Blattabacterium

Transcription

This is a response to BereanBeacon’s video, “Termites Place Hex on Evolution.” But before I begin, I’d like to correct a couple of gross oversights from Holy Hallucinations 21 where I neglected to mention a pair of great Youtubers who produce material in the areas of philosophy and theology. So if you haven’t yet been exposed to the fascinating and educational videos of philosophy professor SisyphusRedeemed, or the eloquent and beautiful deconversion and theological productions of Evid3nc3, then you really should head over to their channels and click the yellow button. So now, back to the subject of this episode and that’s the user BereanBeacon and one particular example of the seemingly endless feast televisual craptitude that you can find on his channel. I’ll be referring to you as BB for the purposes of this response, so I hope you don’t take offense, but if you do feel so inclined then I’d hold off until you see the rest of the video because I can assure that my little nickname for you is going to be the least of your worries. Like many of your videos, this one features an episode of the anti-science radio show “Creation Moments” featuring a feeble-minded, geriatric creationist named Ian Taylor. It seems Mister Taylor’s sole qualifications for disparaging evolutionary biology are an undergraduate degree in metallurgy and the willingness and ability to lie like the pope at an HIV prevention workshop. But lest I be accused of indulging in baseless ad hominem attacks, let’s take a look at what the old fossil had to say about the evolution of termites, and then ‘ll explain exactly why he’s either talking straight out of his arse or has his head stuck up it. “The nest was discovered in in fossilized wood from Big Bend National Park in Texas. Other scientists examined the grains under a microscope and found that they were hexagonal in shape. That distictive shape told them that the grains were termite droppings, and these droppings were identical to those made by modern termites. With this discovery, they holes in the fossilized wood suddenly made sense.” It’s hardly surprising of course to hear a creationist talking crap, because it sometimes seems that that’s all they’re capable of doing when placed in front of a microphone. The discovery that your rationally challenged colleague’s referring to was published by David Rohr and colleagues in the peer-reviewed journal Geology in January, 1987. The fact that this particular episode of “Creation Moments” was broadcast in March of 2011 is a testament to the breathtakingly fast pace at the cutting edge of modern Creation Research. Now on the whole, Taylor makes a reasonable summary of this part of the paper apart from his description of the fossilized frass as being “identical” to that of modern termites. The authors of the actual paper do make an argument that the droppings are termitic in origin because among extant insects only termites and roaches produce hexagonal droppings. They argue against the possibility that the frass was produced by roaches, firstly because the pellets were too small; secondly, because modern wood boring roaches prefer to live in rotting wood and the petrified specimen in question appeared to be sound; and finally because of the similarity of the distribution of the fossilized frass within the wood and that of modern origin. At no point, however, do the authors state that the frass is identical to extant termite fecal pellets, which begs the question as to why this shriveled old fart said they did. I suspect that what he was doing was opening the gate to prepare the way for him to drive through his muck-spreader and really start spraying his shite. But before we see him completely lying his nuts of for Jesus, let’s watch him as he starts up his tractor. “The wood had been tunneled out in the same way that modern termites tunnel wood. the nest was in the centre of the wood, just like modern termite build their nests. These ancient termites had placed their droppings around the edge of the nest. Modern termites do the same thing to plug any air leaks and to prevent draughts. In short, every evidence says that termites from the time of the dinosaurs were built just like modern termites and that they behaved in the same was as modern termites.” Once again, our budding manure magnate deliberately overstates the case. Nothing in the paper in any way says, implicitly or explicitly, that the insects in questions were, ”built just like modern termites.” In fact in their conclusions the authors clearly state, and I quote, “Because the material reported here is in the form of trace fossils, and no termites were preserved with the frass, it is impossible to definitely prove that termites were responsible. Now, the authors do indeed argue that termites were responsible for both the nest and frass, and that this fossil is the oldest known example of both. And they also contend that this specimen represents one of the earliest pieces of evidence of social behavior in insects. However arguing and contending are very much different to stating as fact, and while these authors do point to similarities between various aspects of these remains and their extant counterparts, they never claim that they’re identical because they don’t have the evidence to justify doing so. In fact, it’s very interesting to just compare the language used by this creationist cretin and the scientists whose words he’s mining like a dung beetle that’s just discovered an elephant’s outhouse. While Rohr and colleagues, like all good scientists, use more circumspect and intellectually honest language when putting forward their interpretations of the evidence, Taylor resorts to the dogmatic absolutism of the religious zealot who, certain of the infallible truth of his scripture, can’t even conceive of the possibility of being wrong. So at no stage did the paper say anything about the morphology of these animals themselves, but it appears that this wrinkled old prune doesn’t feel in any way restrained by such trivialities as common decency or the facts. It seems that Mister Taylor is either demonstrating the true value of his metallurgy degree in the area of evolutionary paleobiology, or merely being a compulsive liar. Of course he is a creationist apologist, so perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised. So with all that said. I’d love to ask this stupid old bastard exactly which of the more than 2000 species of extant termites he thinks these invisible fossils are “just like?” That comment alone speaks volumes about the childish and simplistic mind that we’re dealing with here. And now we get back to the question of why Farmer Taylor is so insistent on misrepresenting this physical evidence. So now that he’s fired up his John Deere, let’s take at look at what he’s been planning to do with it. “That there is no evidence of termite evolution in this nest agrees perfectly with the Bible's claim that all things reproduce after their kind.” And there we have it. With this devious sleight of hand the creatard claims that these ancient termites that weren’t actually in the fossil, that produced similar fecal pellets and that behaved in a similar manner, are in fact the same as the termites that are alive today, and so evolution must not occur. One can only wonder whether he read the same paper I did. Or whether he read it at all. And so a 65-million year-old fossil that was found in a late Cretaceous formation and in itself conclusively negates biblical creation and a young earth is, with a generous dollop of dishonestly, a liberal sprinkling of sophistry and a side dish of reprehensible lies is served up as proof positive for the Abrahamic creation myth. And here I’ve been for the past year arguing that there’s no such thing as magic. Of course, there’s nothing new here, just a rehashing the same dismal failed arguments we’ve heard time and time again with organisms such as crinoids, various mollusks, shrimp and plants and, of course, coelacanths, otherwise colloquially known as living fossils. All your deceptive little muck-raker’s done is substitute the word “termite” as an excuse to spew out the same old pathetically unconvincing bullshit. This argument of course completely ignores the well-documented concept of evolutionary stasis. It’s been clearly understood for decades that evolutionary lineages can and do remain relatively stable morphologically over periods of millions of years in the absence of dramatic changes in selective pressures. This stasis is maintained, at least in part, by the statistical stabilization of gene pools in large populations by allele dilution and gene flow, although the exact contributions of these and other factors are the subject of active debate and research by today’s evolutionary biologists. Thus, given a sufficiently large breeding population and a sufficiently stable environment evolutionary theory easily accounts for phenotypic persistence, be it in snails, or shrimp or fish or termites. However, over longer periods of time even this persistence of phenotypes begins to apply only to gross morphology. Zoologists and paleontologists with the appropriate training and experience are able to easily distinguish similar species within the fossil record and to differentiate extant species from their extinct relatives, even creating mathematical algorithms to quantify these differences. Of course none of this matters to the fatuous creatards who try to propound this stunted and sickly runt of an argument in its many forms. The fact that this concept has been explained countless times does nothing to prevent them from gleefully interpreting stasis as an absence of any evolutionary process at all, presumably by conceitedly using a maxim along the lines of “it looks the same to my ignorant and untrained eye, so it is the same.” By way of an example, let me quote from a random paper I selected on trilobite morphology that demonstrates the detail and precision used by a trained professional: “Granulation is coarsest on the posterior half of the axial rings, on the glabella and cheeks, and on the pleural ribs of thorax and pygidium (pahy-jid-ee-uhm); furrows are finely granulated to smooth.” In contrast the creationists who make these arguments about living fossils essentially simply assert the lack of any evolutionary change with no evidence or argument and no reference to any specific specimens or morphological features. Essentially they best they can do is: “sure looks the same, don’t it? Hyuk, hyuk.” That might impress you, BB, but it elicits an entirely different response from anyone who can tell the difference between a laboratory and a lobotomy. Now, before I wrap up this section, let’s get back to the subject of termites so I can show you what a little real research can do. Based on morphological analyses of extant species and on the fossil record it’s been long accepted that termites and cockroaches are descended from a common roach-like ancestor. Unsurprisingly more recent DNA analysis has confirmed this to be the case, providing three independent verifications of the evolutionary relationships of these insects. Additionally, Mastotermes darwiniensis, the most roach-like of the termites is the only one that carries an endosymbiotic bacterium that’s common to all cockroaches. Researchers predicted that these Blattabacteria should have co-evolved their hosts and recently conducted a molecular analysis of a number of roaches and termite and their respective microbial symbionts. The resulting phylogenies of both insects and bacteria were almost identical, and provided a breathtaking validation of evolutionary theory, for only evolution both predicted and provides an explanation for the convergence of these cladograms. This is just one example of the countless equally impressive pieces of evidence that all converge inexorably to the same conclusion: that evolution is a fact that is beautifully explained by the theory of the same name regardless of what cretins like Ian Taylor have to say about it. And if he doesn’t like it - then he can stick it up his compost heap. So now that I’ve dealt with that, it’s time to turn my attention back to you BB. I have to say that I initially found the second half of your video a little surreal as it was, to put it mildly, a bit of a non-sequitur. I’m not sure whether this was an editing error on your part or merely a sign of a short attention span, but you changed the subject faster than William Lane Craig after an honest question. So, let’s do the same and take a look at what you had to say about that stale and rancid puddle of Creationist vomit known as the Life Science Prize. “They could easily shut down us creationists by simply taking doctor Mastropaulo's challenge and defeat him. If they have any evidence they could bring us to an embarrassing halt as creationists. They could silence out voice. They could make us look like morons.” Of course it wouldn’t take a scientist accepting this challenge to make creationists look like morons because they’ve been doing a bang-up job of that themselves for over a century. And if you don’t believe me then just take a look at some of the many fine examples of stupendous fuckwittery from your fellow mentally castrated intellectual eunuchs right here on Youtube. So now let’s get back to the challenge. Firstly, let me point out that your faith in your apparent hero, Joseph Mastropaolo, is as misplaced as your faith in your pitifully childish and patently fallacious fairy tales. You see, it seems that the good doctor is a kinesiologist with a PhD in the field, although, according to his entry in creationwiki, not a particularly good one since his record of 6 peer-reviewed publications in an academic career of over 26 years is about as impressive as a pair of hamster testicles dangling off of a bull elephant. So while this may qualify him to comment on the correct posture for a creationist to adopt while talking endless wank to avoid a case of terminal brain-strain, it hardly fosters confidence in his ability to debate the veracity of evolutionary theory with even a moderately qualified biologist. I strongly suspect that if such a debate ever took place he’d be picking the shrapnel out of his arse for a year afterwards. Secondly, it took just five minutes for me to find two published accounts of exactly how Mastropaulo and his slimy henchmen reacted when Biology Professors Michael Zimmerman and non-other than Richard Dawkins probed them by pretending to be interested in a debate. It was more than amusing to read how their enthusiasm dried up faster than a suspicious stain on a priest’s trousers after choir practice when anyone even vaguely resembling an unbiased and/or qualified adjudicator was suggested. The desperation in their frenzied attempts to extricate themselves from the possibility of being called on their bullshit was nothing short of palpable despite the liberal seasoning of false bravado. From just these two accounts it should, be more than blindingly obvious to anyone whose brain isn’t seeping out of their anal sphincter that Mastropaulo has no intention in participating in a debate. This particularly odious and dishonest little reptile uses the façade of a genuine challenge to publicize his intellectually indefensible position, and this is no more evident than the fact that anyone who declines to participate in his charade is automatically adjudged to have lost the debate by default. As a result he’s collected more so-called victories than an evangelical preacher has venereal diseases and proudly displays his dishonesty on his web page, presumably either because he’s too stupid to realize exactly how big a douchebag this makes look like or because he thinks it’s OK to be a lying tosspot as long as you’re doing it for Jesus. So, aside from this being a tactic that I might expect from a fifth grader that takes the “short bus” to school, it’s one of the most underhanded and reprehensible kinds of behavior imaginable. If this is the kind of lying pustule you need to fall back on to cling to your primitive superstitions, BB, then perhaps you need to ask yourself whether they’re really worth clinging to. Because from where I’m standing it appears that you’re tossing very things your religion is supposed to stand for into the same cesspit that Joseph Mastropaulo’s wallowing in. “They don't do it because the rules for Life Science Prize restrict them to real science. Not propaganda. Not the power of the pulpit. They also have many pulpits in their favor. Not the power of that headlines. They're restricted to science and that's why they won't contend for the Life Science Prize.” So presumably it was this fear of debating “real” science that compelled Michael Zimmerman to suggest that the judge be at least a member of the National Academy of Science? Presumably this is also why he suggested a definition of evolution (that is, “change in allele frequency over time”) that has been in virtually, and I quote, “every biology textbook for the past half century.” Scared of science, BB? Really? If your Doctor Douchbag was so keen to debate science, then can you explain why he wouldn’t accept these quite reasonable terms? Why he insisted that this scientific debate could only be adjudicated by a superior court judge? Better still, can you explain why he wouldn’t even accept Zimmerman’s suggestion of using an ordained priest, Dr Francisco Ayala as a judge? Could it be that it was because Ayala is a past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and a member of the National Academy of Science? Could it be that Mastropaulo didn’t explain why Ayala was unacceptable because he was too busy browning his kecks at the prospect of being shown up for what he really is? So you see, BB, if by “science” you mean what every sane and rational human being on the planet understands by that word, then it’s pretty clear that the only one avoiding a debate on it is your Doctor Dickhead. If, on the other hand, by “science” you mean that hazy, ill-defined concept that seems to roughly approximate to “anything that conflicts with my delusional belief system”, (you know,the same usage that I’ve heard coming from such monumental Youtube fucktards such as Nephilimfree and Eye2EyeIIIV?), then you might have a point. Because at the end of the day, working scientists have much better and much more productive things to be doing with their time than pandering to the hallucinations of a bunch of feeble-minded, deceitful simpletons. So quite frankly, BB, you and Joseph Mastropaulo can take your pathetic and transparently dishonest little challenge and stick it back up where it belongs to keep it safe and warm. Because all you’re doing by parading it around so proudly in public is demonstrating quite clearly how your Beacon is running on only a 5-watt bulb.