Hodge podge for $200, Alex

| 68 Comments

For once, I’m not the one writing the microbiology/evolution convergence stuff. Over at Mike the Mad Biologist, check out his post discussing Viruses, phylogeny, and Venezuela, discussing how phylogenetic analysis is used to track the evolution of Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus. As Mike notes, “This study is a really good example of how biologists use evolution to understand structure and function.”

On Aetiology, I have a discussion running about certainty, and the “I know what I know; do not confuse me with the facts” mentality that many of you accustomed to dealing with IDers/creationists will recognize.

68 Comments

Yeah… I read your post and also read the a**wipe that refers to you as “gal”… SOMEBODY needs to be reminded that unlike in the bible, women are not second-class people / chattel anymore! I am “certain” that that he does NOT want my daughter or wife (or me!) to run into him!

Yeah, that’s Hank…he’s my own little DaveScot.

I’ll believe someone can be even more “little” than DaveScot (smaller minded?) when I scrape their miniature and thoroughly-squished self off my shoe-bottom.

But you’re the one having to deal with this teensy afflicted personality, so I’ll take your word for it!

OK, I’ve read Hank’s stuff now.

I’ll settle for equally small and squishy.

I particularly loved the way Hank was implying that failure to instantly dissect one of his ludicrous points constituted acceptance of that point. It reads like he’s about to pull an Argument from Exhaustion on you or something (proof #73 on this list).

Yeah, that’s Hank…he’s my own little DaveScot.

You haven’t made it in the world of Biology until you have a close-minded fundamentalist lunatic who personally hates you.

Congratulations, Tara.

Anyway, Hank, she’s not a “gal,” she’s a babe.

If you’re going to pretend to lucidity, at least get your scientific jargon straight.

Sheesh!

Posted by Lenny’s Pizza Guy on March 29, 2006 06:19 PM (e)

Anyway, Hank, she’s not a “gal,” she’s a babe.

If you’re going to pretend to lucidity, at least get your scientific jargon straight.

Sheesh!

LOL! Hank’s comments bugged me. Your’s made me laugh.

Mine is not to reason, why mine is but to get that pizza to your door, hot and on time, but not necessarily politically correct…

(But, darn, I’ve gotta learn to keep my mouth shut until after I’ve tucked away the tip!)

Posted by Lenny’s Pizza Guy on March 29, 2006 06:34 PM (e)

Mine is not to reason, why mine is but to get that pizza to your door, hot and on time, but not necessarily politically correct…

(But, darn, I’ve gotta learn to keep my mouth shut until after I’ve tucked away the tip!)

My emphasis

That would be a good slogan for an escort sevice.

Sorry for going way off-topic. Just could not resist.

I don’t wanta think about this comment and your seven-year-old at the same time…!

Yikes!

OK, OK. Enough already.

I’ve now been directed to Tara’s photo, (upper left corner at http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/, and I’m forced to admit that she does not look very much like a Blue Ox.

(Now leave me alone, pandas, the phones are ringing off the hook!)

j-Dog wrote:

“SOMEBODY needs to be reminded that unlike in the bible, women are not second-class people / chattel anymore!”

What Bible have you been reading? Obviously not the original Hebrew version, which is the only version that should matter. In the REAL bible women occupy a very lofty place indeed, at least as respected as that of men. You must be totally ignorant of the roles played by Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel and Leah, of the great indignation that overtook Dinah’s brothers when they heard of the indignity she was subjected to, of the roles of Miriam, Deborah and on and on.

Don’t tell me that it’s already the season for re-runs?

Did somebody sit on the remote and accidentally activate the button for the Oh Carol show?

I thought that one had been cancelled by the network, but maybe it was just temporarily displaced by the Oh Lympics and the February sweeps week…

Posted by Steviepinhead on March 29, 2006 06:50 PM (e)

I don’t wanta think about this comment and your seven-year-old at the same time…!

Yikes!

He aint 7 anymore. He is now a 14 year old with a deeper voice than me. Frightening how time just whizzes by.

Yeah, that’s Hank…he’s my own little DaveScot.

Yikes, he’s really infecting your site. A regular little Ebola virus, he is…

What Bible have you been reading? Obviously not the original Hebrew version, which is the only version that should matter.

Carol, don’t you ever get tired of this shtick?

And here I thought the phone was ringing because somebody actually wanted a pizza!

Or at least an order of garlic bread

Instead I get some dingy gal, er, woman. And she’s singing, at the top of her voice: “This Landa is my Landa! This Landa is your Landa!”

(I dunno. It’s days like this one here that get me thinkin’ that maybe I need to go back to school and get educated for a different line of work. Not just any community college or vocational school, but a really good school. Yeah, some place like Pensacola Christian College, as personally recommended by Panda’s own PZ Myers: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/[…]commentsArea!)

which is the only version that should matter.

Says who.

Lenny,

I would argue that it is self evident that things can only get lost (or created or altered) in any translation. Are you disputing this?

Posted by Carol Clouser on March 30, 2006 01:38 AM (e)

Lenny,

I would argue that it is self evident that things can only get lost (or created or altered) in any translation. Are you disputing this?

Carol. What are you saying here?

That logic would only apply if God was dead or otherwise incapable of communicating to humans anymore.

I would argue that it is self evident that things can only get lost (or created or altered) in any translation. Are you disputing this?

Nope. Things can also only get lost (or created or altered) in any copying, too.

Since not a single one of the original manuscripts of any part of the Bible exist and none of them can be examined, and since ALL we have are copies and translations, what does this mean . … ?

Of course, for those of us who do NOT worship a book, it doesn’t make all that much of a difference. (shrug)

Lenny,

First, copying MAY or may not lead to errors, depending on the care taken by the transcribers. Translating, under the best of circumstances, does DEFINITELY lead to changes in meaning and nuance.

Second, you are ignoring the strong evidence indicating that the Israelites took great care in doing their transcribing. For example, the Dead Sea scrolls established that more than 1500 years of copying by hand (before printing) have produced virtually no divergences in the text (of the pentateuch). No more than a mere handful of (Hebrew) words, out of hundreds of thousands, are in dispute and even those are minor in scope.

Stephen,

Not at all. Nobody of any repute claims that the scholars hired by King James were divinely inspired. The question is not if God is capable of communicating, but whether He has chosen to communicate.

Arden,

I comment when I see an error in need of correcting, if I feel I know something about the topic. As a result I have, over the course of six months, commented on the Bible, religion, history, physics, philosophy and others. If you are tired of seeing these, I invite you to skip over my comments and go on to the next one. Whenever you see “carol” in the upper left corner, just make the leap by the click of a mouse!

I still don’t understand why the HIV->AIDS hypothesis generates such heated resistance. Hank suggested it’s because misguided treatment based on misunderstood mechanisms harms people otherwise in no danger. But this sort of thing happens all the time. I know someone with an impaired immune system (not HIV) and the doctors reflexively gave him one dose of antibiotics after another, probably the worst possible thing you can do to your immune system. But I don’t see anywhere near the fanatical rejection of using antibiotics as panaceas.

So why do Johnson et. al. reject the HIV->AIDS relationship, really? Do they also reject the germ theory? I’m baffled.

I comment when I see an error in need of correcting, if I feel I know something about the topic. As a result I have, over the course of six months, commented on the Bible, religion, history, physics, philosophy and others. If you are tired of seeing these, I invite you to skip over my comments and go on to the next one. Whenever you see “carol” in the upper left corner, just make the leap by the click of a mouse!

That’s not my point, Carol. My point is you’ve had abundant opportunity to see that no one here is interested in hearing anything at all about Landa’s literalist interpretations of the Hebrew Bible, and yet month after month you insist on shoehorning mentions of it into every thread where you find the slightest excuse. In fact, it’s pretty much the only thing you talk about. But no one here is interested, and no one here wants to buy Landa’s book. I wouldn’t keep posting at a blog if all I could talk about was one thing that no one was interested in. Don’t you have some other site to go to of like-minded people who might conceivably care about this?

Carol:

So you’re Jewish, and not a Christian? Because the translation that New Testament, especially Gospel, writers quoted the most was the Greek TRANSLATION of the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint. One need look no farther than the botched translation of the Hebrew word for “young maiden” into the Greek word for “virgin” int he alleged Christ prophecy to see that, as an example.

Carol Wrote:

What Bible have you been reading? Obviously not the original Hebrew version, which is the only version that should matter. In the REAL bible women occupy a very lofty place indeed, at least as respected as that of men. You must be totally ignorant of the roles played by Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel and Leah, of the great indignation that overtook Dinah’s brothers when they heard of the indignity she was subjected to, of the roles of Miriam, Deborah and on and on.

I find it hard to believe that the “real” bible is that different from the familiar Christian translations. “PromiseKeepers” are happy to tell you how lofty a place women hold for them, and how much respect they have for women. Indeed, they cite those things as their motivation for their patronizing treatment of women.

Did women in any ancient Semitic society have equal legal standing, equal property rights, etc.? You know, real equality instead of just patronization?

Posted by Carol Clouser on March 30, 2006 08:31 AM (e)

Stephen,

Not at all. Nobody of any repute claims that the scholars hired by King James were divinely inspired. The question is not if God is capable of communicating, but whether He has chosen to communicate…

OK, I concede that the interpreters for the King James (version of the) Bible were not divinely inspired. Let us also assume that the bible (in it’s entirety) is the literal word of God.

But has God communicated with any human being at-all since the 1st bible was written?

So you’re Jewish, and not a Christian? Because the translation that New Testament, especially Gospel, writers quoted the most was the Greek TRANSLATION of the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint. One need look no farther than the botched translation of the Hebrew word for “young maiden” into the Greek word for “virgin” int he alleged Christ prophecy to see that, as an example.

Oh dear, oh dear.

Yes, Carol is Jewish. From what I can tell the New Testament doesn’t interest her. And yes, Carol can tell you ALL ABOUT (what Judah Landa says about) the importance of the original Hebrew version of the Bible. And she can ‘prove’ that the ancient Hebrews were the most noble, enlightened people who ever lived, that they suffered more than anyone else ever suffered, and that every statement in the original Hebrew bible is completely scientifically accurate, except for the parts that are mystically beyond the reach of science, and even those parts are scientifically accurate.

You’ll be sorry you asked this. :-(

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 1, column 216, byte 216 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

Greg Peterson – Yes, I recall Q being used by the author of “The Book in the Bible”. I enjoyed reading his literal translation of the Hebrew. Absolutely nothing flowery, unlike the King James translation — which, by the way, the nearby professor of religion claims is “dishonest.”

So why do Johnson et. al. reject the HIV->AIDS relationship, really?

Well, Johnson thinks AIDS is caused by “an unhealthy lifestyle”.

I don’t think it’s much of a mystery what, uh, “lifestyle” he means by that.

Which answers your question, I think.

Stephen Elliott, re the vagaries of time:

What on Earth does that mean?

Eh, I know our internal time seems to speed up as we encounter fewer truly novel situations.

But your external time–in terms of relationship time with your teenager–may be a different matter, as you are almost certain (however congenial a young feller he may turn out to be) to be encountering various novel teen-turbulence matters.

It is in this relational–I’m almost tempted to say relative–sense that you are about to discover how certain flows of time may slow down, while others may continue to whiz by.

In short, his internal teen-angst time will not likely flow quite so whizzingly as your internal mellow-adult time, and you may well occasionally get sucked out of your eddy and into his flow.

Or not.

This was not, unlike so many of my other indubitably profound comments, meant to withstand very intense scrutiny.

And I won’t attempt to defend the “escort service” remark much further, except to note that you initially inserted that meme into the discourse.

And to suggest that possible alternate constructions of “escort service” here–in the intended sense of some entity to which one might, in future, look with some relief to take over your harried parent-of-teen role once said teen transitions into adulthood–might include “baby [teen/young adult] sitting service (college? employer?)” and even (to not completely abandon your tongue-in-cheek sexual reference) “spouse.”

Was I reaching, stretching? Yes.

Did I snap?

Only at Carol, I trust…

Jonboy,

Just as I expected, you have no response of substance at all to my points which utterly demolished your claims in the ten items selected. Enjoy your steak dinner. Hope the steak improves your eyesight.

Whee hee!

Maybe that Carol should give up her dayjob. She does occasionally evince perfect comedic timing

Carol, thanks for (once again) sharing your religious opinions with everyone.

Why, again, should anyone give a flying fig about them …?

You know, in her way, Carol is just as good at totally derailing threads as Larry…

Okay, Carol, you’ve dispensed with jonboy’s points, but you still haven’t addressed mine. I don’t have to repeat them, you know where to find them. It shouldn’t take you that long.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Tara Smith published on March 29, 2006 3:15 PM.

Tangled Bank #50 was the previous entry in this blog.

Finally, someone proposes an ID model is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter