Bicycles - Irreducibly complex?

No.

In trying to defend the position that the blood clotting cascade is irreducibly complex creationists have tried to discount the evidence that dolphins, puffer fish, and lampreys lack some of the blood components that terrestrial mammals require to clot correctly. Their explanation went like this:

Bicycles have two wheels. Unicycles, having only one wheel, are missing an obvious component found on bicycles. Does this imply that you can remove one wheel from a bicycle and it will still function? Of course not. Try removing a wheel from a bike and you'll quickly see that it requires two wheels to function. The fact that a unicycle lacks certain components of a bicycle does not mean that the bicycle is therefore not irreducibly complex.

Another ID argument for irreducible complexity falls flat or, in this case, pulls a 36km wheelie... Sweet.

~A Puff of Logic~

(Notes: image retrieved from http://www.23mag.com/tricks/guiness.htm)

Catholics recommend killing embryos

For infertile couples desperate to have a child IVF seems like a godsend, but to the catholic church IVF is the work of the devil, resulting in the 'death' of thousands of souls.

The problem is that during the course of IVF many more embryos are made than will actually be implanted, this is due to the relatively low success rate of a single artificial implantation. During the process the excess embryos are stored in a deep freeze. but what happens to them once the couple have had their baby?

Several options do exist, the couple can opt to preserve their embryos in case the want to have another child. Another possibility is to donate the excess embryo to another couple who are unable to undergo IVF themselves or discard the embryo. Finally, the embryos could be donated to medical research. This last option is permitted in Australia and the UK but currently banned in New Zealand despite being recommended by government advisers and the preferred choice for many IVF parents.

At this point the catholic church had to wade into the debate saying that an embryo must be given the unconditional respect due to all humans. The New Zealand Catholic Bioethics Centre said that the only way to uphold [the embryos'] dignity is to allow them to die. Forgetting that the catholic bioethics centre is unlikely to have any special expertise in this area, my question is: can a single cell have dignity or be deserving of unconditional respect? And is the Catholic answer of letting die really the ethical solution?

In a research environment it is true that these cells would eventually be destroyed but this occurs at the 200 cell stage called a blastocyst. The blastocyst has no recognisable human features, it has no complex nervous system to fell pain, and no brain with which to perceive the surroundings. It makes no difference to the embryo whether it is killed at the one cell stage or at the 200 cell stage. Allowing this research to be conducted could help to cure debilitating diseases and will save many lives. Couples should be allowed to donate their embryos to medical science without the unwelcome interference of the catholic church.

~A Puff of Logic~

(Notes: image retrieved from http://ecuprophets.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/jj_blastocyst.jpg)

Don't Panic

The name of this blog comes from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, originally a radio series but I came across it in book form. At one point there is a small digression on the (non)-existence of God where the fideist viewpoint of religion is shown to be ridiculous.

On the babel fish...

Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this:

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "the fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

Vandalism by the righteous?

Here in New Zealand there is a brand of beer called "Tui" which has a rather clever advertising campaign. They have billboards with a witty comment, usually relating to current events, followed by a large "Yeah Right".

For example

Winston Peters was a NZ politician who got into a bit of trouble over a donation which he said he didn't take.

Recently, one of these billboards has gone up with a message about the Christmas holiday but it appears to have been damaged. Take a look:


As you can see the "Right" in "Yeah Right" has been removed. If this was not done on purpose it is awfully convenient damage to only have effected one word. No doubt this petty vandalism cost Tui thousands of dollars to fix.

It just goes to show when you have God on your side everything is permitted.

~Cogito, ergo deus non est~

(Notes: image retrieved from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/legislation/news/article.cfm?c_id=247&objectid=10524701)