through Mendel's Garden, your monthly carnival of genetics. Welcome to the 24th edition.

---

Ten Things Everyone Should Know About Science

 
SciBarCamp is starting in less than two weeks.

In the tradition of BarCamps, otherwise known as "unconferences", (see BarCamp.org for more information), the program is decided by the participants at the beginning of the meeting, in the opening reception. Presentations and discussion topics can be proposed here or on the opening night. SciBarCamp will require active participation; while not everybody will present or lead a discussion, everybody will be expected to contribute substantially - this will help make it a really creative event.

Eva Amsen has suggested an interesting topic Ten Things Everyone Should Know About Science. Here's my quick list to get the discussion going ...

1. Science must adhere to methodological naturalism. Supernatural explanations are not allowed in science.


2. All scientific models and theories are provisional in the sense that they might be overturned tomorrow. This does not mean that there's a high probability that well-established theories are wrong. It only means that nothing is absolutely proven in science.


3. Scientists must be skeptics. They must weigh all new data in the light of their current understanding of science. New data must not be accepted unquestionably.


4. Scientists must never lie about science or deliberately misrepresent it to the general public. No exceptions are allowed, even if a little white lying might be for the common good.


5. Scientists must never be afraid to criticize other scientists and they must have the freedom to do so without suffering retribution or penalties. Real science only thrives in an atmosphere of freedom of speech.


6. Theories are the best thing we have in science. A theory is a general explanation of particular phenomena that has withstood many attempts to disprove it. Because of the evidence supporting the explanation and because it hasn't been refuted, a theory will be widely accepted as provisionally correct within the science community.


7. Science is evidence based and the practice of science follows simple rules of logic and rationality.


8. Scientific facts must be reproducible or capable of independent confirmation by other scientists.


9. Science is a way of knowing about the universe. It may be the only epistemologically valid way of knowing. Technology is not the same as science and medicine is not the same as science.


10. There is no such thing as a rigidly defined scientific method.

---

Don't Throw the Baby Out with the Bathwater

 
This summer, a number of people, including scientists and philosophers, will gather at the Konrad Lorenz Institute in Altenberg, Austria to talk about evolution. There will be 16 of them and the theme of the meeting is to develop a new theory of evolution. You can read about it in an article by Susan Mazur on Scoop [Mazur: Altenberg! The Woodstock of Evolution?].

The meeting is being organized by Massimo Pigliucci and that does not inspire confidence. Several of the other participants have pretty far-out ideas about evolution.

As most of you know, I'm a fan of Stephen Jay Gould and I support a pluralist approach to evolution. The journalist who wrote the article took the time to interview Richard Lewontin (see photo below) and several other prominent evolutionary biologists who were not invited to the meeting. Here's an excerpt from the article that illustrates one the problems with current thinking about evolution.

A central issue in making a new theory of evolution is how large a role natural selection, which has come to mean the weeding out of traits that don't favor survival, gets to play.

Natural selection was only part of Darwin's Origin of Species thinking. Yet through the years most biologists outside of evolutionary biology have mistakenly believed that evolution is natural selection.

A wave of scientists now questions natural selection's relevance, though few will publicly admit it. And with such a fundamental struggle underway, the hurling of slurs such as "looney Marxist hangover", "philosopher" (a scientist who can't get grants anymore), "crackpot", is hardly surprising.

When I asked esteemed Harvard evolutionary geneticist Richard Lewontin in a phone conversation what role natural selection plays in evolution, he said, "Natural selection occurs."

Lewontin thinks it's important to view the living world holistically. He says natural selection is not the only biological force operating on the composition of populations. And whatever the mechanism of passage of information from parent to offspring contributing to your formation, what natural selection addresses is "do you survive?"

If the meeting was only about the role of chance and accident in evolution then it would be a valuable contribution to evolutionary theory. Instead, as the article makes clear, the "New Evolution" will probably focus on the opposite point of view. You can expect to see heavy emphasis on design, epigenetics, evo-devo and on self-organization as a fundamental principle. (I'm surprised Lynn Margulis wasn't invited.)

These are difficult times for evolutionary theory. I firmly believe that new points of view have to be incorporated into an updated model of evolution. In most cases, these new points of view are not really new—they just haven't been widely accepted by most people who accept evolution. (I'm thinking of things like random genetic drift, punctuated equilibria, modes of speciation, molecular evolution, and our current understanding of how things work at the molecular level.)

Things get complicated because there are other points of view that are trying to capitalize on the current turmoil to push ideas that really lie on the fringe of kookdom. There's a great danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We might end up giving credence to some crazy ideas like Kaufmann's principle of self organization or Kirschner & Gerhart's idea of facilitated variation.

I don't see how most science journalists are going to thread their way through this complicated maze but I admire Suzan Mazur for trying.

---

Multicellular Bacteria

PZ Myers posted an article on the evolution of multicellularity [The choanoflagellate genome and metazoan evolution]. He begins with ...

What are the key innovations that led to the evolution of multicellularity, and what were their precursors in the single-celled microbial life that existed before the metazoa? We can hypothesize at least two distinct kinds of features that had to have preceded true multicellularity.

The obvious feature is that cells must stick together; specific adhesion molecules must be present that link cells together, that aren't generically sticky and bind the organism to everything. So we need molecules that link cell to cell. Another feature of multicellular animals is that they secrete extracellular matrix, a feltwork of molecules outside the cells to which they can also adhere.

A feature that distinguishes true multicellular animals from colonial organisms is division of labor — cells within the organism specialize and follow different functional roles. This requires cell signaling, in which information beyond simple stickiness is communicated to cells, and signal transduction mechanisms which translate the signals into different patterns of gene activity.

PZ goes on to describe the genes in a single-cell eukaryote that diverged near the base of the animal phylum. The species is a choanoflagellate called Monosiga brevicollis.

It's important to note that this single-cell organism and its multicellular animal relatives form a distinct clade that is separated from the fungi and plants. Since there are multicellular fungi and multicellular plants, the evolution of multicellularity must have occurred many times.

PZ notes that choanoflagellates have primitive forms of adhesion molecules—one of the prerequisites for multicellularity in animals—but they lack some of the standard animal signalling pathways.

PZ Myers is a fan of evo-devo. There are many problems with this approach to biology but one of the most irksome is the emphasis on animals as models for all of evolution and development. I've referred to this as Animal Chauvinism. In his recent posting PZ is careful not to claim that the evolution of multicellularity in animals is the model for all forms of multicellular species but unsophisticated readers might easily get the wrong impression. Let's try and make the generalization that PZ might have wanted to make.

We can agree with his statement that two requirements of multicellularity are the ability of cells to stick together and the division of labor where cells differentiate to carry out specialized functions. Lest anyone imagines that these properties were invented by animals—or even by eukaryotes—let's look at some simple multicellular bacteria.

The first example is cyanobacteria. That's a filament of Anabaena sphaerica at the top of this posting. The cells adhere to each other through a common cell wall, forming long multicellular filaments. Other species of cyanobacteria form different groups of cells; for example, Glaucocystis (upper right) has four cells together in a single sheath.

Look carefully at the Anabaena filament. Do you see the fat round cell in the middle of the filament? That's a heterocyst. It's a differentiated cell that has become specialized for nitrogen fixation. All the other cells are capable of photosynthesis but the heterocyst specializes in fixing nitrogen. This species is a bacterial example of a multicellular organism with two types of cells.

The specialization of the heterocyst means that the two types of cells have to communicate. This communication takes place via small pores in the cell wall between the cells in the filament. Signaling involves transfer of small molecules such as ATP and glutamine between the various cells. What this means is that some cynaobacteria meet the two criteria that PZ Myers lays out for the evolution of multicellularity. There's no doubt about the fact that this version of a multicellular organism predates the evolution of metazoa by about 2-3 billion years.

The myxobacteria are dramatic example of multicellular bacteria. That's Chondromyces crocatus shown in the photograph above left.

Under certain conditions the single cells of myxobacteria come together to form fruiting bodies that consist of hundreds of cells. In the most extreme examples, some cells form the stalk, some cells form sprangia and others form spores. These are multicellular bacteria with specialized differentiated cells.

There are many other multicelluar bacteria but these two are sufficient to illustrate the point. Cell differentiation and multicellularity are not inventions of animals. There weren't even invented by eukaryotes. Differentiation and multicellularity were invented by bacteria long before the true eukaryotes ever appeared on this planet.

---

[Photo Credits: Anabaena sphaerica from Wikipedia: Glaucocystis from Cyanobacteria slides: Chondromyces crocatus from The Myxobacteria Web page]

Monday's Molecule #63

 
Today's molecule is a cartoon depicting a particular conformation of molecules. Your task is to identify the structure. Be as specific as possible.

There's an indirect connection between this molecule and Wednesday's Nobel Laureate(s). Your task is to figure out the significance of today's structure and identify the Nobel Laureate(s) who is associated with discovering it. (Be sure to check previous Laureates.)

The reward goes to the person who correctly identifies the structure and the Nobel Laureate(s). Previous winners are ineligible for one month from the time they first collected the prize. There are three ineligible candidates for this week's reward. The prize is a free lunch at the Faculty Club.

THEME:

Nobel Laureates
Send your guess to Sandwalk (sandwalk(at)bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca) and I'll pick the first email message that correctly identifies the structure and the Nobel Laureate(s). Note that I'm not going to repeat Nobel Laureates so you might want to check the list of previous Sandwalk postings.

Correct responses will be posted tomorrow along with the time that the message was received on my server. I may select multiple winners if several people get it right.

Comments will be blocked for 24 hours. Comments are now open.

UPDATE: We have a winner. The molecule is a depiction of a (right-handed) α helix, one of the most common examples of secondary structure in proteins. Linus Pauling proposed it in 1948 and he won the Nobel Prize in 1954 for his work on chemical bonds.

The winner is David J. Schuller of Cornell University.

---

Jane Harris Zsovan Doesn't Understand Speciation

 
Jane Harris Zsovan posts on a blog called Design of Life. I don't read her blog on a regular basis but Denyse O'Leary recently linked to a post on how speciation doesn't agree with evolutionary theory [Hybridization One Key to Survival].

Jane Harris Zsovan is intrigued by hybrids that appear to be more fit than either of their parents. She thinks this conflicts with Darwinian Theory. Here's an example of how she thinks evolution should work.

Hybrids With Genetic Advantages A Problem for Darwinian Theory

Darwin's theory of natural selection requires offspring to diverge from a common ancestor to create new species. It requires genetic differences to increase as descendants adapt to their environmental niches.

It is this 'natural selection' and 'adaptation' that creates species. And, as the newly created species continue to adapt, they should become more different over time. Following this line of thought, hybrids should be less viable than their parents.

There are many different ways for two isolated populations to evolve into separate species. In many (most?) cases the two lineages diverge by random genetic drift and not just natural selection. The exact mutations leading to genetic incompatibility are most likely to arise by accident and become fixed in one of the lineages by drift.

Evolutionary theory does not require that two separated lineages diverge by natural selection. Speciation does not depend on adaptation. This hasn't been a requirement of speciation for over thirty years [Speciation].

Typically a new population will be founded by a small number of individuals. As the new isolated population grows it will lack much of the genetic variation of the parent population and, consequently, it may be far less fit in it's new environment than a random selection of individuals from the parent population might be. An infusion of new alleles from the parent population by hybridization might lead to individuals that are more fit.

There is nothing in evolutionary theory that says hybrids can't be more fit than either parent. The flaw in Jane Harris Zsovan's logic is entirely due to the obsession creationist have with Darwin and natural selection. They have convinced themselves that everything in evolution must be explained by "Darwinism." This fits with their political agenda. That's why they try so hard to associate evolution with a man who died over one hundred years ago.

The irony comes when they start believing their own false caricature of evolution. That's what happened here, and Denyse O'Leary falls for it hook line and sinker [ More evidence that Darwin's theory of natural selection as the origin of new species is wrong]. The title of Denyse's post is very revealing. Of course, it's wrong to attribute everything to natural selection. Denyse has been told this time and time again and so, I presume, has Jane Harris Zsovan. They are very slow learners. They look like IDiots.

---

Gene Genie #26

 
The 26th edition of Gene Genie has been posted at sciencebase [Rubbing Up the Gene Genie].

Sciencebase is this week proud to play host to the Gene Genie Blog Carnival thanks to an offer from Bertalan “Berci” Meskó over on the excellent ScienceRoll. For those who don’t already know, a Blog Carnival doesn’t usually involve a lot of be-costumed revellers dancing through the streets to the sound of the samba band, but is a gathering of like-minded bloggers brought together through the power of the tubular Interwebs to share their latest posts on a given subject.

The beautiful logo was created by Ricardo at My Biotech Life.

The purpose of this carnival is to highlight the genetics of one particular species, Homo sapiens.

---

Erudite critic takes on new atheists

 
A column in yesterday's Toronto Star criticized the position of the so-called "New Atheists" [Erudite critic takes on new atheists]. The column was written by Stephen Scharper who frequently writes columns about religion. Scharper was formerly at St. Michael's College (Roman Catholic) in the University of Toronto where he was a Professor in the Department and Centre for the Study of Religion. He is currently a Professor in the Dept. of Anthropology at the University of Toronto Mississauga Campus but he maintains a cross-appointment to the Department and Centre for the Study of Religion.

Scharper's opinion piece begins with what, by now, is becoming a familiar complaint.

A couple of years ago, I was on a televised panel with a man who claimed that religions were to blame for most of the death and destruction throughout history, and that, by extension, religious people were more inherently violent than secular folks.

The implication of his claim was that discrimination against religious adherents would not only be acceptable, but advisable in such matters as job hiring, policy formation, and policing.

Prejudice against people of faith was subtly being proclaimed as an inherent good.

That panelist's view, extreme as it appears, may have some powerful mainstream resonance in a spate of recent publications from the so-called "new atheists."

I don't agree with the extreme view pictured by Stephen Scharper and neither do most atheists. It is simply not true that religious people are inherently more violent than atheists. On the other hand, it is simply not true that believers are more moral than non-believers.

People who believe in supernatural beings are fond of making the association between their belief and superior moral behavior. They often imply—or even state overtly—that atheists must be immoral because they don't believe in God. Many of the "New Atheists" (Scharper mentions Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens) have pointed out that those claims are not supported by evidence. That's the main point. The "New Atheist" stance is a response to centuries of false propaganda and hypocrisy on the part of believers.

Religious apologists need to stop whining about this counter-offensive and start recognizing that their claims of moral superiority just don't measure up. While it would be wrong to deny someone a job just because they falsely claim to be morally superior, it would also be wrong to give them a job just because they say they are morally superior.

Scharper goes on to praise a recent book by John Haught (God and the New Atheism: A Critical Response To Dawkins, Harris And Hitchens). I haven't read this book but from what Scharper says it sounds like the same-old, same-old that we've heard dozens of time before [e.g. Alister McGrath's Defense of Religion, Propaganda Techniques: Shift the Burden of Proof, Alister McGrath].

Here's how Scharper describes it.

Haught, a senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University, adroitly distills the common themes from this troika [Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens], which suggests that outside of nature, "there is no God, no soul, and no life beyond death," that the universe has no overarching purpose, that all life developments can be explained by science, and that faith in God is the source of countless evils and should thus be jettisoned on moral grounds.

What Haught finds ironic is that the new atheists have little interest in atheism at all, and don't engage in the main philosophical debates raised by atheistic giants such as Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus. Instead, they base their notion of religion on the creationism of a select band of fundamentalists. In short, they adopt a theologically bereft caricature of religion.

Now, let's be absolutely clear about this argument. It is completely bogus. This is not a debate about religion, it's a debate about the existence of supernatural beings. Atheists are simply not interested in debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. They want to debate the evidence for angels. Atheists don't want to debate why God and evil can coexist. They want to debate whether God exists at all. We don't care about the extensive literature on the interpretation of Chapters 1 & 2 of Genesis. It's irrelevant.

We don't need to read up on transubstantiation because we're challenging the divinity of Jesus and not whether wine and bread can turn into blood and flesh. We atheists don't care about the "sophistication" of religious apologetics. (Just as Roman Catholics don't care about ancient Greek texts on how to interpret the Oracle at Delphi or Roman treatises on the entrails of chickens.)

We know that every large religion has tons of literature justifying their particular beliefs. This was as true of the ancient Greek and Roman religions as it is of the modern religions such as Hinduism, Islam, and Taoism. You do not need to be an expert in all the sophisticated delusions in order to question the fundamental issue—do supernatural beings exist?

The form of argument that Haught advances, and Scharper supports, has been called The Courtier's Reply by PZ Myers [see The Emperor's New Clothes and the Courtier's Reply for an explanation]. This needs to be widely known so I'm going to quote PZ once again in case some of the Sandwalk readers are unfamiliar with his response. Here's how PZ describes the Courtier's Reply to the revelation that the Emperor has no clothes.

I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.

Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.

Personally, I suspect that perhaps the Emperor might not be fully clothed — how else to explain the apparent sloth of the staff at the palace laundry — but, well, everyone else does seem to go on about his clothes, and this Dawkins fellow is such a rude upstart who lacks the wit of my elegant circumlocutions, that, while unable to deal with the substance of his accusations, I should at least chide him for his very bad form.

Until Dawkins has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor's taste. His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics.

Here's my challenge to Stephen Scharper: if you know of a sophisticated argument for the existence of God that hasn't already been addressed, and refuted, by atheists, then here's your chance to present it. I notice that you didn't mention it in your column and none of your colleagues have actually presented one of those secret theological debating points that you claim exist in the corridors of seminaries and departments of philosophy or religion.

I'm sick and tied of hearing apologists make false claims about the existence of some sort of deal-breaking point that the "New Atheists" have overlooked because they are addressing a kindergarten version of religion. As far as I'm concerned the rationality behind belief in supernatural beings is kindergarten philosophy. If Professor Scharper disagrees, then lets hear about the killer evidence for God that atheists don't know about because we haven't studied theology.

---

[Photo Credit: The photograph of Professor Stephen Scharper is from the University of Toronto News]

Brussels

 
My daughter Jane and her husband Michael live in Brussels. Last weekend we visited them and they took us on a walking tour of downtown Brussels.

Many of the streets are closed to vehicle traffic and even on a chilly Friday (about 7°C) there were plenty of shoppers and quite a few tourists. My goal was to sample the food of Brussels—other members of our party were more interested in the shops and we visited a fair number of those on our tour.

The very first stop was a place that sold Belgian waffles. There are dozens of these shops with windows open to the street. It's the Brussels equivalent of Tim Horton's. The waffles were delicious and I would have eaten several except that I was saving up for even better things later on.

Brussels was officially founded in 979 by Charlemagne's grandson Lothar, although there had been a settlement on the site for several hundred years before Lothar build a fortress. The city prospered as a trading center in medieval times and much of the central part of the modern city dates from that era. The name of the city comes from an Old Flemish word Broekzele, which means marshland. The city was originally built on an island in the river Senne [History of Brussels].

Belgium is a relatively young country although it is named after the ancient Celtic tribe of the Belgae, one of the tribes defeated by Julius Caesar in his Gaul campaign (about 55 B.C.). Over the years the region has been controlled by German, French, Dutch, Austrian, Spanish, and British forces. It is still disputed territory although in the modern age the conflict is between the French speaking Walloons and the Flemish population that speaks Dutch. (The French are losing.)

Eventually we reached a delightful part of the city with narrow medieval streets filled with restaurants. Our goal was a fascinating restaurant called Chez Leon. The specialty is mussels and frites (French fries), a meal that can't be found anywhere else in the world as far as I know.

There are several varieties on mussels on the menu. Our party ordered mussels au gratin, mussels and curry, and mussels à la crème. Of course any meal of mussels and frites has to be accompanied by beer and there were many brands to choose from. The mussels were delicious, the frites were excellent, and the beer was wonderful.

Some of you may be curious about the price of such a meal. The mussels and frites were 22.50 € and that works out to about $33 in Canadian or American currency. This seems expensive but it's not out of line with many other prices in the local restaurants. I really don't know how the French and Belgians can afford to eat out so much. Their salaries don't seem to be higher than what we are used to in North America. I guess they just have different priorities.

There are very few McDonald's restaurants in Brussels (or Paris) and it's rare to see any of the other fast-food places we're used to in North America. The local population prefers a longer sit-down meal even if it's more expensive. It's a major cultural difference and one that I could easily adjust to. In fact, I did adjust to it when we lived in Europe from 1974-1978.

You can't walk very far in Brussels without encountering a chocolate shop. (We visited several.) Everyone has their favorite but I'm told that Neuhaus chocolate is widely believed to be the best Belgian chocolate. The Belgians are very proud of their chocolate. They think it's superior to Swiss chocolate. I'm not going to take sides on that one since I lived in Switzerland for many years and still have many friends there.

The shops are very popular. I was surprised to see so many Belgians buying chocolates since they are not cheap. This is another example of differing priorities. I guess they prefer a small amount of excellent chocolate to a cheaper Mars bar or M&M's.

I'm used to seeing chocolate shops but the really surprising shops were the ones that sell beer. We saw a dozen stores that specialized in beers with a huge emphasis on Belgian beers. These stores look like wine stores except that it's bottles of beer that are lined up on the shelves.

In many cases, the stores advertise 250 or 300 different brands of beer. We didn't have time to taste all of them but the ones I had were excellent. Thanks to all those Sandwalk readers, and Michael, who made recommendations. I won't reveal my current favorite because I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings. And also because there are still several hundred beers that I haven't (yet) tried. This is definitely a place where bloggers and talk.origins readers should get together for a Howlerfest.

After a long day we stopped at one of the Häagen-Dazs Cafés for chocolate fondue. We were served a plate full of small balls of ice cream of various flavors. These can be dipped in a creamy pot of rich chocolate. The ice cream was accompanied by a plate of fresh fruit and pieces of muffin that also went well with the hot chocolate. All in all it was an excellent way to end our delicious tour of Brussels.

---

The Ladies' Privilege

 
Friday's Urban Legend: TRUE

According to legend, girls can propose to their boyfriends on February 29th. Snopes.com says this is a true custom known as The Ladies Privilege [The Privilege of Ladies]. Back in the thirteenth century a man had to accept a proposal on February 29th or pay a fine. This probably explains why so many men were off fighting wars at the end of February during a leap year.

It's based on the idea that February 29th is an unusual day and unusual things are permitted on that day only. One of the unusual things that is allowed is for women to propose marriage. Nowadays this is much more common on all the other days but apparently there was a time when only the man could propose marriage. I wonder what those times were like when men were in control?

---

The State of Science Blogging

 
There's an interesting discussion going on over at Bayblab on The State of Science Blogging. The commenters are responding to some provocation by Anonymous Coward^[1] who took a look at the top five science blogs and said,

Of those only Cognitive daily is consistantly talking about peer-reviewed research. Why is that? Perhaps there is less appeal in discussing recent papers than bashing creationists. But bashing creationists is almost too easy, and not very constructive. It's been said before, you can't reason somebody out of a position in which they didn't reason themselves into. And it worries me because to the lay audience listening to PZ Myers (the 800lb gorilla), it would seem that science's purpose is to attack religion. In fact I suspect the blog gets most of its traffic from creationists. According to technorati, his top tags are "Creationism, godlessness, humor, kooks, politics, religion, weblog, weirdness", so should it really count as a science blog?

If you examine the elephant in the room, ScienceBlogs, the trend is maintained: politics, religion books, technology, education and music are tagged more often than biology or genetics. This suggests that their primary motives are entertainment rather than discussing science. Why? Because it pays. Seed Magazine and the bloggers themselves profit from the traffic. That's right, Seed actually pays these bloggers for their posts. And the whole ScienceBlogs thing is a little incestuous, they really like linking to each other, but not so much to the little blogs. I'm afraid gone is the amateur blogger, and in is the professional gonzo science journalist. Might as well read Seed magazine.

One of the most interesting comments comes from Dave Munger of Cognitive Daily ....

So... the most popular science blogs cover the most popular topics related to science?

You also seem to be saying that you wish these bloggers would write about less popular topics. But that would make them... less popular. And then other science blogs would become the most popular. Then you could complain about those blogs.

At least you'd have something to write about.

This is a very important point. Many of us are interested in blogging about science and in teaching science. But you can't be an effective advocate for science if you don't have an audience. One way to get an audience is to blog about science related issues that are controversial and then sneak in some good science blogs when people come to visit.

In my case, that's not the only motive for blogging about rationalism and superstition. I happen to have (at least) two interests in life and I like to blog about everything that interests me. As it turns out, there are more people interested in the conflict between science and religion—or the war in the Middle East—than in hard-core science. I posted a whole series of articles on The Three Domain Hypothesis and got only a handful of comments. The series on junk DNA is bringing in just a trickle of interested readers. On the other hand, when I post about religion or politics there are dozens of comments and a lively discussion ensues.

---

1. I don't like linking to anonymous bloggers. In the future I'm going to make it a policy to only link to bloggers who identify themselves, except under rare circumstances.

Tangled Bank #99

 
The latest issue of Tangled Bank is #99. It's hosted by Greg Laden at GregLaden's Blog [The Tangled Bank].

This is the February 20, 2008 edition of The Tangled Bank web carnival. The next edition will be hosted at Archaeoporn.

---

If you want to submit an article to Tangled Bank send an email message to host@tangledbank.net. Be sure to include the words "Tangled Bank" in the subject line. Remember that this carnival only accepts one submission per week from each blogger. For some of you that's going to be a serious problem. You have to pick your best article on biology.