We will become immortal jellyfish

Just yesterday the New York Times published a study about a species of animal that has achieved immortality. Or, we should say, inertial immortality. Inertial immortality is defined by me as follows: an object is inertially immortal if but only if it exists and will continue to exist unless another object destroys it. Many non-living objects have inertial immortality, e.g. plastic bottles, plastic bins, nuclear missiles, and so on. However, very few living objects have inertial immortality. Alex Chiu claims that he is one such object, but these claims have yet to be reviewed by the FDA or NASA.

Unfortunately, the author of the study, professional tweeter Nathanial Rich, falsely claims that this discovery has “barely registered outside the academic world.” Yet I, who am (proudly) outside the academic world, clearly registered the discovery back when Nathan was in diapers. It would have been nice to receive credit in Rich’s article.

I will end with a striking quote from the leading jellyfish scientist, Shin Kubota, who triples as a professional web designer and singer-songwriter.

Turritopsis application for human beings is the most wonderful dream of mankind. … Once we determine how the jellyfish rejuvenates itself, we should achieve very great things. My opinion is that we will evolve and become immortal ourselves.

Strike that. I will in fact end with an emotional video (different from the one in the singer-songwriter link) of Dr. Kubota presenting his research lyrically.

The other other Harvard scandal

Several of you are familiar with the bestiality controversy surrounding Marc Hauser, right here in Cambridge.

Less reported by the media is the embarrassing revelation, now viral on over 100,000 Youtubes, that Harvard has been using video games, spliced with scenes from the more recent installments of the Star Wars franchise, to teach its students subatomic biology. See the offending video here, leaked by the Swedish watchdog organization Ardalan Biology:

This shameful behavior is indicative of the increasingly hot water in which subatomic scientists find themselves drowning. Believing in non-observational objects is one thing; believing in video games and Star Wars is another.

Chunkdz confirms the foundation of all my positions

If I am admitting, I admit that sometimes I give the impression that I am a lone star against the stream in a crowd of scientists. But that’s not so. A prominent intelligent design advocate has also professed the results of my own research, that science is defeated not only by the evidence, but by itself. See her sagely post here. Notice of course that although Chunkdz and I presumably disagree about intelligent design itself (see my publications here), we can still count ourselves on the same team, which is against the scientific establishment.

For those interested in the research done by Chunkdz and others like her, see their main blog, called Telic Thoughts.

Professor Kent Hovind completes doctoral thesis under PZ Myers

It is almost as if Hovind is under PZ Myers. You would think that after Myers obsesses so much over Hovind. He is evidently just jealous of Hovind’s ability to gain an audience and controversy. Myers to this day fails to be interesting.

William Dembski’s estrogen level exceeds 800 lb/ml

So William Dembski – in addition to histrionically closing discussion after my simple yet devastating objection to his ego-maniacal self-praise made him “weary” – has now deleted my comment altogether on The Panda’s Thumb. Several individuals, including Mr. Tomato Guy, have asked for the original comment. Although my victory over Dembski is now being trumpeted throughout the scientific community, I’ll post it here for posterity.

notedscholar

08/19/2009

11:39 am

Not to burst your bubbles, but this isn’t actually a pro-ID article. It’s more about math than anything else.

NS

Lastly, a video about Dembski becoming “weary”:

William Dembski can’t handle the truth

Go see over at the Panda’s Thumb where my very, very simple objection to Dembski’s theories makes him go totally berserk and shut off all comments for the blog. Talk about a lack of an open mind.

Why does he claim he shuts them off? Because he is “weary.” In addition to being very womanly [this annoys him because he is a Republican, not because women are bad - it is a major insult to women in fact to be so compared], this response to me shows how Dembski absolutely hates peer-review. They always act like they want peer-review, but when they get an actual peer (me) to review them, their brains shut off. Amazing.

You can’t make this stuff up.

Charles Darwin’s Birthday; Obama’s Age of Reason; The Tunnel at the End of the Light

Consider this a more substantive follow-up to my previous post.

There is much self-congratulation going on in the scientific community these days. Just after CNN dealt a potential death blow to the field, Obama’s eerily populist inaugural speech proclaimed the coming omnipotence of “science,” using the positively monarchical language of putting it in its “rightful place.” Lion King, anyone? Perhaps Obama’s technocratic fantasy comes from reading too much Al Gore. As if this wasn’t enough to stimulate the egos of American scientists, Charles Darwin then went and had his 200th birthday. This has caused the biological community to engage in the most grotesque display of public intellectual masturbation I have ever seen. There aren’t enough words in the English language to hyperlink to every story which concerns itself solely with this completely insignificant and, frankly, morbid event. Honestly, the man has already ruined science education for the last 200 years – isn’t it time to let him rest in peace? Or, as my previous post demonstrated, pieces?

But one has to wonder how scientists could be so happy in a time like this. For one thing, global warming turns out to be way worse, and according to scientists, no amount of “hope” or “change” is going to stop it. Great. So during the coming apocalypse, scientists will be cheerful. Why? Because Obama has appointed them to positions of power.

And if that isn’t cynical and nihilistic enough for you, it turns out that the high priest of the New Physics, Stephen Hawking, is transforming into an Uncle Tom for the whole field. Apparently Hawking’s physical condition is finally catching up to him – he realizes what a pity it would be to waste his life following a sham subject. “Theory of Everything,” please. Leave theat to the theologians. I guess on this issue I have to declare my rare agreement with Hawking. But don’t think for a minute that this will stop the influence of Iranian sympathizer and collaborator Brian Greene. Apparently Hawking is going to make an announcement about his new-found nihilism to his colleagues. We’ll see how that goes. It looks like the meeting is going to include a full cast of ridiculous characters, including Nima Arkani-Hamed. Neverminding his obvious sympathies and collaborations, this ex-Professor works for the bizarrely non-descript “Institute for Advanced Studies.” Talk about a potential front. And what does he do there? He publishes ludicrous parodies of real science such as:

“The Minimal Moose for a Little Higgs“

“Ghost Condensation and a Consistent Infrared Modification of Gravity“

and worst of all:

“A Theory of Dark Matter“

Just think. This is where billions of your dollars are going to go in order to “stimulate” the economy. Are they going to help poor people get jobs? No. They are going to help an Iranian crank study moose, ghosts, and imaginary matter he (and everyone else) can’t even see.

Three Portraits of Evolution; or, Who Says Evolution Doesn’t Lead to Nihilism?

The evolution of the American economy:

The evolution of the temperature of the Earth:

The evolution of Charles Darwin’s body:

The Troubled Waters of Intelligent Design

First, I should say that I like Intelligent Design. It questions cherished assumptions held by arrogant scientists and other scholars. Furthermore, it strives very hard to be just like science, in order to undermine it. This is a noble goal, reminiscent of Obama’s biography, where he reminisced about being “behind enemy lines” in corporate America.

However, just because something falls under the category of muckraking, doesn’t mean that it is always good. There are many examples of bad muckraking. In fact, bad muckrakers like these give bad names to the rest of us. I can’t count the number of times people have assumed that I was one of these people, before even looking at my arguments! It’s quite frusrating. You have to be able to distinguish between good controversial figures, and bad ones. Legitimate commentators like nutritionist Kevin Trudeau, and complete quacks like Denise O’Leary. So without much further ado, I will just list a few of the difficulties I have with Intelligent Design.

Intelligent Design is not really Science

All Intelligent Design does is concede ground. Real science gains ground. Can anyone point to an example of Intelligent Design winning an argument? I sure can’t. Intelligent Design has also failed to acheive a paradigm shift. All people do in Intelligent Design is leave the movement. This has all the characteristics of a cult. But back to paradigm shifts, Hans Küng has taught us that scientific shifts occur best when left alone by religion. Who is Dembski to lecture Küng? And who is O’Leary to lecture Dembski? Ipso facto, who is O’Leary?

Intelligent Design fails to produce technology

It has long been obvious that the halmark of science is building neat things. What are some of these neat things? Escalators, pop machines, cures for diseases, spaceships, and lasers. Name one technological innovation produced by Intelligent Design. I bet you can’t name one. And all this for a movement with “intelligent design” in the middle of its very name.

Intelligent Design contradicts the law of entropy (aka the Law of Thermo Dynamics)

The arguments of intelligent design continually get more and more complex and absurd and overly wordy. But according to entropy, things get simpler (and, ergo, more appealing). How then does Intelligent Design survive? This is one of the lesser known objections to ID. Note that ID people often use Entropy against evolutionists! Can you believe it? More serious scientists have pointed out their flaws.

Those are just three things to think about. I would point out as well that not all critics of Evolution are silly. I myself have posted a simple conceptual objection to Modern Synthesis. But there are others. One might take a hint from David Berlinksi, a very well-respected mathematician who has posited interesting critiques. You can watch him below, and I leave you with this video.

Mutants Can’t Get Girlfriends: Darwin’s Real Black Box

Scientists have been pushing this one for about a century now. While Evolution is at points nearly too ridiculous to merit comment, I’ll humor you. And I really do mean humor. For this post I’ve decided to write on the lighter side, although at the core the idea is serious.

The entire foundation for evolution, according to Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins and Stephen Gould, is that creatures mutate into more and more advanced creatures, then get married and have new more advanced babies, with thumbs and wings and so on. Fair enough. But wait a minute, isn’t there something a little bit fishy about this?

Think back to middle school. None of the mutants could get girlfriends. If mutants cannot get girlfriends, then how can you expect them to get married? And if they can’t get married, then how can you expect them to ever have kids? Moreover, the mutants would never survive as the fittest in the first place, because all of the normal children, who are bullies, would beat them up. And in distant evolutionary times they would kill them, because as recently excavated cave paintings show us a la carte Marc Hauser, the more historic you get, the more barbaric you are. So just imagine what they did to mutants back then! So if you’re dead and you can’t get girlfriends, there is no way you’re going to pass on your mutant genes – even if they are selfish genes. And all this is a matter of a few years – nothing compared to geological time!

Sure, Middle School is not the Stone Age. But so what? The basic principles of life apply to all times and places.

Qued Errata Demonstrum!