Blue Collar Scientist

Reuters is reporting that

Pope Benedict said on Thursday that embryonic stem cell research, artificial insemination and the prospect of human cloning had “shattered” human dignity.

Practices like freezing embryos, suppression of embryos in multiple pregnancies, embryonic stem cell research, the prospect of human cloning and artificial insemination outside the body had “shattered the barriers meant to protect human dignity”, he said.

Let’s make something really clear here. The Blue Collar Scientist is a human, and he’s noticed no diminishment of his “human dignity” as a result of any of these things. People still, by and large, treat me politely and with respect, just as I, by and large, treat others politely and with respect. Nobody has been running around giving others wedgies while in my presence. Nobody I’ve ever seen has chosen to excrete other than in the privacy of a restroom. People go on wearing clothing, having medical exams behind closed doors instead of in the middle of the sidewalk, making their own decisions, and avoiding being told what to do by some old white guy who wears funny hats and seeks to control the behavior of his flock like the dominant male in a troop of howler monkeys.

I hate to keep slapping down at Catholics here, but seriously, is the Pope in any way in touch with reality?

The Blue Collar Scientist and the Blue Collar Mom were at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural history today. This is my first trip to Washington, DC for pleasure - I was here about fifteen years ago on government work and got to see absolutely nothing in the way of attractions during the brief time I was here. This time, it’s all for fun.

The Museum is an old-style natural history museum - there were a few outdated dioramas (e.g., showing Tyrannosaurus standing upright and balancing on its tail, though the actual mount was done right), lots of stuffed specimens in the Hall of Mammals, most of the megafaunal mounts on display were of actual fossilized bone rather than casts (with accompanying heavy steel supports), some of the descriptions on the interpretive signs are out of date (and are corrected by supplementary signs), and the whole place has the musty, dusty vibe of a natural history museum of the late ’50’s.

It was so cool.

I went immediately to the hall of fossils and dinosaurs, because that’s my thing - I’m as enthusiastic about paleontology as I am for astronomy. Almost immediately, I noticed that there was something that looked roughly like this Devonian starfish labeled as an “asteroid” (Devonaster sp). Made me feel right at home.

I was pleased to see the Museum is unabashed about displaying their specimens with evolution in mind. They exhibit a cladogram for marginocephalian (fringe-headed) dinosaurs, for example, and also have on display an impressive cladogram for proboscidians (elephants, basically) built around miniature sculptures of each species. Cladograms are really cool - they are diagrams showing the ancestry of species, based on evidence from anatomy, biochemistry, genetics, and so forth. A cladogram shows which species gave rise to which others, and what species are in a modern species’ ancestry. The tool is so powerful that there is a movement within biology to classify living things cladistically, rather than with the modernized Linnean taxonomy that is currently widely used.

I had something on my mind during my visit, inspired by comments that people left (but were never published) on my post about the Atlas of Creation - you know, that book that advocates creationism that (presumably mistakenly) used photographs of fishing lures to represent actual insects. A number of creationists, apparently in an attempt to gloss over that widely respected creationist authorities don’t know the difference between insects and fishing lures, tried to post strident, tiresome rants about how there has never been a single transitional fossil found - not one, not even one! Of course this is wrong - tons of transitional fossils have been found, otherwise we wouldn’t have cladograms. But I was wondering about this claim during my visit, and I resolved to keep my eyes open for examples of transitional fossils on exhibit for everyone to see - not buried in some obscure museum archives, but out in the areas of a museum open to the public.

And I was not disappointed:

• Ten transitional horse fossils.
• Six transitional fossils of genus Homo.
• Thirty-four transitional fossils of fishes from primitive ray-finned fishes, to teleosts.
• Over a dozen transitional fossils from fishes to amphibians.

etc. All right out there for everyone to see. And I remember that a bit over a week ago at the Orlando Science Center I noticed two transitional fossils of birds on exhibit.

How could anyone miss all these?

The answer of course is that the creationists lie. It is as simple as that - the people who say this are either lying, or have been lied to by people that they trust and are willing to repeat. Under the traditional definition, transitional fossils are fossils that have some characteristics of older organisms, but have some new features as well. There is no mistaking a transitional fossil. You can’t look at a fossilized toothed bird skull and fail to notice that some characteristics look like dinosaurs (the teeth, for example), and other characteristics look like modern birds (the beak, for example). This kind of thing is incredibly obvious and a mistake in this arena simply cannot be made in good faith.¹

Of course, we recognize today that every single fossil (and every living organism) is by definition transitional - but even under the traditional definition, finding transitional fossils is apparently pretty easy - the hard work is done, and I found over fifty of them in my first hour in a natural history museum that was new to me.

So, people - don’t let them get away with this kind of thing. When you hear a creationist point out that there are no transitional fossils anywhere, please let them know that the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History has over 50 on exhibit that they can find in less than half an hour. If necessary, let them know that they can get to the Smithsonian on the Blue or Orange lines of the DC Metro and see for themselves.

Remember, be nice. You won’t convince them. But you might convince the people around you who are listening in on the conversation.

1. I grant that some of the more obscure characteristics of fossils may be legitimately missed by people who aren’t specialists and argued over by those who are. What I’m saying here is that any ordinary person in possession of a basic sense of honesty will not fail to notice such obvious characteristics as the presence or absence of teeth. [↩]

This Next Sunday, February 10, is Evolution Sunday:

A second critical goal is to demonstrate that religious people from many faiths and locations understand that evolution is sound science and poses no problems for their faith. Finally, as with The Clergy Letter itself, which has now been signed by more than 11,000 members of the Christian clergy in the United States, Evolution Weekend makes it clear that those claiming that people must choose between religion and science are creating a false dichotomy.

Through sermons, discussion groups, meaningful conversations and seminars, the leaders listed below will show that religion and science are not adversaries.

The BCS lives in Anchorage, Alaska, so I thought I’d reproduce the list of Alaskan participants for the convenience of my local and in-state readers:

Anchorage Unitarian Universalist Fellowship
Anchorage, AK
Ken Winterberger, Board President

Metropolitan Community Church
Anchorage, AK
The Rev. Johnathan C. Jones

Kodiak UU Fellowship
Kodiak, AK
Dr. Bob Johnson

Palmer United Methodist Church
Palmer, AK
The Rev Karen Martin Tichenor

Christ First United Methodist Church
Wasilla, AK
The Rev Karen Martin Tichenor

Last year, there were reportedly more participants in Alaska than were listed on the Clergy Letter Project site, so if that is the case this year, please go over to the site and add your name to the list.

The Great Beyond reports on Catholic opposition to a genetics bill currently in Britain’s parliament. A parish briefing document (pdf) claims:

The bill will allow scientists to create embryos that are half human, half animal. For example, from the egg of a woman and sperm from an animal. To do this would be a radical violation of human dignity.

Yeah, because people walking around with valves ripped from a dead pig’s heart and surgically inserted into their own are so - well, you know, natural, and nothing at all like the monstrous half-human, half-lobster creatures that periodically invade small towns in B movies, and therefore must be consistent with god’s will.

Chris Shaw, professor of neurology and neurogenetics at King’s College London, notes:

The Catholic Bishops’ statement on hybrids is not a radical violation of human dignity as they claim - it is a radical violation of the truth!

It’s probably good that he said “radical violation of the truth” instead of the more plain-spoken “radical lie” - the latter might alienate some people who are undecided that we’d rather keep on the side of reason. But really, that is what is meant, and the BCS sometimes longs to hear people tell it like it really is.

In any case, the process is sperm-free, and involves the injection of engineered genetic material containing alleles that might just happen to exist in other animals (as most human alleles do), as explained in the Great Beyond post.

Some Alaskans - in particular those who have political favor to pass around - are obsessed with killing wolves. One of the old stories about wolf hunting is that the Natives, back in the day, used something called the “blood knife” to do the job. The idea was, you smear a knife with the blood of a prey animal, stick the knife in the ground or freeze it in a big block of ice so that the blade sticks up, and walk away. Eventually, a wolf will come by, lick the knife, cut its tongue, and bleed to death.

Wolves in Alaska, you see, have no clotting factors. Or platelets.¹
The Anchorage Daily News, which isn’t really known for running evidence-based stories, nor for doing any sort of investigative journalism, has run a story skeptical of the myth. Columnist Craig Medred, the long-time outdoor writer, talked to several scientists and then performs the takedown.

Kudos, ADN.

1. Obviously, I am making this up. [↩]

TAM 5.5 is officially over - well over. I’m in the airport in Jacksonville, Florida, and this is the first fully working internet I’ve had since the beginning of TAM.

The event was outstanding. It was a tightly-scheduled affair, and Amazingly (pun intended) the schedule was kept to almost perfectly.

The “How To Be Heard” workshop on Friday was, somewhat surprisingly to many of the people who had signed up for it, substantially about podcasting. Most of the attendees that I spoke to expected it to have more about blogging and other non-podcast manifestations of publishing. But it was well run by Mr. Farkas, Brian Dunning, and the skepchick, and was chock full of useful information. It is the only place I’ve ever seen a simple summary of podcasting technology, including microphones, along with a straightforward explanation of the options and their implications. But Brian Dunning had probably the most important thing to say at the workshop, which involved time management and what you have to do to successfully put together a podcast. The time investment is not inconsiderable.

That evening, there was a dinner and reception, and I snagged a table with two or three other strangers. After a few minutes, Mike Stackpole came over with a plate full of chicken wings and sat down right next to me. For the next 45 minutes the five or so of us at the table chatted with him, and unbeknownst to us, he was giving us a sneak-preview of his talk the following day.

On Saturday, Kelly Jolkowski gave a talk about avoiding psychic predators. It was a truly outstanding presentation on the predatory and damaging practices of psychics who take advantage of aggrieved people in order to generate fees. As if getting bilked out of money isn’t bad enough, in some cases psychics have led to the expenditure of enormous resources during searches for missing persons which could much better have been spent on proven investigative methods.

Mark Roberts then gave one of the best presentations of the weekend, about 9/11 conspiracy theorists. I simply don’t have much to say about this - as Mark pointed out, some these people have strong political and financial agendas, and their allegations don’t pass even the most simple of ‘bullshit’ tests.

The panel discussion on podcasts was perhaps the most forgettable part of TAM.

Rebecca Watson’s talk, “Get Off Your Lazy Can and Do Something,” did not really conform to what the title suggested. Rather than a talk about activism techniques and motivating remarks, it was more of an explanation of what she had to go through to get her radio show. It was still quite enjoyable.

Alison Smith then gave a five-minute talk about that obnoxious ghost hunting show, which was probably the best five minutes of TAM.

Robert Lancaster then gave an outstanding talk about the Stop Sylvia Browne website, and a simple way to extend the model to other obnoxious parasites.

Chris Cordero, who purported to have the psychic power to transmit information to another mind, was to have been tested for the Million-Dollar Challenge, but he didn’t show. As it happens, I psychically predicted that would happen. As a result, that part of the schedule was devoted to some discussion of the Challenge and a Q&A session with the people most involved in it.

Mike Stackpole then gave what is widely thought to have been the best presentation of TAM, about how to argue and interact with believers of woo in such a way that you win over the hearts (first) and minds (later) of people who are undecided about false beliefs. It was an excellent, pragmatic, technique-based talk, and TAM 5.5, whose theme was “activism and skepticism,” could have used two or three more talks along the same lines.

Randi then gave an entertaining speech, substantially about Uri Geller, some of which I’ve echoed on the Twitter feed.

On Saturday night, Skepchick sponsored a large, noisy party at the hotel next door. After talking to a hell of a lot of people well into the morning, I went back to my room and back to bed.

The following morning there was an open house at the JREF Headquarters, which is a nice building of sufficient size for a small business, full of eclectic objects and neat sciency-type demonstrations. Randi was holding court in the library and demonstrated a few of the same ‘tricks’ that I do for high school classes, notably dropping a powerful magnet through a copper pipe. (If you’ve never seen it, you won’t believe it.)

After that a bunch of us went to Anthony’s Coal-Fired Pizza, a famous joint (the pizza was good, but not quite up to the place’s reputation), and I managed to sit myself down next to Mike Stackpole again. This time a lot of the discussion was about fiction writing, something I find fascinating, since I’m quite incompetent about it.

I spent most of the afternoon Sunday hanging out on the patio by the pool with a bunch of other people, and then went with some of them to a Japanese restaurant, where I had the most enormous serving of sashimi that I think I’ve ever had, for the concerningly low price of $18. I didn’t get sick, so it was well-spent.

This morning I flew out, and am now laying over, sort of, in Jacksonville, where I finally have some decent internet. I have to go get some actual work done, so I’ll leave this entry short and sweet - sorry, no time to place links to the many deserving people who presented at TAM. (Google will easily turn them up, though.) I’m glad I went, and the bottom line is, if you are a skeptic, you will probably have a ball at these things.

I’ll post a more thorough wrap-up of TAM 5.5 tomorrow, the delay being necessary because the hotel internet is now completely down. Suffice it to say, for now, that the event was outstanding.

There have been three astronomers on this planet who I believe are or were truly brilliant at inspiring and educating the public about astronomy. They are, in the order in which they came to my attention, Carl Sagan, Phil Plait, and Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Now I’m in the Crappy Hotel Room and I’ve got the TV on, and there’s some sort of ad for one of Tyson’s shows running, which I’m not really paying attention to, but all of a sudden he says something that catches my attention. It went something like this:

“If Pluto were at Earth’s distance from the sun, it would grow a tail. That’s no behavior for a planet!”

Ugh. I’m not buying it. Tyson is, as is well known, a proponent of the non-planethood of Pluto, and he’s making the point that Pluto is not morphologically or compositionally like the other planets. But I think he’s engaged in fallacy here.

If I’m not mistaken, if Neptune were at Earth’s distance from the sun, it would grow a tail too.

Even if I am mistaken, Tyson is proposing moving Pluto to 1/40th of its current distance from the sun. If you did that to Earth, you’d end up with a lot of the atmosphere streaming off into space - to include the oceans, which would quickly evaporate. In other words, Earth would have a tail. And that’s no behavior for a planet. For that matter, if you get any of the gas giants close enough to the sun, you’re going to see the mother of all comets.

This is a stinker of an argument because it is all rhetoric, and all fallacy. It sounds pretty good, but it promotes just the kind of sloppy thinking that creationists are using to slam evolution. Pluto is made of what it is made of because of its distance from the sun, not in spite of it. The solar system wasn’t made specially for Pluto’s convenience, just so that it could exist in the cold outer solar system. It just happens to be that, out there, at that distance, under the dynamical circumstances prevailing in this solar system, that’s what formed. Playing a game of planetary musical chairs - whether it is making comets out of planets by moving them unnaturally close to the sun, or deep-freezing them 250 AU out - doesn’t say anything useful about planetary status.

I do a lot of astronomy education - not that Dr. Tyson doesn’t - and what I see happening is that astronomers are losing to public sentiment on Pluto’s planethood. I don’t really care
whether we, as astronomers, rate Pluto a planet or not - I have a long talk devoted to the subject, which concludes that the issue isn’t a scientific subject and that the IAU’s votes on it were a colossal waste of time, but I don’t really advocate one way or the other.

However, I do advocate that when we are educating the public about the issues, we stick to sound explanations of valid reasons for our classification systems. There are reasons some astronomers don’t consider Pluto to be a planet that are far better than Dr. Tyson’s hypothetical tails.

People who have heard my talks about asteroids, comets, and planetary impacts will probably remember me saying that I didn’t think there was much important about the distinction between a comet and an asteroid. My view is that these small bodies exist on a continuum. At one end are small bodies that are made of rock, which are fully asteroids in the prevailing model. At the other end are balls of ice, which are fully comets in the prevailing model. But astronomers have discovered a lot of small bodies that look like blends between the two. It has been known for some time that comets are dusty and gritty, and some more than others; meanwhile, some asteroids have orbital characteristics of comets, but they’d have to be comets whose volatiles have all evaporated. My thinking here is neither unique nor original - I’ve cribbed it from people like Don Yeomans, Alan Harris, and Tim Spahr, among others - genuine small-body experts.

Now, via the Knight Science Journalism Tracker, I learn of some results of the Startdust mission, which collected debris from comet 81P/Wild 2. It turns out that the grit looked like the stuff that makes up asteroids.

Huh. Imagine that.

To my mind, this is further confirmation that these objects exist on a continuum. They are all small bodies, some of them have more ice, some of them have more dust, grit, and rocks, and because of this the boundary line separating an asteroid from a comet is fuzzy and indistinct. Remember - it is only the human mind that wants to put things into such clear-cut bins; nature is under no obligation to conform to our systems of classification.

Update: I finally tracked down a press release informing this story, and note that the author of the study, Hope Ishii, says: “It’s a reminder that we can’t make black and white distinctions between asteroids and comets. There is a continuum between them.”

Always better to hear it from the experts, but nice to know that I can draw a valid conclusion from available data.

I’m really just posting to see if the sucky hotel internet is behaving, but I’m in the middle of the first day’s workshop, and we’re talking about all sorts of diverse subjects - including the God Hates Figs webpage. Rebecca, Bart, and Brian are doing a great job.